EC ed

Recently picked up a couple raw GA books from Dan - great all-around transaction. KUDOS!

Hows that, Transplant posted the seller decided to honor his BS rule instead. Just to be clear - the was never posted in a PM This is a standard practice in ALL of my sales threads. I've sold many books here on the Boards, and this is the 1st time this has happened. I posted the book Got a lot of nice comments Got a few PM's (none from roulette44) Mike PM'ed with a few questions, I answered I had to run some errands with the wife I came back, both "i'll take its" were posted, and the drama already started Had I read Mike's acceptance prior to the "Ill take it" IN the thread, I would have posted it "SOLD via PM" myself. (If I could have even got it up in the few minutes between) Again, check any of my sales threads and see I've done that many times) Therefore 1st "Ill take it IN the thread wins Sorry if you don't like the rules I posted, but they were posted To be clear. I made Dan an offer. He countered saying he would accept that offer if it was not Paypal. I accepted within 3 minutes via PM and more than 10 minutes before Roulette. It's his sales thread and he can, I guess, run it however he wants. I know what I'm going to do going forward with regard to the seller in question. I also know that running a thread this way encourages sellers to string people along via PM in hopes of getting a higher offer in the thread. Not saying that was his intent. I did not run to thread to post a b/c 1) I thought we had an agreed upon deal [i believe SD acknowledges he felt the same way] and 2) I was proceeding through the airport to make a flight. Good for Roulette44. He gets the book I guess. Hope he enjoys it. I asked him to let me know when it's for sale again. This did not happen, but suppose a seller promises a buyer (who wishes to remain anonymous) that the seller will post a in the thread on the buyer's behalf. Seller then waits a day to do so. Would a new buyer in the thread get it, if the seller had the same rules here? C'est la vie. I've been looking for a nice DD #1 for a while now. This book had characteristics important to me. But, seems this one was not meant to be. It seems that he's referencing another technicality that's even more ludicrous...implying that the rule said you have to post the gremlin, not just words that express the same intent...a completely different issue that has come up before

Hows that, Transplant posted the seller decided to honor his BS rule instead. Just to be clear - the was never posted in a PM

First in thread wins. Period. Full stop.

Nope - according to the letter of the rules, Joey gets the book. The rules did not state that a thread take it trumps PM negotiations; rather the rules said that a take it in the thread trumps anything going on in PMs, which includes deals that have been agreed to via PM but not yet posted in the thread. This is what I don't understand...why do sellers keep setting up their rules this way? Senseless drama...ad infinitum... edit: typing mine while you were posting yours, asteroid (thumbs u

Exactly my point up above there...no question whatsoever that the OP in the thread we're discussing indeed had a clear rule and followed it, and has the right to do so. I was just similarly opining that I don't understand the logic of using the "first take in the thread wins regardless of PMs" rule formulation (and yes, it's very commonly seen...my point was a general one and not limited to that thread...).

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread? In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. over.

I like the underlying notion behind this comment, in terms of maintaining fairness. However, this leads to another elephant in the room, which has sort of come up before in discussion, but never really fleshed out...(and this applies not only to "regular rules" threads, but also more generally to threads that don't follow marketplace guidelines for whatever reason)... Let's say we get Arch to add a "no regular rules" guideline, and therefore moderators in principle will pull the thread as soon as they can. So, a "regular rules" thread comes along, and some of us stand on principle and abstain from purchasing books from the thread, because it clearly needs to be pulled. Meanwhile, another one of us comes along and posts up a 'take it'...you know, because it's a really cool book. Then, of course, the transaction gets completed before mods can pull the thread. Happens all the time. So, (as is typical in many arenas of life) those of us who stood on principle miss out. What are we going to do then? No way will Arch/mods get involved to "undo" that transaction. So, do we just pull out the pitchforks and try to publicly shame the purchasing boardie for making the purchase in a thread that doesn't meet guidelines? Maybe it was an "innocent" purchase from the purchasing boardie's perspective, maybe not. Point is that it'll be hard to maintain "fairness" in this respect as long as boardies can complete transactions in "violating" threads...and I see no clear way to moderate this. So, how do we handle a situation where a boardie posts a 'take it' in a "regular rules" thread before the thread gets pulled? Tough problem.

Yes, and this is a whole other issue. Note that even if Arch were to add a "no regular rules" guideline as we're discussing, that wouldn't fix this particular problem. It doesn't fix it because there is no other guideline in place that requires a seller to add a thread rule that dictates 'take it' priorities, etc. So, the fix would be for Arch to also add a marketplace guideline just like we have for shipping and payment options, that says something like "9b. List how you will determine the winner of an item, including your policy on conditional 'take its'" Adding a rule like this is parallel to the rule that says "List acceptable forms of payment." It would still be up to the seller to choose how they will determine the winner, but this new guideline I suggest would mandate that sellers specify something in this regard.

Yeah, I see that...couldn't hurt to reinforce the message. You see what I'm saying, though...there are already rules in place that you need to specify rules.

