Chaseman210

I believe Kav still has 2 unclaimed RAK's Ahh I see. I thought Swick took the only one Kav had up, but he must have listed more than one.

So are there currently any RAKs up?

I think this can continue to be a pretty cool thread!

It didn't become a problem in this thread. I believe there were a few people who members had to because the taker thought they were taking too much. I know there were rules in place for TGT, but the RAKs seemed fine with the taker's own accountability.

I think it could work too.

So is this kicking off the RAK GT?

That man got the job done for my fantasy team today

Based on Swick's comments, it seems like the thread doesn't HAVE to die. He just doesn't want to have to worry about updating all the offers, judging rules, etc. But I don't know of anyone who would want to put in all the work that he did.

I think this was a great thread. The only reason I thought about just RAKs was because there was a lot of movement in between offers. Nobody seemed to complain about people taking or giving. If somebody saw something they wanted to read, they posted a . And usually, those people would also offer up some RAKs. Some were taken, and some were not, but there was a lot of sharing on the thread. A great example was the YTLM trades. People got them, read them, and passed them on.

I think it needs to be community run. It really is somewhat of a burden for one person to update a list like this. It can easily be a floating, community run list. When someone wants to offer up something, they just add their name with a link to their offering. When someone claims it, they just quote the list again and add their name as a recipient. So does everyone think we should just change this to a RAK thread or start a new one? I think RAKs would still qualify as The Giving Tree. Just throw up RAKs, anyone can claim, and then hopefully there will be a revolving door of people giving and claiming.

I was going to ask if there would be enough support if I decided to start one...

See above.

I see that wasn't clear.

Thanks for trying to make this work! I wasn't able to participate, but it was a lot of fun to watch! Thanks again, Justin! I think this could still continue on as a Giving Tree, though. There seems to be more movement here than in PIF.

What was the book? Wasn't it a ST 115? Yes, I believe so.

I agree with this statement. It's easy to undergrade here to be "safe" and not set expectations too high. Also, there's a hidden pressure to not overgrade in the PGM because you can look bad if you're wrong. I don't post PGMs often. The last one I did got a lot of 8.0s and 8.5s and only one 9.0 assessment. CGC came back with a 9.0. This example illustrates the above. Another thing to consider is that scans are overly critical of a books condition. What I mean by that is that scans reveal issues that really don't stand out in hand. So a book could look much better in hand than on a scan. Just my And for the record I have bought books from Chip once (I think) and had no issues. One final thought: I think this issue would be much worse if Chip was selling a book here as a 4.0 and then listing it on eBay as a 5.5 (in the previous example). Getting the opinions of others and then making a decision "on the ground" is a different thing in my mind. Almost always in the same direction, though? Isn't it a bit telling that he's not attempting to make any of these points in his own behalf? Coming into this thread and commenting will do nothing but toss fuel on the fire. It's just what the big trolls want, right Boboset?? No. What I want is honesty and transparency when it comes to selling the funny books that I love so much. I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised, that you don't see that. You think dealing the same book here as a 4.0 but on ebay as a 5.5 is ok? As Chips biggest defender, it's safe to assume you are ok with that. Correct? I'm not so much defending Chip as I am attacking your malicious practices. You're the first person to jump all over someone based on unfounded allegations. I hate to break it to you...but the people offering up grades in the PGM thread aren't very good...and its probably no fault of their own as I've said, and WILL SAY IT AGAIN, you cannot grade a comic based on a two dimensional image. You need the book in hand. Honestly and transparency you say? So if he posts a book in the PGM thread...and let's say the avg is a 4.5...yet he feels it's a 5.0 to 5.5, should he post both opinions? Something like: CGC boards grade it a 4.5 (but they're usually low (and sometimes REAL low). I give it a 5.5....so maybe it falls in the middle? transparency would be saying an ad page has been removed or a MVS has been cut out. I don't believe he's flat out trying to deceive. How the hell can you deceive when you're offering up an opinion based on a flawed system?? And mind you, who's grading standards are we applying? B/c OSPG and CGC aren't N'Sync If you have a problem, just don't buy. Or make your own judgments instead of relying on a seller's assessment. And if you're unhappy, return the book. Its pretty simple. Yet you continue to cause a big stink....krap in the TGT thread and cause headache after headache...but I guess since its for the "funny books that you love" its all ok. Correct?? Brock, I see what you're saying. But in this situation, I think the main issue is being overlooked. The issue doesn't lie with the grades estimated in the PGM (because, yes, they're flawed). The issue is that Chip listed the book on eBay as a 5.5, and IN HIS OWN POST, said the grade was a 4.0 in TGT. So it's not about what grades were in the PGM. It's that Chip listed his own opinion of the grades on two different places and two different numbers. I understand your point of view here, but I don't think the is because of PGM. I haven't seen any of the posts/threads you're referencing. If that's the case, then maybe he made a mistake, maybe not. I haven't asked him that.... But I can also attest to grading very conservatively on here when selling raw books. Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess what people want to know is that if a seller grades conservatively here (where most people know more about grades than eBay buyers), why not have the same mentality while selling to someone who might not know as much? A seller might never get a negative. Heck, the buyer might even be happy with the purchase if they don't know better. But if a seller believes it to be one grade when dealing with more experienced collectors, maybe they should do that with novice collectors as well. And the thing about trolls, etc. I am not qualified to delve into that

