Number 6

I’ve been aware of Silverberg for a long time, he seems to be a fairly prolific writer. 
 

But I’ve never read any of his stuff and I never hear anyone mention it either.  But recently a booktuber mentioned this as being probably his best work. 
 

So far I’m enjoying it. 
 

On 7/6/2022 at 5:26 PM, Number 6 said:

Somebody posted this on another site:

 

 

 

 

If Netflix ever relented on releasing this and last season on physical media I would hope these images would be included in some way as extras. 

Turns out, these are in fact available as physical posters in Netflix's online store:

Posters HERE

Each available in two different sizes.  I could wallpaper my entire office with these things.

On 7/5/2022 at 8:43 PM, awakeintheashes said:

I’m not sure if they have released them for sale or even printed them. Netflix/Stranger Things did a special poster image for each episode I think. I know there was one for “Papa”

Somebody posted this on another site:

If Netflix ever relented on releasing this and last season on physical media I would hope these images would be included in some way as extras. 

I think there may be a couple of (admittedly, not very good) reasons why they use the "first Silver Age appearance" designation.

First, the other Bat-villians had their Silver Age appearances broken out which actually occurred in the 60's so I suspect they used it with Two-Face just to maintain consistency in use of terms with those characters.

Second, someone with an extensive OSPG library would have to confirm this, but I think OS was using the "first Silver Age appearance" designation before the term "Bronze Age" was widely used.  I remember speaking to a mail-order dealer in the early 2000's who asked me what comics I was primarily interested in and when I told him "Bronze Age" he gave the snarky, sarcastic reply "Bronze Age? What's that?".  I think there was some Gold/Silver elitisms going on at the time. 

But I agree with Fingh, I would much prefer the "first appearance since the Golden Age" term be used.

Initially, I wasn't much interested in this film.  I know others enjoyed it, but personally I didn't at all care for Miller's interpretation of the Flash.

When it leaked that Michael Keaton was reprising Batman in this movie, I was surprised by the wave of nostalgia I felt.  At that point I started getting excited about this movie and going to see it in the theater.

But the combination of Miller's personal problems and the reveal that Keaton is also going to be in the Batgirl TV show have pretty much killed my enthusiasm for this.

Not that I have anything against the Batgirl show itself, just wasn't really interested in it and finding out Keaton's going to be in that too idk, somehow just makes his appearance in this film seem a little less special.  Plus, I'm getting that MCU/Star Wars vibe that this is going to a commitment to watch a bunch of movies and TV shows to keep up and I'm just not interested in that anymore.

And while I generally try and separate an actor's personal life from their performance, I personally found Miller's take on the Flash to be awkward and twitchy.  As such, it would be really hard not to think of his personal issues while watching this film.

But maybe the trailer can get me excited for this again.  We'll see.  

On 6/14/2022 at 3:35 PM, Ed Hanes said:

Not if someone buys that raw, has it slabbed then sends it back to MCS for consignment (buyer and MCS wins and MCS doesn't have to worry about a customer being mad for over-grading)..which is what I have done on several occasions ...but I suppose that would only work if a lot of buyers do that..it was just a theory...probably not valid but ask yourself..will you ever see MCS grade a book a 9.8?

That only works if customers continue to consign raw books with MCS. 
 

You just said you’re not going to consign raws with them anymore. I’m not going to consign raws with them anymore for the same reason. 
 

Consigners are their customers too. The model you outlined above depends on bending their consigners over. Clearly that’s not sustainable. 

On 6/10/2022 at 2:23 PM, manetteska said:

Popping in for a quick question on Season 4 ep 5 (I think) which is not a big deal, but has been bugging me:

  Hide contents

How does Nancy know the rose stained glass Max is drawing is from Creel's house?

 

I’d have to go back and re-watch the season again but IIRC 

But I could be misremembering.  I was so into the show I was binging way past when I should have gone to bed. 

After a year off from selling on eBay, I have a couple of things I need to sell and they seem to be my “best” option. 
 

So I created a separate checking account just for eBay selling and of course eBay isn’t linking to the account. It’s like they know there’s no money in there for them to steal. 
 

