RockMyAmadeus

I'm not disagreeing with you, even remotely. We don't need more rules and laws; we need fewer. This discussion is about the specific instance of suggesting that a buyer forfeits his right to return an item if he sends it to a professional appraiser. This discussion is not about protecting the buyer in any and every possible way. And the answer to your question about society is a firm "no", because not everyone has the same "conscience." You protect people from fraud...you do not protect people (adults) from themselves and their own ignorance, or they will never learn how to protect themselves.

I am going to give away my entire comic book collection. I will be giving them away to the person who writes, in 500 words or less, the best reason as to why they should be the recipient of my collection. My collection is worth at least $10,000. I love my collection, but I can no longer devote the time or energy to its maintenance as I have. This is not a raffle, not a drawing or a lottery. This is entirely merit-based and I will decide the winner in my sole and absolute discretion. There will be a $100 non refundable application fee. Applications are due by May 31, or until I receive 10,000 applications, whichever comes first. Brilliant, no?

Those who are overly concerned with things being "equal" and "fair" (as they see those terms, of course) will likely be upset. But provided there was no fraud involved, kudos to the buyer for scoring a deal and knowing what he/she was looking at. That knowledge has value. What if a buyer sees a short box of Heathcliff comic books in VG condition, all priced at $100 each...spends thousands of dollars for a box that is "worth" about $50?

Nobody has put any restrictions on sellers, or called for such. If the mixer is sold "as is", and the buyer did or could inspect it, and it breaks after a few weeks...oh well. That's the way it goes.

It does. But nobody made that argument in this discussion. However...the UCC does provide that those fees may be recovered from the seller, depending on context.

"As is" does not negate the right of the buyer to inspect the item prior to purchase or acceptance. "As is" only means the buyer has no recourse if something faulty happens or is discovered after the buyer has had the chance to inspect. "As is" isn't a magical phrase that allows anyone to sell anything, in any condition, without any responsibility whatsoever, despite what many would like. It does not allow a seller to misrepresent an item (deliberately or not), nor does it allow a seller to engage in fraud. In the phrase "as is", the operative word is "is", meaning as the item actually exists; it doesn't mean "as the seller wants or wishes it to be", and it certainly doesn't mean a buyer is prohibited from inspecting the item(s) or having it/them inspected upon receipt. Sellers are free to sell items "as is" any time they wish...provided the buyer has the right to inspect the item for themselves. No need for guarantees. Where "as is" is applicable to online sales is after the buyer receives the item(s), inspects it/them, and accepts them, either by notifying the seller, or after a reasonable amount of time has passed and the buyer has not notified the seller of defect. If you buy a car "as is" on eBay, for example...and you can...and the car arrives, you inspect it (or have it inspected), and you accept it, and two months later, you throw a rod and lose the engine, then you have no recourse. That's the way it goes. If, however, you receive the car, and there is a material defect which the seller did not note...you can reject it, regardless of it being sold "as is."

That's not accurate, for multiple reasons.

I use @BlowUpTheMoon It's a great app.

I've read the Morrison run, and I remember mostly nothing about it, other than Magneto was Xorn, or somesuch. Nothing particularly memorable. That said, the first appearance of dust is usually on the tops of bookshelves in my house. Sorry. I resisted for 2 weeks, and could do so no longer.

Except Star Wars #1-6 and GI Joe #3-5.... But it is interesting, as these are essentially just raw signed copies with a little hand made certificate..not even as high quality as the later DF books.

One should never feel bad about getting rid of Liefeld New Mutants, regardless of the price...

In effect, one is saying "buyer, regardless of your own level (or lack) of expertise, if you send something you buy from me to a professional to have it inspected, you give up your right to return it if something is discovered to be objectively wrong with it. If you can't figure it out on your own, too bad." And that's just nonsense.

