MustEatBrains

**Drops Mic***

Bought another 2 key WD slabs from me. Great communication & quick pay. Always a pleasure to deal with. Highly recommended.

Not to beat a dead horse but I agree. Technically the buyer committed to each book separately and then backed out. But he bought each book BEFORE anybody else claimed it with . So if he DID purchase both books before anybody, both would technically be his if he's forced to buy the other. You can't say he claimed to buy the books, but then say he can't buy one and HAS to the buy the other. But by the buyers own admission he added the "per pm" in there just to obtain paypal and shipping charges(as Swick has pointed out several times) then failed to send a PM. The first book went to the next buyer in line which it should have been the case. The second book was not claimed so therefore he should have still proceeded with that sale. It's what any upstanding boardie would/should do. Agree to disagree?

The buyer didn't share what was contained in the PM. Hopefully it was a PM reading something along the lines of "nice pick-up brother!"

what this place reminds me of....

The guy threw out 2 I'll take its. It's irrelevant what the buyer thinks in his head about one being priced too high or low, and if I don't get one I'll just walk away from the other. They are 2 seperate and distinct in the sales thread. There was never any conditional statement given to the seller tying the 2 transactions together. IMO it's in bad form to not at least complete the one transaction where the book was still available.

The problem is that it's not a 'Per PM' agreement until you get an affirmation from the seller, which you clearly did not have. Why don't you buy the book that is still available? If you are saying that you simply wanted to confirm shipping and Paypal information then that means you are still committed to the book, right? I offered him the book at less than the original price and less than the current discounted price and he still did not want the book. I wonder why that is? Did he say? He wanted both books. He said the 11 was priced right and was adding the 12 just because the deal was so good on the 11 Huh? That statement makes zero sense to me. The I'll take it on both was not a discounted packaged deal. It's up to you if you want to let him off the hook for this but it seems like a lame excuse. Sounds like it's sour grapes for a mistake the potential buyer made. Not sure if it constitutes a hangable offense though.

I think I'm ok if they don't stay alive for the full 20. Save the taxpayers a buck or two. I don't care if they understand. I hope the NEXT guy understands, so he won't commit the crime. I'm with you on this sentiment. Doubt the next guy will get it though. I vote for a return to hammurabi's code. Pisses me off these thugs will get 3 squares a day on our dime while there are folks down on their luck that do not commit crimes lucky to get 1 meal a day.

Saves him fees and puts you at severe risk. You'll have zero paypal protection Just say no to this paypal personal slop.. Seems shady.

A month? Hell no, I think you have waited plenty long. Did you post any payment terms on your listing? I'd ask after a week or two, tops.

To be fair, all the books in the sig are also blurry. They probably just went to the Seanfingh school of photography It's likely just a scanner that doesn't do slabs very well. I'd say if someone is interested with the no return policy, they can always ask for better pics. +1 My scanner blurs the heck out of slabs. Great for raw books though. Until I upgrade I use my iPad to take pics of slabs, however would always offer a return policy regardless.

Whoa, that's awesome. Congrats!

Still an ok from this noob.

translation = STFU And how much did you pay for that Hulk 181 you have listed?

Not OK. That's a classic example of using GPA to deceive rather than inform. Private sales are by their very nature private and don't need to be disclosed. CLink, being a public auction is very different as it is the type of data that GPA is supposed to collect. A recent CLink win followed by a self-serving GPA analysis is not cool. I agree. However, if you point it out in the thread, you get yelled at for Krapping. Usually, a seller like this will ignore any PM's on the topic since he already knows what he is doing. It's not as bad if the seller doesn't quote GPA, just list a price without the commentary. I could care less and would have no issue buying from a seller that employs this tactic. It's up to the buyer to be informed and conduct proper due diligence. There are outliers in pricing all over the place. Good for him/her if they can make a quick buck on a flip. If I understand the original scenario properly, I'm not sure I would be so upset about it either, if I understand this to mean the following, for example: 1) Seller gets lucky at Clink auction and picks up say Hulk 181 at several hundred dollars less than current GPA averages 2) Seller turns around and sells here at a bit lower than GPA average since he's still going to make a good buck. 3) Seller quotes straight GPA averages otherwise honestly, just without mention of his own last grab on Clink If that is the scenario it is difficult to judge, because customarily at no time and in no way is a seller obliged to confess his or her own purchase price. Exactly how I see it.

Not OK. That's a classic example of using GPA to deceive rather than inform. Private sales are by their very nature private and don't need to be disclosed. CLink, being a public auction is very different as it is the type of data that GPA is supposed to collect. A recent CLink win followed by a self-serving GPA analysis is not cool. I agree. However, if you point it out in the thread, you get yelled at for Krapping. Usually, a seller like this will ignore any PM's on the topic since he already knows what he is doing. It's not as bad if the seller doesn't quote GPA, just list a price without the commentary. I could care less and would have no issue buying from a seller that employs this tactic. It's up to the buyer to be informed and conduct proper due diligence. There are outliers in pricing all over the place. Good for him/her if they can make a quick buck on a flip.

I agree! Not long ago someone posted a Batman #2 that looked wicked and with a press appeared to be over a 9.0. Wish I knew if that was ever graded and how it turned out.

Super cool.. Curious what are the dimensions and material it's made from?

+ 1. Everybody can make a mistake and therefore we should be given a second chance. That’s not the case in this situation. Oceanavekid has had numerous bad experiences on this board. If he’s taken off the probation list he would have been given multiple chances and the most likely outcome will be a new member getting the screws from him in a couple of months. I thought we were a community that looks after each other. IMO giving this guy the opportunity to sell comics is not protecting the community. The posters who know about him will most likely not deal with him but what about the ample posters that don’t know who he is. Who’s protecting them? IMO I care more about the members who do the right thing day after day then this poster who has been nothing but a problem since he arrived here. No dog in this fight however Rich is satisfied with the outcome. If there are others that have been wronged by Ave let them stand up and present themselves and thier cases. If he is on the list for other transactions other than the one with Rich those would/should need to be resolved prior to removal. At least in this instance he was given an out and walked through the right door. He shouldn't be black-balled entirely unless there is more to the story.

hey that Chuck Norris issue is a classic and good job making things right.

Well this seemed to have a happy ending, no pun. Now we just need an intervention on his desire to obtain a Chuck Norris #1.

Drop me a line the next time you plan on setting up. Always have cash to spend and not too far from your area.

He needs to set a better example for that kid he's holding.. jeez.