Agreed. Arch should amend the rules and the term 'regular rules' should not be allowed. It just opens the doors to so many problems. (thumbs u Actually, Arch doesn't need to amend the rules. The marketplace usage guidelines already preclude a simple "regular rules" declaration. I quote: 8. List estimated shipping costs, times, and methods. 9. List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal payment is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.) So, simply declaring "regular rules" already violates existing marketplace guidelines. The problem is us - if we properly self-regulated like we're supposed to, we would not buy books from those threads, and we would point them out as rules violations by posting Arch's template, etc. Instead, we buy the books from those threads like a frikin' pack of hungry wolves...

I had my finger on the 'take it' trigger on that book well before the conditional taker's post. I likewise held off because of several issues in the initial thread specification, including the fact that no rules were specified (not to mention the OP's clearly revealed state of being at the time)...don't need the drama

+1 Just plain lazy...not to mention that such threads don't technically meet marketplace guidelines. In my idealistic fantasy world that does not exist, all of us buyers would abstain from buying books from those threads. edit: I wonder how it would play out if I bought a book from a "regular rules" thread like this: " , and I'll pay via check at a 3% discount off your asking price, with free USPS Priority Shipping " I mean, that's as "regular" as anything else...interesting experiment to consider

If it's a book you want to have in your collection for some time to come, another option would be to propose some sort of partial refund to reflect some "lost value" due to the slab damage. Then, finish the job of cracking that baby out of there, read it, change the microchamber, and slip it into a nice mylar...

+1 I'm not a fan of queuing up in sales threads, and I agree with ^ this interpretation of 'ON HOLD.' To avoid this mess, I've started putting the following clause in my sales thread rules: "My definition of ON HOLD is that the book is not available for purchase by anyone else until the books comes OFF HOLD...therefore, I'll ignore any thread posts or PMs related to a book ON HOLD until the book comes OFF HOLD (i.e., there's no "queuing up" for a held book); in other words, if discussions break down on a held book, I'll post OFF HOLD in the thread, and then we'll start again from there." Of course, if the seller didn't put this in the rules...

Yeah, a while back I went through the PL history and posted a summary that showed boardie names with dates they were added and removed from the PL - that summary itself was perceived as yet another "bad list", and all hell broke loose... Yes, and if I remember correctly, your list also demonstrated that repeat offenders on the PL were rare, and the exception to the rule. Those rare cases become eligible for the HoS, as it is reserved for, among other things, "Being a multiple offender". Correct, indeed. Also, the history of the PL is made up of relatively few boardies...about 55 different boardies from 2007 (PL inception) through the end of 2013 (when I did that analysis) edit: and most of those 55'ish boardies aren't active here anymore anyway...either they made their way to the HOS, or I suppose just left of their own volition The purpose of the PL is limited (I believe by design) to getting transactions completed, pure and simple. That can never be the proper place to measure a person's integrity or character. Symbiotic abused and lost his second chance(s) and is now nominated for the HoS, which is, I believe, the intended way to judge matters of integrity and character. I agree. Ed in red ^

I think I am going to have to pm myself a list of names of people not to deal with and why so I can remember things like this. Thanks for the post. There are so many that I just put them on ignore. Sometimes in modern threads, there will be entire pages where I don't see anything . . . I use an Excel spreadsheet...that allows me to also have a "notes" column so I can remember/document why they are on my mess list. So far, I'm still on a single worksheet tab

Yeah, a while back I went through the PL history and posted a summary that showed boardie names with dates they were added and removed from the PL - that summary itself was perceived as yet another "bad list", and all hell broke loose...

I recently bought a few TOS/X-Men slabs from George, and it was all-around great! Great deals, great communication, and great packaging/shipping. Kudos!

Claudio has made a couple purchases from me, most recently some raw books from my VCC booth, and it is always an all-around pleasure. Fast payment, great communication, and always great to talk to in general!

Phil bought a slabbed ASM 11 from my recent thread, and it was an all-around pleasure! RAPID payment and great communication...highly recommended!

Here's a sweet ad for Mad #1 on the interior FC of Vault of Horror #27 (Nov. '52): "WE AT E.C. PROUDLY PRESENT OUR LATEST BABY...A 'COMIC' COMIC BOOK! THIS IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE ZANIEST 10c WORTH OF IDIOTIC NONSENSE YOU COULD EVER HOPE TO BUY! GET A COPY OF MAD...ON SALE NOW! WE THINK YOU'LL ENJOY IT!"

Here are some ECs (certainly not the coolest ones, but ones I already had images of for some reason or another): Inside front cover of Mad #2 - ad for Weird Fantasy #16: Back cover of Picture Stories from American History #4 (slab had some issues...I've since finished the job of cracking this one out : Back cover of Picture Stories from Science #1, showing some interesting EC pre-trend titles from the late '40s:

Here's a recent pickup...the first issue of Animal Fables I've owned (from 1947) Notice a certain resemblance between Freddy Firefly when he "flames on" and a prominent Timely character back in the day? By issue #7 of Animal Fables (the last issue of the series, as it turns out), Freddy was no longer red, but was green and yellow...ostensibly because the lawyers got involved...