VintageComics

From your point of view and from mine, there is no justification for it. As i understand it though, Chip didn't lie about what the money was going towards did he? When asked he explained his thought process, whether people agreed with it or not. A lack of accountability for himself (I mean, true accountability and not just saying sorry but planning ahead for his own well being) seems to be a factor through all of this. And while there is no avenue other than the HOS for us so that is what is being applied, I do believe people who continue to repeat past behavior need a boundary to be set so that this doesn't happen again. It's the only way some people function until they learn to self manage. Believe me, I know. I got spanked way much as a kid (and even as a young adult). I say the same thing about every punishment, though. It's purpose should be corrective and not punitive and that is an important distinction.

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so. I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner. Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time. And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

Sure, you did. Do you read your own posts? ------------------------------ I don't need to have the last word. I just always have to be right. Get it straight, Bob!

Good Lord, man, it's only January 4. Get a grip! You've got dozens of pressing threads still to get through this year. He's a grumpy, elitist, curmudgeon constantly telling people to get off his lawn. Ain't no way he's going anywhere if there's someone to be a curmudgeon to.

Building a narrative that says 'peekthrough' is a 'tell' that a book is pressed is flatly wrong and eventually, if allowed to continue would lead people to believe that all books with 'peekthrough' interor pages are pressed even though it is not true and there is sufficient evidence to show that even unpressed books have 'peekthrough' pages.

If the back pages on a book are not exposed like the front it's likely a spine roll. If the back pages on a book are exposed like the front then it's paper shrinkage. I'm quite sure the miswrap has nothing to do with peekthrough. A miswrap happens when the cover sheet (which contains 8 covers if I'm not mistaken) is not cut square to the artwork on the cover before it is ever wrapped around the comic. So the cover pages are sized appropriately but the artwork is slightly crooked. Whether the artwork is cut square to the artwork or not, the covers are still wrapped around the interior wraps, folded/stapled and then finally trimmed square on 3 sides as the last step. Whether the cover is miswrapped or not before it is attached to the interior pages has no bearing on the peek through as all 3 sides are cut clean and square during production. The peek through happens as the interior paper and cover paper change shape relative to each other over time.

There is a back to front miswrap but that is just the way the cover was cut. It has nothing to do with the lengths of the cover or interior pages. The pages are still exposed. Here is the other copy on eBay that I posted above with pages exposed all the way down the right edge. http://www.ebay.com/itm/FANTASTIC-FOUR-57-1966-Marvel-Comics-/360337338759?hash=item53e5c77187:g:NScAAOSwgjhVI~Nu I haven't seen the back cover on either copy but based on my experience, it's likely that the pages are peeking out on the back cover as well as the front. The point being that peeking pages are likely not enough of a 'tell' to tell if a book was pressed.

I couldn't find your copy but here is another copy with pages showing all the way down the open end. http://www.ebay.com/itm/FANTASTIC-FOUR-57-1966-Marvel-Comics-/360337338759?hash=item53e5c77187:g:NScAAOSwgjhVI~Nu

I've read through (most!) of this and I can appreciate that your friendship with Chip and the toll mental illness has taken on your family cause you to sympathize with him. I get the impression, though, that you are against putting Chip in the HOS. It's just an impression because -- unless I missed it -- you don't seem to have stated your position clearly. To me, at this point, given that Chip appears to have a record of misbehavior in buying and selling that dates back more than 20 years, I think putting him in the HOS is a step needed to warn boardies who might be considering doing deals with him. My sympathies lie with the people who have been taken advantage of. I thought I've been pretty detailed and I don't want to keep reopening it. It is complicated for me. My sympathies lie towards both. And I'd be happy to make those who have lost money whole but I know that won't help Chip in the long run. I've probably interacted with Chip more than most (although there are a few other board members that I know that consigned many books through Chip and I'll reach out to them to see how they feel as well) and I'm under the impression that Chip is not so much a thief has he is poor at self management. I believe based on my own experiences and my interactions with Chip that his struggle with mental illness is real and not manufactured to gain sympathy. I also believe that for the best of the community he should go into the HOS so that people are aware of his tendency to not ship or communicate when he's overwhelmed. Because of my relatively close relationship with Chip I'm unsure if I can be objective about this but I don't oppose anyone who believes he should be in the HOS. If I had to vote (let's say I was the deciding vote) I'd vote to have him in the HOS to preserve the integrity of the community but what keeps me from going all in on that from the start is how much I know about Chip,, our history together and how I feel about treating people who I believe are mentally ill. If it was an acute situation like where there is immediate fear of loss or damages as when I had to choose between my own brother or not, I cut him out of my life without a second thought and sent a warning to all immediate family and friends. But that was a volatile and acute situation with a lot of tension and possibility of immediate loss and injury. In a chronic situation like this the word is getting out through all the appropriate channels without my vote so I prefer to leave it to the majority. If I'm wrong nobody gets hurt and I just have egg on my face, which is the way I'd prefer it. I know it's not the answer most want to hear but I support you all in your decision. It's the best I can do. If anyone wants me to reach out to Chip personally or has any questions or concerns, I can offer that as I do have his personal contact info. Feel free to message me.