I checked with my bank today and there’s nothing blocking eBay’s access on their end. 
 

Anybody have this problem and know the work-around for it?  Tried the Search function and gave up after a couple of pages of posts that have nothing to do with this. 
 

I don’t think eBay even has a customer service number listed on their site anymore. 

On 5/12/2022 at 3:34 PM, shadroch said:

 Grouse all you want. It isn't going to change anything and for most of us the new reporting won't either.  I learned a long time ago that I had an uninvited partner named Uncle Sam and learned to plan for it.  Without him, I'd charge less but my net would be the same.  Only we'd be having this conversation in German or Russian.

….and now we’re back to the “principled” flag-waving,   

Whatever, slick willie. Say “hi” to Vinnie the Tax Guy for me. 

On 5/12/2022 at 1:39 PM, shadroch said:

That's what you got out of that?  I find it ironic that people are spending more time complaining about the extra paperwork than they will filling out the paperwork.

What I get out of it is that if you’re seriously suggesting that people can guesstimate what the average purchase price was the year they bought the item and that an auditor is going to accept that as an offset to their sale price of the item is that 1) it’s a good thing you’ve got “a guy” doing your taxes for you and 2) I’m not at all surprised that you’ve been pinged by the IRS for “irregularities” in the past. 
 

What I find ironic is the guy who want’s to impugn the motives of everyone who’s not happy with this as a lazy tax cheat is at same time advocating some fairly questionable stuff.  
 

Why is that someone being willing to do the paperwork and pay their “fair share” and not being happy with this new threshold is mutually exclusive?

On 5/12/2022 at 12:46 PM, shadroch said:

What is the item?  If it is a collectible it is easy enough to establish what was the going value twenty years ago.

  Do you really think the IRS is going to go to the wall over people not having reciepts for items like this?  Unless you are being audited for criminal activity, the auditor doesn't want to be doing this anymore than you do. they are more concerned with closing the audits than squeezing the last nickel out of a citizen.  Now, if you are living way above your lifestlye, driving a fancy car and living in a McMansion while reporting 10K in income, you might get a deeper look . 

Wait a minute. 
 

Up until now you’ve been arguing that the issue is the lack of patriotism on part of the American tax payer and the danger that Uncle Sam might not get his “fair share”. 
 

Now you’re arguing “well, you probably won’t get caught…”

?

On 5/12/2022 at 5:34 AM, zuckuss2003 said:

This is so weird...why would you say the government doesn't trust its citizens. So you get this 1099, and you yourself know you did not make money on that sale. You know what you do...you don't pay taxes on that sale...there is no "proving your innocence" needed. What do you mean by that?

Because “you know you did” doesn’t count when you get audited. 
 

I know most are probably comfortable rolling the dice that they won’t get audited.  But some aren’t comfortable making that gamble and, contrary to what’s been asserted, are willing to pay their “fair share”.  

On 5/8/2022 at 6:43 PM, Domo Arigato said:

@TC33had indicated in the other thread here that he wanted to proceed with the nomination and a vote.

TC33.....it looks like board member @Buzzetta has offered to help you draft up this nomination and vote if you'd like to contact him.

 

My question is directed to the OP of this thread. 

On 5/8/2022 at 12:43 AM, mdean2437 said:

 

 

Can  I nominate him? If so, I do.

 

 

 

Based on the thread title and this statement in the first post, are you nominating TC33 to the Hall of Shame?

Yes or No

On 5/8/2022 at 2:46 PM, TC33 said:

 

I am so over this, I need to put this behind me for my own health and sanity, is there something I need to do to get a vote going, some other voting thread etc?

If you feel up to it, I think you would need to start a separate House of Shame nomination thread that includes a poll and a concise outline of the particulars as to why you feel he qualifies for the HOS. 
 

While I don’t think you have have to provide screenshots of ALL your communication (heaven knows we’ve seen enough screenshots of his communication) it would probably help to see screenshots of the key points in the communication, such as the PM discussion with the one user ID where the book is claimed verses the PM thread with the other user ID where he asks about a return months later, as well as of the PayPal dispute and the book being sold on eBay. 
 