To you perhaps... There’s a reason graded books demand more than raw. If a buyer were entitled to guaranteed results there would not be said premium. By logical inference, the market has already deemed the risk of the seller ends when a buyer submits to a third party. Up until that point, more or less, the seller is responsible for addressing greivances. And I’m not speaking purely from a seller’s perspective, I know this as a buyer...and factor in that risk accordingly. No. I'll say it one more time: grading is subjective. The presence (or absence) of restoration is objective. The risk involved is whether or not the grading company will agree with the seller as to the overall condition of the item, NOT whether or not it is restored. Someone much smarter than me can explain the economics of it, but your claim that "there's a reason graded books demand more than raw" is a blanket statement that is not only not always true, but does not therefore mean the buyer assumes the risk of objectively knowable facts about the item in question. That's great that you factor in that "risk" accordingly...but your factoring in unnecessary risk does not therefore mean others must do so also, nor does it imply anything of that nature. It's faulty reasoning. The one is unrelated to the other. It is simply untrue that a buyer forfeits his right of rejection/revocation of acceptance because he sends the item to a professional appraiser (in this case, CGC) to appraise whether or not the item is restored. It's beyond silly to even suggest it. A buyer is doing his due diligence by engaging in such an action. A seller does not get to say "too bad, so sad. I told you I didn't know if there was restoration. That's the risk you take!" if the buyer chooses to have the item independently appraised (in a timely manner, of course) and discovers it is restored. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

What?? Come on, nobody actually READS comic books! The horror!

But none of this is the issue. The issue is "does a buyer forfeit their right of rejection/revocation of acceptance if they send the book to a third party to have its condition appraised." The answer is a resounding "no", for obvious reasons. And you cannot sell "as is" when the buyer cannot inspect the item...or have it inspected...prior to purchase.

I don't think you are correct, for the reasons given, especially pertaining to the UCC. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", etc. Far too easy for people to just say "I don't know!", hide behind ignorance to force a sale, and effectively engage in unjust enrichment, which is obviously not legal. Ignorance, admitted or not, doesn't change the presence (or absence) of restoration. And if restoration exists, then the seller would be unjustly enriched by obtaining a higher price than they otherwise would have had the restoration been disclosed. It's not a warranty issue, in other words.

I don't. I do, however, think they are, in aggregate, much rarer than their 70s and even early 80s counterparts.

This has been a long standing issue for Sig Series and yes, many people ask creators to sign over problem spots, in the hopes that it gets overlooked (or, more properly, not considered as restoration.) There's definitely some fine lines in there. With creators and their sigs, there's a bit of leeway. If it's obvious that it looks like an attempt to cover something up...and it's not a creator's sig..it will probably be designated as restored. That would be restoration, since it's an obvious attempt to improve the apparent condition of the book. Technically, according to the absolute definition of "restoration", yes...but not according to the industry's definition. Color touch is an additive process...you're adding something to the book that wasn't there to begin with. Removing that addition...thus "restoring" the book to its original structure and materials...is not considered restoration, since it's not an attempt to improve the book's apparent condition, and almost always makes it look worse...but, it is now back to "all original." Yes, since you're dealing with all original material again. True, but remember the distinction: intent. "Trimming", as the industry understands it, is the attempt to remove small, damaged areas from the edges of the book, without appearing as if that's what you did. I cannot think of, and don't think there is, any situation where trimming would occur WITHOUT the intent being to improve the apparent condition of the book. But, cutting off a corner...an obvious destructive move...can be done for all sorts of reason, totally unrelated to the process of trimming or "restoration removal." The purpose of trimming is to hide something...a corner cut off yells it out loud to anyone looking. I agree with you completely, and think that restoration has gotten a very bad rap, precisely because of the acres of books that were fiddled with by unscrupulous sellers before the advent of CGC. If restoration had been an open, acceptable, always disclosed part of the hobby...I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. That Hulk #1 is a perfect example. In 7.5, with small dots of color touch, it's, what, $8-$10k? With those small dots scraped off...it's a 6.5, sure, but now it's $35-$40k? The market will figure it out eventually. Restoration has its place, just as with other forms of art.

Not at all.

It comes down to intent. And, in most cases, intent is pretty obvious to discern. A stick figure drawing isn't...normally...designed to improve the book's apparent condition. That's the key difference. Sometimes, it IS a judgment call as to whether what you're looking at is an attempt to improve the book's apparent condition or not. But those cases are very rare, and the vast majority of the time...as in the above examples, the JIM #107 being quite crude, but still clearly showing intent....it's obvious. That doesn't mean that the presence of restoration is subjective...it just means that, very occasionally, whether or not it IS restoration can be subjective.

