Gem_Mint

It's not an eCheck, right? Someone just got a bad one from him.

Wish I didn't sell my first set of 1-5... But then again, glad I didn't miss out on the Boba hype... I don't mind not having one since I don't have the others anymore.

what about that comic lot for $7k

Yup thats what it was.

I wonder where you heard this rumor : ) The rumor about the deaths or about not being able to purchase on Midtown?

Are you having a non payment issue? Something is "up" with this eBayer. Buying and only paying for some things, never responding to messages, sometimes responding to NPB cases opened, and now not shipping out things he/she sold: http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=packers1181&_trksid=p3984.m1559.l2776 My eCheck is still pending. Email received today that the bank declined the eCheck. Unless you like your items being bought and put in limbo, add packers1181 to your lists. packers1181 BINed a book on 04/03/2015. No payment, no communication, I opened NPB case on 04/15/2015. I am having the same issue with him. Just got my seller's fees back from this dude. Jeez, what's up with this guy. Check out his 9 negs as a seller.

Still can't preorder on midtown? What's up with that?

Hearing rumors of Batman and Joker being killed off in Batman 40...

I can't speak for Facebook, as I'm not on there. But there's a lot of younger and/or newer collectors on Instagram, and some of them fancy themselves as big time dealers. And when you're dealing with other younger or newer collectors who may not know any better, you can get away with a more flippant attitude towards customer service. This place, on the other hand, is filled with a bunch of cagey ol' cats who are too smart to get over by a kitten. I've never bought from Gem Mint before, but I've seen the guy have a lot of problem-free transactions on IG, and he always carries himself as a solid citizen there. I imagine he'll chalk this up as a learning experience, and become an even better seller because of it. Thanks Jam No problem. Now follow me (nosaj80) back, you self-centered . Done.

Bought Avengers 1 from Warren. He responded to my WTB thread. Super easy to deal with, packed and shipped same day. I got the book 2 days after purchase. Couldnt be happier.

I can't speak for Facebook, as I'm not on there. But there's a lot of younger and/or newer collectors on Instagram, and some of them fancy themselves as big time dealers. And when you're dealing with other younger or newer collectors who may not know any better, you can get away with a more flippant attitude towards customer service. This place, on the other hand, is filled with a bunch of cagey ol' cats who are too smart to get over by a kitten. I've never bought from Gem Mint before, but I've seen the guy have a lot of problem-free transactions on IG, and he always carries himself as a solid citizen there. I imagine he'll chalk this up as a learning experience, and become an even better seller because of it. Thanks Jam

Also, I understand that it's Friday and it's fun to ride the wave and all but.... But I've said my piece. I'm no longer going to add fuel to the fire. I'm sorry that I backed out of our deal.

What's wrong with that? I closed the PM because the convo was over. You let me know that I was in the wrong and i said...damn. We couldn't work it out. I understand why he wouldn't want to at this point. I wouldn't either. I apologize to him.... I'm sorry. When I first told him what happened I apologized profusely. But you came in here guns ablazing digging a deeper hole for yourself. Your apology and admitting that you made a mistake seems like it was forced out of you and seems questionable that it is genuine. I think the Facebook comment is pretty bad. And the comments you made here regarding "this place is strict" as an explanation of how you handle your business differently here since it is monitored rather than in other venues doesn't really paint the picture that you're a solid seller I want to start sending my money to. I'm sorry you feel that way Harv, there would be many that would disagree.

What's wrong with that? I closed the PM because the convo was over. You let me know that I was in the wrong and i said...damn. We couldn't work it out. I understand why he wouldn't want to at this point. I wouldn't either. I apologize to him.... I'm sorry. When I first told him what happened I apologized profusely.

Well, as long as you're taking personal responsibility and not trying to shift the focus to make yourself the victim....hey waitaminutenow.... haha Guys, in all seriousness. I understand why it was wrong. I am sorry to Voodoo. I should not have agreed to the terms if I didn't want to wait. I should have communicated better before selling the book from underneath him. I am sorry. This has never happened to me before. It won't happen again.

1Cool I did apologize , profusely. But the witch hunt continues

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed. Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done. So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed. However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it. In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended. This is why I was nominated. No. You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon. So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer? I told him I didn't mail the book yet and I would sell it to him, he declined. And why did he decline? He clearly said why: because selling the book to him now would involve doing to someone else what you were going to do to him. What you've done with this transaction is put yourself in the unenviable position of having two buyers who have equal legitimate claim to the same book. If you pull the book back and sell it to the first buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the second buyer. If you go ahead with your deal with the second buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the first buyer. You've claimed that the second buyer would be understanding if you couldn't fulfill your commitment to him. But you also assumed that the first buyer would be understanding about breaking your deal with him - without discussing it with him first. As it turns out, he wasn't. Are you sure your second buyer will be understanding, especially if you haven't discussed it with him yet? And even if he is, should he have to be? He didn't create this situation, you did. Here's a suggestion: In one of your snarky, dismissive responses you mentioned that there are several of these on eBay. Why not buy one of those copies and send it to one of your buyers? That way you can fulfill your commitments to both of your buyers. Of course, you won't make in money on the deal. You might even loose some. But you can chalk that up to a learning experience: don't agree to extended payment terms when what you really need is immediate payment and don't break or alter an agreement without discussing it with the other party first. That's just a suggestion. And since it sounds like the first buyer is dropping the nomination, there's nothing in terms of the Probation process obligating you to come up with a solution. It depends on how much your reputation as a seller on these boards is worth to you. Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way. Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money. What kinda of monster do you think I am?

Thanks for your input. Ever since our deal, I have doubled up the amount of cardboard used for 1-3 books. So i have learned from that experience. I run an Instagram page with 3k followers. I buy and sell ALL the time. I average about 5 sales a day. Deals fall through ALL the time too. I can see where I treated this more like Instagram than the forum which tends to be much more strict. I won't make that mistake again. I take responsibility. I agreed to the deal and I backed out. I should have never agreed to hold a book for that long and I won't be doing that again.

The #1 rule in that group is no snitching....

To you no, but for me I was expecting it. I'm not gonna fight against another transaction you completed with someone else after the fact to get that comic back. It's not worth it. I would rather not send my business your way. I feel the same way brother. Maybe you can explain to all of us why he's your "brother" in here yet at the same time you choose to call him a "ball-less " on Facebook. Oooh check out the instigator. I was P/Oed that I was nominated.

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed. Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done. So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed. However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it. In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended. This is why I was nominated. No. You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon. So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer? I told him I didn't mail the book yet and I would sell it to him, he declined.

If he would have told me "dude I can't buy the book, something came up", which happens all the time when I sell on Facebook or Instagram, I wouldn't have nominated him for probation. I would have been frustrated, but I would have told him "no worries bro, next time." I guess that's why I never expected this.

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed. Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done. So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed. However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it. In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended. This is why I was nominated.

That was your first mistake.