Some of this has already been provided over the course of this thread but for a HOS nomination it would be helpful to have that all in one place. 
 

Sorry, I know an essay assignment is probably the last thing you feel like. 

@TC33  I understand you're probably way past being ready to be done with this and move on, but I just want to clarify where we're actually at on this:

On 5/5/2022 at 9:50 AM, TC33 said:

Paypal has at least dropped the claim, however they are still holding my funds on $6K of other books I have sold until I prove delivery/acceptance etc. so that is just wonderful news to deal with resulting from all this.  The buyer has admitted to having some mental health issues going on which honestly seems somewhat accurate from some of his messages to me, he had already admitted one prior to schizophrenia (I was not sure then if he was serious) and later needing help from his family on personal issues, so as upset as I am over all this, perhaps we should be careful about piling on too much if there is some accuracy to that.  Just get the vote on and be done with this, I can't take much more of all this for the sake of my own health and sanity.   

On 5/6/2022 at 9:28 AM, TC33 said:

Essentially I am made whole, I am ready to put this all behind me and move on.  The dispute is gone and my $2,425 has been released.   However after using paypal since the late 90s/early 00s with a perfect track record, they are now holding all my funds on new sales until the day after they can verify the item was received, (not shipped, freaking received).  Never before have I seen that in my life, so there must be some strike against me still dinging me from this and I still have to get them to fix that.  The customer service rep yesterday said she couldn't do it, its a system/computer function and put me on hold for over an hour to talk to a manager after which time I hung up.  Not the end of the world, I always deliver what I am paid for, but just a pain in the arse since I usually like to have those funds cleared before I ship and deliver. 

PAYPAL: You have $5,997.99 on hold

 

Initially, this thread was started as a nomination to the PL list.  As I understand it, that's not determined by a vote, just whether the conditions of the sale have been met or not.

As stated in the second post above, it sounds like you feel that all the conditions of the sale have been met - money is back, PayPal claim dropped - is it safe to assume that the PL nomination is closed?

As others have stated, there seems to be grounds for a HOS nomination, which is accompanied by a write-up of the situation and a vote but I think that there would have to be a separate thread from that.

So far, I haven't seen you actually state that you are going to initiate a HOS poll.  And while several others have stated that they would support such a nomination, I don't think I've seen anyone volunteer to start the process.  If they did so they would at least need your input to supply the needed documentation.

I'm not pushing you to take any further action, just trying to understand where we're at at this stage.  

Because if the PL nomination is dropped and you have no interest in pursuing a HOS nomination then perhaps that should be clarified.  That way mdean2437 doesn't have to continue to have his face melt off for no reason.

On 5/5/2022 at 12:41 PM, Wolverinex said:

. Can't stand her 

My wife can't stand her either and thinks she's guilty....but her love for Jason Mamoa far and away eclipses her dislike of Heard.  So we'll be seeing it.

JIZZLE by JOHN WYNDHAM

published by Dennis Dobson 1954, height 22.3cm x width 13.5cm x 2.4cm

"FIRST PUBLISHED IN GREAT BRITAIN IN MCMLIV" on copyright page, 1st UK edition and true first edition in second state dust jacket (10 titles listed on back and priced 15s net), red boards with silver titles to spine.  Author's first short story collection.  Title story was filmed as "Maria" on the 7th season of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

Book Condition:  Near Fine closer to Fine, a small spot and some blistering to front pastedown.

Dust Jacket condition:  Near Fine, unclipped and correctly priced (for 2nd state) at 15s net, some slight wear and bending to edges and corners, impact color break to top left corner of spine panel with very tiny puncture, sun shadow to top of rear panel, some faint foxing spots to reverse of front panel with no show through.