I don't want to have any hard feelings with anyone and I regret if anyone has any hard feelings with me. It wasn't my intention. I have a busload of kids waiting on me and I've spent enough time on here. I hope everyone has a good New Year.

I have a soft skin.

You can post about me and harass me all you want trying to intimidate me. In fact I had dreams lst night about you posting everyone with your crusade. The facts remain that 1) I disagree with the majority about the possibility of mental illness in this particular situation based on my personal experiences and 2) I don't disagree with you that Chip should be punished for his actions. Sorry if I don't fall in step with everyone on point 1. Andy, I don't see it as a sword to fall upon. If anyone really wants to follow what I've been trying to say all I'm disagreeing with the majority about on is the degree of mental health involved in this situation. Nothing else. Everything else I agree with. If someone wants to put me on a list for disagreeing with them on mental illness after all of the goodwill I've poured into this place over 12 years I can't stop them.

I said that it looks like the majority doesn't understand. Average Joe Public. Of course there are people who are going to know about it.

Really? How would name calling and cuss words go over in a court of law, or on the street? Why should it be different here? I'm starting to think that most people have no idea what Mental Illness is. Mental Illness is far reaching and casts a wide net. It's much better understood today than it used to be even recently but it still is not very well understood by the general public IMO. My wife and I both deal with it in our family life AND in her work so we spend a lot of time learning about it. Understand now THAT I'M NOT SAYING CHIP IS MENTALLY ILL AND THIS IS WHY THIS FIASCO HAPPENED. But I am saying that THIS IS WHY I REACTED THE WAY I DID at the start of the discussion. My business experiences with Chip (which went very well) coupled with what I know about mental illness, I wanted to make sure people weren't attacking someone with mental illness. If someone doesn't like me because of that then I'd just rather err on the side of caution and stay a jerkbutt in people's eyes. Really. I won't tell you how to post and you don't tell me how to post. And you are saying his mental illness is causing this. You say it over and over and over. Obviously you're not reading what I wrote. Even when it's in capital letters.

Have you ever had one of those deals where nothing goes smoothly? That was me and Steve this year. 3 of Steve's purchases were mis-shipped this year. 3 of them. Call it bad luck, bad karma, bad uju or whatever. A disturbance in the force between Steve and I. After shipping literally 100's of books on time this past year with little to no complaints, I had 3 late packages all to Steve. IIRC., one was my fault because I was traveling, one my shipping guy had to visit the dentist for am acute medical issue and it was delayed and was shipped a few days late and one was the incident with Chip. I actually couldn't believe it. But Steve was understandably annoyed and I don't blame him. I didn't say it was unreasonable. You had every right to be upset. I just wanted people to clarify that the word drama didn't mean there was anything nefarious going on. I believe I offered a partial refund based on the slow shipping before the book arrived. After the book arrived, you asked for a partial refund because you disagreed with the grade which again, was fine. I'm generally easy to deal with and I wanted you to be happy. I hadn't seen the book in a long time and simply went by my notes when I bought the book from October years ago so if I missed the centerfold or it was overgraded, it wasn't intentional. Most people are generally happy with mine and October's grading so this one slipped through the cracks. What you said about the book was that it 'felt dry', Not having ever heard that before I chalked it up to a learning experience for me. Again, not my finest moment but also not a defining moment considering I've had 1000's of flawless transactions as well.

