EC ed

Yep, Toast is awesome. On a general note, I find the asymmetry that permeates these sorts of situations interesting...buyers want refunds if grade is slightly lower than seller's estimate, but never pay the seller more if grade comes back higher than seller's estimate. If a seller says hey its a 9.8 and doesn't come back a 9.8 then they should be refunded. If the buyer gets a gift from cgc well that's great. Dre does 9.8 subbing all the time. If a book comes back 9.9 you pay for it. Is that what happened here not sure. HOWEVER if you want to put a number on it and can't stand behind it then you should refund. I like the way Dre does things with the policy on higher grades. But I would have no problem with a seller who said if it comes back 9.9 you have first refusal on it as long as you pay X% more. As long as they were up front, people could make their decision whether or not to buy. I'm sure many wouldn't, but I don't think having that as a policy would be shady at all. Yep...I guess I was saying that I find it interesting that more sellers don't put this symmetry into their policy odds of a 9.9 are like flipping a coin 100 times and its heads each and every time. just extra wording that doesn't need to be included. such as things like I won't take counterfeit or monopoly money as payment. I won't ship to an unnamed address in the middle of Nigeria to the prince. I hear you...I was also thinking more generally...not just moderns...like a "9.0" coming back 8.5 Vs. 9.2, Etc....getting off topic, though

Yep, Toast is awesome. On a general note, I find the asymmetry that permeates these sorts of situations interesting...buyers want refunds if grade is slightly lower than seller's estimate, but never pay the seller more if grade comes back higher than seller's estimate. If a seller says hey its a 9.8 and doesn't come back a 9.8 then they should be refunded. If the buyer gets a gift from cgc well that's great. Dre does 9.8 subbing all the time. If a book comes back 9.9 you pay for it. Is that what happened here not sure. HOWEVER if you want to put a number on it and can't stand behind it then you should refund. I like the way Dre does things with the policy on higher grades. But I would have no problem with a seller who said if it comes back 9.9 you have first refusal on it as long as you pay X% more. As long as they were up front, people could make their decision whether or not to buy. I'm sure many wouldn't, but I don't think having that as a policy would be shady at all. Yep...I guess I was saying that I find it interesting that more sellers don't put this symmetry into their policy

Yep, Toast is awesome. On a general note, I find the asymmetry that permeates these sorts of situations interesting...buyers want refunds if grade is slightly lower than seller's estimate, but never pay the seller more if grade comes back higher than seller's estimate. HOWEVER if you want to put a number on it and can't stand behind it then you should refund. Agreed

Yep, Toast is awesome. On a general note, I find the asymmetry that permeates these sorts of situations interesting...buyers want refunds if grade is slightly lower than seller's estimate, but never pay the seller more if grade comes back higher than seller's estimate.

(thumbs u Board vintage Feb '13...HOLLAAAA

I've tried to give this more serious thought...there must be some reason people do this, because we see it so often. Perhaps it's a passive/aggressive "parting shot"/kick in the crotch to all of us who didn't buy the books. Like..."I told you I was gon' close this thread, so here I go..it's closed...BOOM..you should have bought these books while you had the chance, you bunch'a lowballers" Or, perhaps it's indeed effectively a final sales thread bump, like they're hoping people will realize, 'mess' he's really closing it...I'd better PM him about that book before he takes it to eBay/Heritage/Clink, etc. And no...these thoughts have nothing to do with auctions

I believe what you are doing is called slander. Libel

I'm not aware of any way to tell the difference.

More discussions going on over in CG...linking to it here for continuity: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8179049&fpart=1

Not much more to say? Some don't want auction at all. Some want auctions. Almost all of Both camps think auctions should be in their own sub-forum if we are going to allow them. Just up to the mods to create one for us and see how the cards fall. Yep...a couple weeks back Arch requested that we provide more thoughts on the subject. We've done that. Now, I think we're waiting to hear back from Arch regarding his thoughts.

Yeah, I don't disagree...PM'ing would be better at that point...that's a good suggestion for him (thumbs u

We could be more diligent about closing our WTB threads if we are indeed no longer seeking the book. That way it'll be clear to him when an OP is no longer seeking a response. I find more irritation in the way he's responding (e.g., "If you're interested, please respond"), rather than the fact that he is responding. Also, strange that the only posts he has ever made are responses to WTBs...still, hard to fault a guy for responding to WTBs that aren't closed. It's perfectly plausible that those OPs are still looking for those books, and might even appreciate the response. There are other things going on in the WTB thread that I find infinitely more irritating than a guy who quite possibly is sincerely trying to help someone out.

No, quite the opposite...such an offer would be very fair, perhaps even generous. edit: although, in fairness, I suppose "it depends" on the book, etc., etc....for example, low dollar books where there's no point in slabbing them to begin with, I could see not discounting by the full slabbage fees, etc.

Just picked up two raw GA books from Michael - books are better than advertised, and both communication and packaging are top notch, as usual. Awesome boardie to deal with.