$175.00 shipped in US

MIDWICH CUCKOOS by JOHN WYNDHAM

published by Michael Joseph 1957, height 19cm x width 13cm x 2.3cm

originally purchased from Rainford & Parris Books

"First published by MICHAEL JOSEPH LTD" on copyright page, 1st UK and true first edition, black boards with gold lettering to spine.  Filmed in 1960 as Village of the Damned starring George Saunders and Barbara Shelly and an abysmal remake in 1995 by John Carpenter starring Christopher Reeve and Kirstie Alley.

Book condition:  Near Fine closer to Fine, touch of dust soiling to top of page block, slight offsetting to endpapers (not as bad as usual for this book)

Dust Jacket condition:  Near Fine, unclipped and correctly priced at 13s 6d net, a faint spot just below "the author" at the top of front panel, slight soiling to the white areas of front, spine and rear panel, a strip of the orange at the top of the front panel and the on the spine panel just slightly faded, slight crease to the womans skirt on the spine panel.

$450.00 shipped in US

... and of course, now dinner is here.  

I'll come back as soon as I'm done and post up the other two books.

DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS by JOHN WYNDHAM

published by Michael Joseph 1951, height 19 cm x width 13 cm x spine width 2.8 cm

purchased from L. W. Currey

"First Published by MICHAEL JOSEPH LTD." on the copyright page, 1st UK edition.  Preceded by the serialization in Collier's magazine (edited down to approximately 47,000 words to accommodate format) and the 1st US edition published by Doubleday (edited down to approximately 80,000 to 'improve pacing', UK terms Americanized - polliwog to tadpole - and this edited version removes the origin of the Triffids).  The UK edition is approximately 90,000 words and thus represents the complete "uncut" version that Wyndham intended.  Green cloth covered boards with silver titles to spine.  Filmed in 1963 starring Howard Keel, as 1981 mini-series and another (dreadful) 2009 mini-series starring Dougray Scott.

Book condition:  Near Fine, some dust soiling to top of page block, book has slight spine lean with a bit of slackness, old book dealer's label to lower corner of rear pastedown.

Jacket condition: Near Fine to Fine, unclipped with correct 10s. 6d. net price, a touch of wear to front flap fold and tips, small spot on back panel with very slight soiling.

$2,500 shipped in US

GENERAL RULES:

First clear, unqualified "take it" along with book title and issue number in the thread wins the book. If attempting to negotiate via PM, after mutual acceptance a clear "take it" must be posted in the thread by you or me  

Asking questions about book details, picture requests, shipping quotes, negotiating price, etc. does NOT constitute a claim or "dibs" on a book  

No members on the HOS or Probation List may participate. I reserve the right to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason.

Payment:

I prefer cashiers check or money order but will gladly accept PayPal.  I do NOT accept Friends/Family payments, thus such a method should not be used to renegotiate the price, nor does method of payment have a bearing on price.

Payment is expected within 7 days of receiving an invoice. Please allow me to send you an invoice before paying.

Returns:

Books may be returned within 7 days after receipt if dissatisfied.  Please contact me with any issues.

About Me:

I have done deals with about a dozen board members. Here's my eBay feedback as a seller

..........

I've been fortunate enough to upgrade three of my first edition books and am attempting to sell the under-copies.  As such, I'm merely attempting to get most of what I originally paid back.  Therefore, I'm taking that price, reducing it by the amount that a venue like eBay would charge me in fees...AND I'm going to include Priority Shipping, insurance, and Signature Confirmation in the US as part of the price.

Please bear with me as it will take a few minutes to write up the listing for each book.

On 5/5/2022 at 9:43 AM, buttock said:

Just FYI I don't see any evidence that he tried to color touch it.  I'd take that off the table. 

But clearly, he's marketing it as a certain grade himself.  That removes ANY ability to negotiate that he thinks it's not up to snuff as advertised in the initial transaction. 

I agree on the color touch. When I saw the pictures I thought it looked more like a difference in lighting. But I didn’t say anything as I’m not really an expert on color touch. 
 

However, I think the OP has already acknowledged that he’s walking back the accusation of color touch. 
 

The buyer is the one who keeps bringing up the accusation of color touch as he’s offended that he would be falsely accused of such a thing. While ignoring the fact that he blatantly lied to PayPal about receiving the book and having a working tracking number.