VintageComics

In my opinion the main thing you did wrong was make it public before talking to John and trying to find a resolution about it. The 'white lies' aren't as serious IMO as the premature public outing. They are 'lies' but they weren't malicious. Both sides were acting in their own best interests, which were generally 'clean intentions'. John, making money and you helping out JD. Transparency would have been best but let's be honest, almost everyone lies about something. I have buyers constantly tell me how they don't want their wives to know about their purchases. As I've repeatedly said, I only took exception to outing your side of the story publicly without trying to work out your differences with John in private first. That's it. And I like all of the people involved. I like JD and SOT and I like you too, Swick. Even if you are a little high strung sometimes I do appreciate everything you do for everyone here.

That may have been the actual origin point of the disagreement between seller and buyer but the pulling out of torches early was still unacceptable. No ifs ands or buts about it. Who knows how it would have turned out? Maybe the potential buyer wouldn't have believed the seller that he was passing on info to the new owner. What I do I know is that a) the pitchforks were premature (Iraq anyone?) b) both sides were hiding something (remember, buyer approached seller without transparency 1st) c) transparency from all sides is best in every transaction. But I don't want to waste a day going to back and forth on the minutia. My primary concern from the very start of this topic was the lighting of torches and pulling of pitchforks without hearing both sides of the story 1st. It's unacceptable, even if the end justifies the means. Due process and all that...

Buy your own books. Be quick with the Know a good deal when you see it. Take a good deal when you know it. Pay immediately while you still can. Ask the same question of the same person three times and make sure the answers you get match. If there's a teeny tiny gap in the storyline, close it, or watch people leap through it. Don't care about comics or money so much that you get angry or do something you probably shouldn't in the heat of passion (or commerce). Or ... If someone agrees to your below-FMV offer for a hot book, jump on that *spoon* immediately instead of trying to sweeten your own pot by counter-offering 55% of GPA on a different book from the same seller. Yeah. I'm sorry Chris but in regards to your previous points, I disagree with how you portray some of them. I agree on being transparent and honest in every dealing but in this case, there was shenanigans going on from all sides, not just one. Everyone had a stake in it and played their stake for as much as they could. Swick was buying 'for a friend' and wasn't transparent that it was someone on ignore by John. Conclusions were made and pitchforks were drawn before anyone had heard from the seller. Regardless of what people believe (and whether they were right or half right is irrelevant). Conclusions were drawn with only one side of the story. Swick and JD looked a gift horse in the mouth. As far as changing the ignore function, it happens all the time. Sometimes you forget you have someone on ignore and you rethink why you have them on ignore and it may have nothing to do with money. It's unfair to make it seem like the seller was all at fault IMO. This was a group clusterpoop at the very best.

Of course, telling the truth is always the best policy but getting back to the last few pages this entire thing was a convoluted mess. Swick was bypassing John's ignore function to buy a book for JD who was on ignore. The basis of all the pitchforks, the book being actually sold, was tossed out as a fabrication. Pitchforks were drawn by many (I think you were on the side of the pitchforks most of the time). And then fences were mended once Greg came and set the record straight. It just shouldn't have gotten to this point in the first place.

Something else that is unique to these boards is how much emotional baggage each deal can bring, because lots of people know each other and for a long time. It makes lots of things get out of hand when they normally shouldn't.

It's not a shell game. It's entirely irrelevant (unless someone asks) as you are dealing with the person in front of you. But the art world is also VERY different than nearly anything else I can think of. Ultra exclusive, ultra knowledgeable, ultra thin market. It's very different when you're selling a one off SA cover grail (of which there is one) than when you are selling a NM #98 CGC 9.8 (of which there is 100,000). Art is a world to itself.

That's all I'm saying. Just lay it out plain and no one can ever call you out for being anything but. [/quote +462 Glad it was resolved but this was not 100% jumping the gun.] Your quotes are as bad as your nudie pics. Completely incomprehensible and useless.

One thing I will say, is that consignors don't normally volunteer when something is on consignment unless they really have to. There is some prestige and some control in representing the item as your own. For example, I buy books from dealers that have consignments often and as a buyer you have no idea what is owned by the house and what is on consignment unless you actually ask, or push comes to shove and you want a better deal than the house can offer and then they tell you that they have to ask the consignor. And so I can understand in the heat of the moment how interjecting a third party into the mix (like Greg) might make the deal look more complicated and less appealing to a potential buyer. But I agree that when push comes to shove, meaning it's time to let the buyer know that the book is no longer owned by yourself, then being transparent is the best way to do it. That way no wires can get crossed and nobody gets hurt or offended.

Sorry, that was a typo meant to say 'anything'

Sorry, I skimmed Greg's post and didn't recognize the bolded part as differing. Gotcha. Yeah, John should maybe have just relayed Greg's message as a middle man rather than make it sound like the book was his to offer. Fair point.

John was straight forward. People just didn't believe it. And now that this has come full circle I don't believe he did nothing wrong.

They were nudie pics of you. Which is awesome. They brought down my local network.

Imagine if you had a transaction where someone didn't believe you, they asked their friends what they should do and then everyone piled on you in a public thread while you were innocent the whole time? Did you tell him you were going to post about it publicly? Did you tell him that it sounded fishy and you felt like you were taken for a ride? You thought it was shady but you didn't know it was and that is where people need to be careful. Making public statements about what you 'think' when it disparages someone can backfire unless a person is sure. I realize you apologized but I think this is a good time to make lurkers and less experienced buyers / sellers aware of how to handle a dispute properly. The lecture isn't just for you. It's for the whomever it applies to because it happens repeatedly on here...and it's wrong to let it happen.

They were nudie pics of you.

They'd Hold On. I'm sure of it.

When something is for sale on the internet, there is always another potential buyer.

This is a perfect moment to drive home what should be obvious but often isn't. If there is a break down on communications, a disagreement or one side feels like they were taken for a ride, it is the responsibility of the two people to work it out amongst each other 1st, before anybody else is involved. That is the way mature problem solving happens and it's the most effective way. If you can't find a reasonable resolution, THEN after exhausting the 1st option, you involve other people as objective witnesses. Anything short of that is just immature, irresponsible and unfair. As Joeypost once said: Ready, Fire! Aim. Nobody would want the tables turned. It's not fun. This sort of situation happens once in a while and I think it's worth using it as a reminder of how to handle a negotiation properly. Glad the two of you guys could fix the problem.

Because true comic book fans like their aliens looking like humans. And wearing fetish clothing.

Wait, what's wrong with Wilson-Phillips?

Given how it looks, and the implications of how it looks, I think any person who wants to do business here would want to come and clear the air if there is something simple and honest behind what certainly looks bad. Does he post anywhere else but the sales threads? Sometimes he makes an effort in Comics General to tell people how dumb they are.

Don't give up. Just learn to be patient. A conversation has it's own life and you need to give it a little time to find it's way. Aren't those the lyrics to a Wilson-Phillips song? They've should be if they aren't already. Naw, just showing Swick that he doesn't need to be a spazz. ( ) People read posts and then process them. They don't always reply immediately.

Amateur.

Don't give up. Just learn to be patient. A conversation has it's own life and you need to give it a little time to find it's way.

All things are possible. Personally, I think if you have a problem with a board member you should try to resolve it with them privately first and if that problem remains unresolved then make it public rather than light pitchforks and then wait for an answer. That 's the proper way to resolve a problem.

what is House Of Cards?