I agree with this statement. It's easy to undergrade here to be "safe" and not set expectations too high. Also, there's a hidden pressure to not overgrade in the PGM because you can look bad if you're wrong. I don't post PGMs often. The last one I did got a lot of 8.0s and 8.5s and only one 9.0 assessment. CGC came back with a 9.0. This example illustrates the above. Another thing to consider is that scans are overly critical of a books condition. What I mean by that is that scans reveal issues that really don't stand out in hand. So a book could look much better in hand than on a scan. Just my And for the record I have bought books from Chip once (I think) and had no issues. One final thought: I think this issue would be much worse if Chip was selling a book here as a 4.0 and then listing it on eBay as a 5.5 (in the previous example). Getting the opinions of others and then making a decision "on the ground" is a different thing in my mind. Almost always in the same direction, though? Isn't it a bit telling that he's not attempting to make any of these points in his own behalf? Coming into this thread and commenting will do nothing but toss fuel on the fire. It's just what the big trolls want, right Boboset?? No. What I want is honesty and transparency when it comes to selling the funny books that I love so much. I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised, that you don't see that. You think dealing the same book here as a 4.0 but on ebay as a 5.5 is ok? As Chips biggest defender, it's safe to assume you are ok with that. Correct? I'm not so much defending Chip as I am attacking your malicious practices. You're the first person to jump all over someone based on unfounded allegations. I hate to break it to you...but the people offering up grades in the PGM thread aren't very good...and its probably no fault of their own as I've said, and WILL SAY IT AGAIN, you cannot grade a comic based on a two dimensional image. You need the book in hand. Honestly and transparency you say? So if he posts a book in the PGM thread...and let's say the avg is a 4.5...yet he feels it's a 5.0 to 5.5, should he post both opinions? Something like: CGC boards grade it a 4.5 (but they're usually low (and sometimes REAL low). I give it a 5.5....so maybe it falls in the middle? transparency would be saying an ad page has been removed or a MVS has been cut out. I don't believe he's flat out trying to deceive. How the hell can you deceive when you're offering up an opinion based on a flawed system?? And mind you, who's grading standards are we applying? B/c OSPG and CGC aren't N'Sync If you have a problem, just don't buy. Or make your own judgments instead of relying on a seller's assessment. And if you're unhappy, return the book. Its pretty simple. Yet you continue to cause a big stink....krap in the TGT thread and cause headache after headache...but I guess since its for the "funny books that you love" its all ok. Correct?? Brock, I see what you're saying. But in this situation, I think the main issue is being overlooked. The issue doesn't lie with the grades estimated in the PGM (because, yes, they're flawed). The issue is that Chip listed the book on eBay as a 5.5, and IN HIS OWN POST, said the grade was a 4.0 in TGT. So it's not about what grades were in the PGM. It's that Chip listed his own opinion of the grades on two different places and two different numbers. I understand your point of view here, but I don't think the is because of PGM.

From the outside looking in, it seems like the main issue is that Chip gets opinions from the PGM and then adds a grade when he sells the books on eBay (which is understandable since books look better in hand like has been said). But then, when asked about the grade on the board, he claims it's lower than what he has stated on eBay. He advertises his eBay sales on these boards, which means people see it listed as one grade on the links, but then in another thread, the grade is lower.

I love reading through this thread

I think it's a one of a kind custom sketch. I think he means option 3. (thumbs u The sketch is an Avengers book so I guess that makes more sense. Yes, I was talking about the ASM.

That's a cool Spidey cover. Never seen it before.

Got my ASM Variant RAK from Venom yesterday Thanks, man!