Ditch Fahrenheit

Except he already stated that it meant book price + 4% I've had a few people paying me by money order and personal check recently. So $63 for those kind of purchases. 4% is for the Paypal fee. I can't post asking for Paypal personal payments on the forum. Oh. I didn't know who the seller was, and I was too lazy to go find out.

I took it to mean that he had already factored in his PayPal fees on the comic, but wanted to cover them on the shipping since it was a variable. f(x) = comic book price + shipping cost + 4% (shipping cost) or f(x) = comic book price + 1.04(shipping cost) or f(x) = 1.04y + 88

Season 2 Promo

The spoiler tags are a browser courtesy because of the large size of the photos. I did not use a kaleidoscope. Getting the proper angle of reflected light is difficult - I opted for sunlight.

It's a manufacturing defect from the supplier. Plus, I am guessing that the CGC has chosen to put the defect on the back of the inner well as opposed to the front. I don't believe unused inner wells have a specified front or back. That would be like specifying right and left socks. It is my understanding from reading various posts on the boards that the CGC received a bad batch of inner wells from their supplier. Instead of waiting for new inner wells from their suppliers, the CGC chose to continue under a "business as usual" mantra until the supplier of the inner wells rectified the problem. This left the CGC with an unspecified amount of defective (my word, not theirs) product to work their way through. There actually IS a front and back tray member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link. LINK It depends on which inner well is used. The modern inner well is pretty much a sleeve with both the front and the back being the same: It doesn't not have the defect. The inner well for this Bronze Age book is as you described; a tray with the book dropped into it and then the top sheet placed over it: It does have the defect. So, the next question would be is the defect only limited to the tray style inner wells or did I just get lucky on one and not the other. Good point. The defect "seems" to be caused by the formation of the tray in the manufacturing process, so it would make sense that "sleeve-type" inner wells would probably be immune to this issue. I just checked through my Modern Age slabs and found both varieties, sleeve and tray. For example, my slabbed Ultimate Spider-Man books from 2000/2001 have the tray. Interestingly, one of them (Grade Date: 09/25/2002) has the defect on the backside tray, but it is only noticeable along the spine and top edge areas of the book and travels the length of both sides. In other words, it's very large and only along one half of the tray. This correlates well with the CGC statement that this issue has been present in varying degrees from the beginning. I took a couple photos. If you look carefully, you can see it.

I don't see any justification for this. CGCs primary grader is on record stating the issue will not harm the book and while they would also prefer it wasn't there, continue to churn out slabs with the issue. Until CGC calls it a defect and wants the slabs back, I don't see how sellers can be expected to. Of course, any buyer can be choosy and ask about this issue before buying a slab and should not purchase it unless it can be verified the issue isn't present. I see your point, but eBay/PayPal will not make this distinction. In fact, if a seller caught in the middle of a SNAD case opened against him were to use CGC documentation regarding this defect, it would only confirm his responsibility for disclosure rather than relieve him of it.

Excellent. The more data and photos we have on this issue the better.

It's a manufacturing defect from the supplier. Plus, I am guessing that the CGC has chosen to put the defect on the back of the inner well as opposed to the front. I don't believe unused inner wells have a specified front or back. That would be like specifying right and left socks. It is my understanding from reading various posts on the boards that the CGC received a bad batch of inner wells from their supplier. Instead of waiting for new inner wells from their suppliers, the CGC chose to continue under a "business as usual" mantra until the supplier of the inner wells rectified the problem. This left the CGC with an unspecified amount of defective (my word, not theirs) product to work their way through. There actually IS a front and back tray member to the inner well. I don't think CGC is choosing to put the defect on the back. There are manufacturing reasons why this occurs. Please see my link. LINK

I don't know the degree of industry awareness to this problem, dealers or otherwise, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions But one thing is certain, this is a severe cosmetic issue with possibly damaging effects to the comic book. As such, it falls under the same "full disclosure" area as a cracked slab. Any book purchased through eBay or PayPal with this issue not fully described in the listing would fall under their "significantly not as described" (SNAD) policy and would be returnable, usually including return shipping.