Thanks, Mike. I spoke to Chip today and he did mention that your package is going out asap. Any other details of the conversation are for Chip to share if he sees fit.

As it shouldn't. But awareness of mental illness was what I was most interested in. See? Everyone is different but we all get to the same place eventually.

Yeah, I'm going to consider someone respected because they have a big wallet or play basketball with me. I consider a respected boardie someone who spends quality time on the chat forum by adding value over a longish term, someone that I trust to do business with, someone that seems fairly reasonable in their replies, etc, etc. I love ya Roy but what's reasonable? I've said that the plain and simple data related to the failed transaction is all that should be considered whether he is added to the HOS. All this talk about about mental illness, others experiences with mental health or positive past transactions have zero to do with the current situation but there are those that felt the need to interject those tangents that created this sideshow. If anyone adds digressive aspects to a clear cut and dry simple economic equation they should expect to have those positions challenged. That's the nature of a discussion. By the metric used to show a history with positive transactions that same history can also be used to prove negative results. By the introduction of unverifiable mental health data to explain his behaviours that same data can be used by others to explain that those same potential emotional and poor coping mechanisms are displayed as obvious history of active deception whether be it by accident or design. And while I agree that the world is not black and white sometimes the simplist answer to the question is 1+1 is 2. Lawrence "the unrespected boardie" You're actually a respected boardie. The discussion evolved. But it seems that people are still stuck on page 1 of the discussion and not following it. Just like everyone else, I learned more as the discussion evolved. I started with discussion. I presented my understanding of the facts as they relate to my experiences. I concluded by agreeing that based on the criteria and the facts you guys should do what you need to do to put him in the HOS. If people simply want me to agree with everyone sooner I ask "what is the urgency?" We're all on the same page now. I function this way in everyday life as well. I try not to jump to conclusions without exhausting the evidence if there is no rush because I don't like being wrong. You should see me when I'm buying an appliance. It might take me 6 months to decide on a toaster oven. Does that make more sense to you now?

Really? How would name calling and cuss words go over in a court of law, or on the street? Why should it be different here? I'm starting to think that most people have no idea what Mental Illness is. Mental Illness is far reaching and casts a wide net. It's much better understood today than it used to be even recently but it still is not very well understood by the general public IMO. My wife and I both deal with it in our family life AND in her work so we spend a lot of time learning about it. Understand now THAT I'M NOT SAYING CHIP IS MENTALLY ILL AND THIS IS WHY THIS FIASCO HAPPENED. But I am saying that THIS IS WHY I REACTED THE WAY I DID at the start of the discussion. My business experiences with Chip (which went very well) coupled with what I know about mental illness, I wanted to make sure people weren't attacking someone with mental illness. If someone doesn't like me because of that then I'd just rather err on the side of caution and stay a jerkbutt in people's eyes.

I'm with my kids on a short trip and commenting when I get a chance, hence the not reading the links. My response is not an automatic response to protect someone by defending the little guy. My responses have come from a position of having a business relationship with Chip over several years that went pretty much flawlessly except for a few isolated incidents. Chip even took returns and wouldn't tell me about it until I found out. He ate the returns because he felt it was a part of the service he offered for me. Chip was also an eBay Power Seller for many years on eBay. You can't be a Power Seller unless you ship in a timely manner. One of the reasons I used Chip was because he was a Power Seller with lower fees than the average eBayer. So based on what I knew from personal experience, the accusations didn't actually ring true to me. Add in the fact that I know a lot about Mental Illness and that Chip was struggling with it, and you can understand why my responses were what they were. I'm not defending Chip. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. No matter what words I use (rap, shame, punish) it's all the same to me. My concern was that the conversation and the facts were laid out clearly before I could say I too felt he was guilty. I don't think Chip is a thief. He had plenty of opportunity to steal a lot of money and didn't. I do think Chip has a problem with procrastination (which can definitely be a symptom of depression - I know this first hand). I do think people need to put him in the HOS if they feel he needs to go there. As I have said, I will agree with whatever the majority decides. And I'll be honest, I'm probably a little too emotionally invested in this conversation now to think clearly.

