Jaydogrules

Lonzilla seems to be the go-to source for that kind of info. I haven't heard of anything myself. The most recent is that bulletproof black panther #1 cover. -J. You flatter me but, no. Nothing new on his tumblr page except for some incredible sketches that he did in 5 minutes each Those 5 minute sketches are just insane that Frank Castle piece especially Link? -J. http://gabrieledellotto.tumblr.com/ Phenomenal. Thanks for the link ! -J.

Lonzilla seems to be the go-to source for that kind of info. I haven't heard of anything myself. The most recent is that bulletproof black panther #1 cover. -J. You flatter me but, no. Nothing new on his tumblr page except for some incredible sketches that he did in 5 minutes each Those 5 minute sketches are just insane that Frank Castle piece especially Link? -J.

Jerome I actually think that was a fair deal. With some potential upside, even. -J.

Pretty copy , congrats. It does look nicer than a 5.5. And I see spiderturtle is still stacking AF 15's. -J.

Thoughts on this WS #1 being a 9.8 candidate ? http://www.ebay.com/itm/152045176906?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT -J.

$25? thats awesome ! Did you by it off the rack? That's his OO copy bought off the rack. -J.

Here are the ratings for shadowhunters: http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/shadowhunters-season-one-ratings/ A 0.3 and a cheap-o budget can keep the cloak and dagger show on "freeform" for years. It won't likely be very relevant , but it will be "on". -J.

Yep. That's definitely his side. -J. It is pretty uncool to be attacking someone that you know is not here to defend himself. Especially this someone with your history with him. Look I haven't "attacked" anybody, my "history" with him is similar, if not the same as dozens of others on here, and it's not my problem that he's on a time out. I'll post my opinions as I please , and for the record, I'm not even the one who first pointed out the sketchy transaction in the first place. -J.

Lonzilla seems to be the go-to source for that kind of info. I haven't heard of anything myself. The most recent is that bulletproof black panther #1 cover. -J.

I can assure you I do not "hate" anybody, and certainly not faceless internet people. -J.

The Black Cat #1 should fetch a higher price than the Lizard cover IMHO. The 688 may have leap frogged it, value wise. (last 688 raw "NM" copy went for $540, last black cat raw sold today for $500, last 9.6 Black Cat went for $380, last 9.6 688 went for $800). -J.

I appreciate your point, but I would never take the time to do such a thing. (and the actual buyer isn't here to post his side either so it's all rather academic.) -J.

Yep. That's definitely his side. -J.

Oh man. People quibble over everything. Shipping, duties, import tax, sales tax, doesn't matter. I don't have to stretch my imagination very far to think a buyer wanted a better deal by avoiding some extra required fee. RMA and I don't particularly care for one another, but I find it hard to believe he would do something that silly to torpedo ruin his otherwise good selling eBay reputation. He never struck me a at all shady in his dealings. Maybe ? I just don't see a buyer negging a seller like that on such an apparently good deal, just because he (the seller) didn't want to do a deal off from ebay "and" to avoid a measly $70 tax. That seems highly implausible , especially compared to the other potential scenario (seller just didn't like the final auction price and wiggled out of the deal). -J.

Very sketchy. From the feedback, it looks like the seller reneged on the auction, didn't ship the book and refunded the buyer's payment. The buyer left a nasty negative and the seller has now relisted the book as a BIN. Seller comic-sutra now has a data point in GPA of his book selling for $861 where he is trying to now resell the same book for double. Interesting strategy. Interesting. If you believe the response, it had to do with failure to pay sales tax. I believe it, knowing what a stickler he is for stuff like that. Buyer may have been a dummy and provided a sweet opportunity to jettison that awful sale. Oh, okay so it's his: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9241874#Post9241874 And no, I don't believe his response. -J. Now that is interesting. And CA sales tax is 9%? I can tell you as fact that the sales tax is automatically added at checkout to in-state transactions on ebay. -J. And it could be that, upon checkout and seeing the ST added, he contacted the Seller and asked for an off-EBay transaction. No, he said he paid and that the seller refunded his money and did everything he could to not complete the sale. It's obvious what happened. -J. Well, I don't think it makes sense to treat either parties statements as gospel. If this wasn't a boardie people would be demanding a pound of flesh for something like this. You're free to believe whatever you like, but as a collector and buyer only who this has happened to before, I am personally disturbed. The buyer obviously got a good deal (at least at current FMV) and promptly paid. At that price, no one would quibble over another $70 for sales tax. -J.