It's a manufacturing defect from the supplier. Plus, I am guessing that the CGC has chosen to put the defect on the back of the inner well as opposed to the front. I don't believe unused inner wells have a specified front or back. That would be like specifying right and left socks. It is my understanding from reading various posts on the boards that the CGC received a bad batch of inner wells from their supplier. Instead of waiting for new inner wells from their suppliers, the CGC chose to continue under a "business as usual" mantra until the supplier of the inner wells rectified the problem. This left the CGC with an unspecified amount of defective (my word, not theirs) product to work their way through. Actually, they do, and the problem appears to be limited to the bottom tray member. Please read my prior post. LINK We now know this to be true.

LINK - HOS for The Silver-Age? Ok, so out of the two that voted "No," I figure one is The Silver-Age and the other is MagnusX who thought he was being asked if he wanted anchovies on his pizza.

Gift Oscar for Bigelow...there was as much directing in that movie as there is in Honey Boo Boo. Inglourious Basterds and Up got jobbed! I pulled this out of my locker to knock the silverfish off and replace the mothballs. The 41st Academy Awards: Oliver! - Academy Award for Best Picture. 2001: A Space Odyssey - Academy Award for Best Visual Effects (2001 would show up 30 years later on the American Film Institute list of the greatest American films of the 20th Century.)

.

'

.

.

.

New poster for Season 2 just came out. Oliver, Thea, Roy (Speedy), Diggle, Felicity, Laurel and Slade Wilson (Deathstroke the Terminator)

I agree the claim may not be timely. My PM to him was 1/17/12 I am sorry I could not find my ebay communication, but my recollection was it was a few days prior to here since at that time he had not posted in 2 months. There was a delay because I wanted to have a larger submission to CGC, and use my coupon. I also had my submission pressed prior to submission. I attempted to contact him as soon as I got the book back from CGC. I was truly surprised to hear from him after so long - his first response was yesterday. The PL rules don't address this type of situation, only the 30 day transaction time frame. But, given Mr.Zipper's experience with him (and others), 5b below would seem to apply (Being a multiple offender). Trey's sudden disappearance in the CG thread didn't bolster his credibility either. POV may want to weigh in here, but it's my opinion that, at this point, anyone can nominate him for the HOS using a poll. And if it's to be done, it should probably be soon while the discussions are still fresh in everyone's mind. 5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised. b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender. c) The Hall Of Shame candidate is subject to all of the above rules. d) Inclusion in the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll. e) Removal from the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

Just curious, and trying to get to the bottom of this. The sales transaction was entered into on 3/3/10. What amount of time passed between the IM1 purchase here, the return of the graded book, and your email above? Sounds like you attempted to contact him through eBay channels as well.

That's why I'm emphasizing charity. The rules could easily be changed to make it a closed system where no abuse is possible. It's simple really. Heck, I'd even make a few offerings without ever claiming anything just to get the parallel process going.

Here's my on the whole PIF thing, for what it's worth. 1) I think the Mods stickied the thread in CG because they believed PIF would be a great community-building activity. I don't think they would do the same now after what it's become. When it gets to the point where you want formal punishment, it's doing the opposite of its original intention. 2) I completely agree with POV that charity, Christmas clubs, and contests don't belong in the PL/HOS. These types of activities have different rules, different goals, different discussions and should probably be handled within their own respective areas. 3) It's completely within the power of the PIF participants to change the rules on how they handle their activities to prevent any abuses from occurring in the first place. This is not possible with a regular monetary transaction. For example... A) The entrance requirement into the PIF is a completed shipment of books. This gives a credit which can then be used to claim someone else's offering. B) No books can be claimed without a credit. C) If someone fails to follow the rules and complete a shipment, it's no big deal because the person who originally wanted the books still has their credit to be used elsewhere. D) You could even get creative with different types of credits: under $10, $10-25, $25-50, etc. These could also be combined - two $25 credits gives the ability to claim a $50 offering, etc. This type of PIF would encourage "giving," and there would be no possibility of a failed shipment derailing the entire activity since it is a parallel process rather than a serial one. Anyway, just my . Love it, hate it, or ignore it.

Wow.

You and I both know that nothing good is going to come from this. I was just helping educate someone on search capability. At least now, you've given up on cheering "pernts".