Those little 'surprise, surprise' quips really are pointless. I had a near flawless experiences with Chip up until that point so I had no reason to assume the next run would be any different. The word 'exceedingly' is a little over the top considering most other shipments arrived in a timely manner. Steve, the only real drama was you getting ticked off because the book took so long to get there. You did eventually get the book, I offered a partial refund for the trouble IIRC and I was extremely apologetic and kept you informed every step of the way. Let's not make it sound like we were putting out fires all over the continent.

Roy is grasping at straws because he showed exceedingly poor judgment in recently aligning himself with Chip, and all the collateral problems that occurred as a result (e.g., an expensive book I bought from Roy wasn't mailed by Chip because he claimed that he 'didn't have the money to pay postage', so Roy had to send him the funds - then Chip proceeded to mail the book to someone else in a different city and it was temporarily lost), so maybe he feels that he's being judged guilty by association? Wouldn't mind hearing more about this particular story Why, because it makes good grist for the rumor mill? Or are you concerned about Chip's well being. Chip ran some auctions for me this past summer to sell my personal books. One of my Whiz books was sold and then we accepted a return because the buyer did not agree with the grade. It was cool because I promised to cover anybody's issues. I disagreed with the buyer, but whatever. So I put the book up for sale here on the chat forum. and Steve (sacentaur) bought it. When I asked Chip to ship it he said he would. I stressed that it was important to get it shipped in a timely fashion as Steve likes his books quick. I emailed Chip Steve's shipping address. A week (or something along those lines - I can't remember the exact time frame) goes by and Steve hasn't received his book. I reached out to Chip, who told me (I think, again memory disagrees) that eBay came through to get their fees or something along those lines and emptied his account and couldn't afford to ship the book. So I sent a small amount of money to cover the shipment. I was a little ticked at Chip over the lack of communication but considering he's shipped 100's of books for me with no issues he was allowed a little grace IMO and I ate crow from Steve for the screw up. This was also in the midst of all of this going down with his finances, eviction, etc. When it came time to finally ship the book Chip did a quick gmail search to find the shipping address (I assume he just gmail searched the Whiz title and issue number the way I would) and he mistakenly pulled the email from the return buyer and mistakenly shipped the book to the same person again. I lost my mess a little at Chip but anyhow, we managed to get the USPS to intercept the package and reroute it.

Roy is grasping at straws because he showed exceedingly poor judgment in recently aligning himself with Chip, and all the collateral problems that occurred as a result (e.g., an expensive book I bought from Roy wasn't mailed by Chip because he claimed that he 'didn't have the money to pay postage', so Roy had to send him the funds - then Chip proceeded to mail the book to someone else in a different city and it was temporarily lost), so maybe he feels that he's being judged guilty by association? Uncalled for. I agree but didn't want to be the 1st to say it.

It's lame if I'm using it to bolster my argument. It's not lame if it's meaning to show a little perspective that not everyone agrees. Yeah, I'm going to consider someone respected because they have a big wallet or play basketball with me. I consider a respected boardie someone who spends quality time on the chat forum by adding value over a longish term, someone that I trust to do business with, someone that seems fairly reasonable in their replies, etc, etc.

Roy is grasping at straws because he showed exceedingly poor judgment in recently aligning himself with Chip, and all the collateral problems that occurred as a result (e.g., an expensive book I bought from Roy wasn't mailed by Chip because he claimed that he 'didn't have the money to pay postage', so Roy had to send him the funds - then Chip proceeded to mail the book to someone else in a different city and it was temporarily lost), so maybe he feels that he's being judged guilty by association? Why does everything always turn personal when someone disagrees? Why are my straws being interjected in a situation about Chip? What straws am I grasping it? I offered to help him this past summer because I wanted to help and also offered to back up any problems that may arise from dealing with Chip. Out of the literally 100's (and possibly 1000's) of books Chip sold for me, statistically, a few screw ups are not out of the realm of reasonable in a high volume business. Your use of the word 'exceedingly' is subjective and just another attempt at trying to make your post look more right than mine. And it's weak, really. I have repeatedly said Chip needs to be dealt with according to the rules of the chat forum and am not objecting to his being put into HOS or PL. I do happen to believe he's suffering from some form of Mental Illness based on what I know about mental illness and my personal experiences with Chip that have happened over several years. Please tell me what straws I am grasping it so that I can self better myself and improve as a human.