Very sketchy. From the feedback, it looks like the seller reneged on the auction, didn't ship the book and refunded the buyer's payment. The buyer left a nasty negative and the seller has now relisted the book as a BIN. Seller comic-sutra now has a data point in GPA of his book selling for $861 where he is trying to now resell the same book for double. Interesting strategy. Interesting. If you believe the response, it had to do with failure to pay sales tax. I believe it, knowing what a stickler he is for stuff like that. Buyer may have been a dummy and provided a sweet opportunity to jettison that awful sale. Oh, okay so it's his: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9241874#Post9241874 And no, I don't believe his response. -J. Now that is interesting. And CA sales tax is 9%? I can tell you as fact that the sales tax is automatically added at checkout to in-state transactions on ebay. -J. And it could be that, upon checkout and seeing the ST added, he contacted the Seller and asked for an off-EBay transaction. No, he said he paid and that the seller refunded his money and did everything he could to not complete the sale. It's obvious what happened. -J.

Very sketchy. From the feedback, it looks like the seller reneged on the auction, didn't ship the book and refunded the buyer's payment. The buyer left a nasty negative and the seller has now relisted the book as a BIN. Seller comic-sutra now has a data point in GPA of his book selling for $861 where he is trying to now resell the same book for double. Interesting strategy. Interesting. If you believe the response, it had to do with failure to pay sales tax. I believe it, knowing what a stickler he is for stuff like that. Buyer may have been a dummy and provided a sweet opportunity to jettison that awful sale. Oh, okay so it's his: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9241874#Post9241874 And no, I don't believe his response. -J. Now that is interesting. And CA sales tax is 9%? I can tell you as fact that the sales tax is automatically added at checkout to in-state transactions on ebay, the buyer had no choice to pay it if he consummated the sale (as both parties agree he did) and lived in-state. -J.

Very sketchy. From the feedback, it looks like the seller reneged on the auction, didn't ship the book and refunded the buyer's payment. The buyer left a nasty negative and the seller has now relisted the book as a BIN. Seller comic-sutra now has a data point in GPA of his book selling for $861 where he is trying to now resell the same book for double. Interesting strategy. Interesting. If you believe the response, it had to do with failure to pay sales tax. I believe it, knowing what a stickler he is for stuff like that. Buyer may have been a dummy and provided a sweet opportunity to jettison that awful sale. Oh, okay so it's his: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9241874#Post9241874 And no, I don't believe his response. -J.

Hell of a copy. And not often seen in a 9.8. -J.

So true. Did not think of it when Broke as a Joke asked; but I learned this the hard way when trying to unload some SS 9.8 slabs. Not specifically with Chaykin, but if you don't have the proper John Hancock on the comic you will get much less than current market value because you are not only excluding the blue label only buyers but the signature crowd will not be interested as much either. So nobody thinks the seller's insane "item description" just caused a self-fulfilling prophecy ? -J.

The most I've heard of them doing is splitting some of the "buyers' premium" vig.... -J.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the process and it is definitely a cool book, but there is absolutely no chance CGC looked at any "authentication" paperwork you received from CBCS with regard to those signatures. Iceman is right , as to the policy change at CGC explaining the new label colour. And it was also wise of you to sell it in a CGC slab, you will realize a higher return. 2% seller auction fees at Heritage ? -J.

Dulce et decorum est. -J.

Why not. Everyone says whatever they want around here. Doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore. There's a difference between a know-it-all constantly barking at everybody about how they shouldn't ever attempt to estimate a book's print run, and someone repeating unfounded rumours that are potentially libelous. -J. Don't assume what I'm talking about, it's wasn't the RMA situation What I assumed is that you were deliberately cryptic with your statement for a reason. I therefore filled in the blanks as I saw fit. -J. Have I ever said anything when you and him were going back and forth? I don't remember . It just seem to be good form to circulate that kind of rumour without any basis or evidence, especially without the other party here to respond or defend themselves. The tie in to estimating print numbers was simply my attempt to draw a distinction. -J. An example was asked for Jay, so I gave an example. I stated very clearly that I was unaware if it was true or not. It really isn't that difficult to verify as true or false if anyone cares to do so for themselves. One can ask Matt Rosenberg how the WCNGH SDCC variants were sold and why he decided to limit the WCNGH NYCC variants. You'd be very surprised with just how much information some creators become made aware of. I don't suggest anyone to stop with just that though. Keep going and look at early sales. If you are knowledgable enough of who is who you'll put two and two together real quick to decide for yourself if anyone from CBSI assisted in manipulating the market for this book. Fair enough. I'm not overly familiar with that other site either way. -J.

Why not. Everyone says whatever they want around here. Doesn't matter if it's true or not anymore. There's a difference between a know-it-all constantly barking at everybody about how they shouldn't ever attempt to estimate a book's print run, and someone repeating unfounded rumours that are potentially libelous. -J. Don't assume what I'm talking about, it's wasn't the RMA situation What I assumed is that you were deliberately cryptic with your statement for a reason. I therefore filled in the blanks as I saw fit. -J. Have I ever said anything when you and him were going back and forth? I don't remember . It just seem to be good form to circulate that kind of rumour without any basis or evidence, especially without the other party here to respond or defend themselves. The tie in to estimating print numbers was simply my attempt to draw a distinction. -J.