wombat

Glad you are getting them done, but that seems like an odd policy. I would hope the rules were the same for everyone.

Who told you they could be CGCed?

the facilitator

I think they owe you all of the money back and whatever it is you had signed.

Who told you they could be CGCed?

Not that I buy a ton of stuff, but I always PM the seller and let him know everything arrived OK. The part that I tend to forget is leaving kudos.

Agreed. As long as the seller has a 9.8 for the buyer I see no issue with them offering a higher grade for more money. But you should still be required to come through with a 9.8 if that was what was agreed in the sale.

Honest question. If Adonis pre screened the book as a 9.8, and during the sig process it gets dinged down to a 9.6, should he be held accountable for the drop in grade? Assuming he guaranteed a 9.8 to begin with?

 

I've never taken part in these pre-sale events, so I'm unsure of the rules for all involved.

If the seller isn't responsible then he in fact has not guaranteed the 9.8. It can't be both.

On a general note, I find the asymmetry that permeates these sorts of situations interesting...buyers want refunds if grade is slightly lower than seller's estimate, but never pay the seller more if grade comes back higher than seller's estimate.

Because they agreed on a price. If the seller wants more for a higher grade than replace that copy with the agreed upon grade.

So how much is that book going for in a 9.6?

Clearly this can be done as BeachBum always guarantees 9.8s.

Posts seem to be disappearing.

If someone can't come up with a small down payment right away that should be a red flag to start with.

I'm going to have to heavily disagree with this statement. There are tons of reasons why someone would not be able to come up with one. The lack of one should not be construed as a red flag.

To each his own. But if someone can't come up with 5 or 10% as a down payment that would definitely be a red flag for me.

If someone can't come up with a small down payment right away that should be a red flag to start with.

I remember that thread. Very shady.

It would also be interesting to see if he makes any other purchases.

If he went on the PL how would he get off of it?

Better than sea monkeys I guess.

That's disappointing. Would have sucked to get them as a kid.

When I think of Russ Heath most I think of this awesome Roman Soldiers ad that ran for a bazillion years and countless comics.

 

 

Does anyone have those? Or the army soldeirs you always see the ad for?

This thread really is awesome.

I'm sleepy.

Telling them you are drunk is way cooler.

Let's say it is the first of November and I am negotiating with a buyer on payment terms.

1. I say payment is due in 15 days.

2. I say payment due on November 15th.

Would these both treat the 30 day grace period the same?

There is a very good chance I have had one too many beers for this conversation.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the difference between these:

1. I say payment is due in 3 days so that trumps the 30 day rule.

2. I say time payments start on day xx, if you miss that you get the 30 day rule.

Can the 30 days be trumped by conditions in the sales thread? If you say payment is due in 48 hours do you have to wait 30 days to nominate someone for the PL?

The point. You seem to have missed it.

 

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from?

They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels.

 

But that was my point. He could have just made his own "panel" and said it came from a comic book. No one would know the difference. And no one would be arguing if he "stole" it.

 

Not that I understand anything about pop art or whatever it is so maybe that doesn't work.

I suppose he could have done that. Just as Warhol could have made his own soup can labels and painted those. But no, that's not what the point was so it would not be the same thing.

But I assume Warhol took something everyone would recognize on purpose. Seems like the panel was something no one would specifically recognize.

Would that really have changed things? Would it not have sold for all that money if people realized it was never really a comic but something he made himself? Just to be clear, that is a serious question. I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it.

The point. You seem to have missed it.

 

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from?

They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels.

But that was my point. He could have just made his own "panel" and said it came from a comic book. No one would know the difference. And no one would be arguing if he "stole" it.

Not that I understand anything about pop art or whatever it is so maybe that doesn't work.