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions. IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating. My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time. I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently? I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow. And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books. I think it could be possible for a person to run as many auctions as they like - within their single auction thread. For example, if you want to auction 20 books, start a thread and list the books with BIN's etc and have them all end at the same time. It might be a little messy for the seller to clean up afterwards but all the information should be there to determine the winners. That is plausible, although if there is no limit on that you may have a tendency for members to maximize the number to ensure more frequent bumps for their listing, and while some will prove capable of managing 20 plus separate books some will not, and the more at once the greater the chances of things going wrong. It could in the end become a great producer of drama as much as profits. If it were up to me, I would say one thread with a max of three books. +1 I think we're converging here on a reasonable structure. Well, at least the three of us are

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions. IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating. My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time. I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently? I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow. And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books. I think it could be possible for a person to run as many auctions as they like - within their single auction thread. For example, if you want to auction 20 books, start a thread and list the books with BIN's etc and have them all end at the same time. It might be a little messy for the seller to clean up afterwards but all the information should be there to determine the winners. This just seems like an annoying nightmare if I'm the buyer...having to sift through a thread to figure out what the last bid was on an item I'm interested in. So, let me start one thread and put 50 individual books in there...it's constantly getting bumped from bidders on 50 books, each trying to figure out what the last bid on something was...nightmare. I'm not saying limit it to one thing, but put some reasonable constraint on it, given our technological situation...say, maximum of 3 items in a thread, or some manageable number like that (and I mean manageable for a buyer trying to navigate the thread)

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions. IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating. My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time. I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently? I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow. And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books. Good point - put me in the 'one auction at a time' camp. Boardies with more to sell can run an auction for a selected item, and sell concurrently in a regular thread...this will make people be more selective about what they choose to auction, and will help ensure that auctions don't become a dominant sales mechanism here...I think many of us would prefer "normal" sales threads to remain the norm, while allowing the auction format as a fun/interesting option when appropriate...'one auction at a time' would facilitate this structure.

You're right - same concern - we agree. (thumbs u

fixed You can't distinguish between the two times you showed, an auction that ends at 9:00 be "won" by the last person to post BEFORE 9:00? ie - 8:59:59 No sir, I had the example written the way I intended, and you make the point I was trying to make...it needs to be a rule. If an auction ends at 9:00pm and we go back and look at the following time stamps after the fact, who wins?: Boardie A $12 8:59pm Boardie B $13 9:00pm Boardie C $14 9:00pm Boardie D $15 9:01pm It's clear that Boardie D was too late, but who wins among A, B, and C? You would say, well A obviously, but it's not obvious in the absence of a rule. I've seen sellers pick Boardie C, because it was still at 9:00...

Some "rules" thoughts: - minimum 48 hour duration and maximum one week duration; - no reserves (if you decide to do an auction here, you need to bear the associated risk); you complete the sale at the max bid, whatever that is, else you go on the PL; if there's some minimum price you must have on a book, don't do an auction...do a regular sales thread - no BIN is necessary...if we have a separate area and rules for auctions, why be so concerned that they fit within the other rules? Anyway, most BINs are unrealistically high. just put there to comply with the unwritten rule that you have to have one; i.e., if you want to do a BIN, fine, but it's not mandatory - of course, all bids must be publicly posted in the thread itself - once you start an auction (along with a specified ending day/time), you cannot close it down prematurely, even if there are no bids (I've already seen this happen out there) - since we'll have to use the forum clock as the end timer, we need to define what the ending time means...for example, if someone says the ending time is 9:00pm EST, does that mean 9:00:00, or 9:00:59 (i.e., just before the clock strikes 9:01)...I've seen it done both ways out there... Also, we'll have to think about whether/how to address suspected shilling

I'm still not 100% sold on the whole auction idea here (for several reasons), but let's set that aside for the moment...since they are here, I certainly think a separate forum is needed... Single auction forum. Separate fora by age seems like it's slicing the onion a little to thinly, especially since I don't think auctions will become overly prominent in the whole scheme of things. Even at places like eBay, auctions are losing popularity in favor of stated price sales...there are articles about it from time to time out there in the press. If I'm wrong, you can always split up the single auction forum into age-specific auction fora later...no reason to begin with the most granular approach. I like one biddable item per thread (book, group of books, etc.)...certainly no more than a few...with the technological limitations here, any more seems like the thread would be too annoying to parse through as a buyer to determine what the last bid was on the item I'm interested in, etc. I also like putting a limitation on the number of concurrent threads per person...one seems too restrictive (given my one-item answer above), but more than, say, 5 seems too many...otherwise, we'll be looking at dozens of simultaneous harvdoss auctions in no time . So, max. 5 concurrent auction threads per boardie. As others have mentioned throughout this here thread, there will also be the need to establish rules of engagement...that's an entirely different discussion...

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Aren't the drivers available on the Microtek website? Yep: Drivers for current models: http://www.microtekusa.com/service.php Drivers for discontinued models: http://ww3.microtek.com.tw/eu/modules/tinyd0/index.php?id=2