Agreed. If I buy a book from one of my favorite dealers @FlyingDonut, and he says it's a 9.4, and it grades 9.0 at CGC...or it grades 9.8...that's the way it goes, because grading is subjective. But if I buy a book and it's restored...regardless of how or why it is discovered...I have the right to reject, within a reasonable amount of time, because the presence of restoration is not subjective.

You solicited other opinions, correct...? Not all opinions are created equally, and there are, in fact, bad opinions, some of which are harmless, and some of which are not. "As iron sharpens iron...", or so the saying goes. If no one challenges our opinions...and none of us is born perfect...how can we hope to learn?

On the matter of what constitutes "conformity" with respect to comic book (or other collectible) transactions on eBay...I don't believe that these matters have worked their way through the legal system, if they've even started, but it is my opinion...and I am not an attorney...that with respect to a seller's defense, they cannot plead ignorance as to an item they are selling and force a sale on an otherwise unwilling buyer. For example: if a seller offers an "Amazing Spiderman #136" for sale on eBay...it is, again, my opinion that that constitutes an offer for an item that is A. wholly, or nearly wholly, complete, with nothing substantially missing from the book, as produced, aside from obvious and normal wear and tear, and B. without "permanent" alteration to it of any kind, in an attempt to improve its apparent condition (aka "restoration.") "But, doesn't pressing alter its apparent condition?" - yes, but the key distinction there is that you're not adding to, or taking away, from the book. Pressing aside, a seller can't offer that ASM #136 if its Marvel Value Stamp is missing, without disclosure...because the book is no longer complete, and is missing a substantive part. What they are offering is PART of an ASM #136....granted, a good 97-98% of it....but it is still incomplete, and not as produced. That's why the whole "PGX X-Men #1" with the two pages missing issue was really not an issue for the buyer. Again, I don't have any case law (and maybe there is some) or statute to support this, this is just my opinion...but if a seller offers an "ASM #137" without qualification, it is a reasonable presumption that the issue is wholly, or nearly wholly, complete, with nothing missing that is not immediately obvious, and if anything IS missing...such as a clipped coupon, or a torn out page, or a centerfold, or the like...then you are no longer dealing with "Comic Book X #Y", but merely part of said comic, which then must be disclosed, or the buyer retains full right of rejection, regardless of the claims of any third party. By offering any specific comic for sale on the internet without qualification, it is my opinion that it is reasonable to presume that it is complete, or nearly so, and free of alteration, and if either is discovered by the buyer not to be the case, non-conformity has been established, and the buyer can reject the item without question.

I would never own a book like that in the 1st place. I only collect high grade books and most purchases are made from sellers I've dealt with for years. Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't answer the question. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone misses things. I have 9.8s that have restoration and are purple label. My question to you is, when you say you don't make claims about restoration, never have, and never will, does that include situations where you know, or discover, there is restoration?

That's from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code Not that Wikipedia is necessarily wrong, but it ought not be considered as a primary source, for anything. And the above is not applicable to the particular topic being discussed, because the rights of a buyer are very well established. There's nothing murky about this. Here's more information from the UCC: U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 6. BREACH, REPUDIATION AND EXCUSE › § 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part. "(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances. (2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it. (3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them." (emphasis added) Yes, specific state law may vary, but buyers are not expected to be experts in all fields, and have a right to have items inspected by those who are..."in any reasonable manner", according to the language of the UCC. As an explanation for why your "exclusion" does not work: a buyer can take a recently bought item to a convention where CGC is doing onsite grading. The buyer receives the book on the Wednesday before the convention, takes it to the convention, has it graded, discovers it is restored, and has the appraised book back in their hands by Sunday. They say nothing to you about having it graded by CGC (and they are not obligated to.) They merely inform you that they have discovered it is restored. According to your own terms, they would be able to return the book. Or, say they took the book to Richard Evans, of Bedrock City Comics, who is as much of an expert at detecting restoration as anybody in the industry. He informs the buyer that the book is restored. The buyer then informs you that they have discovered it is restored. It does not matter how the buyer finds out that it is restored...it only matters that it is. While it may not be reasonable for a buyer to submit a book under a Value tier, and wait 3-4 months for the grade, it's certainly reasonable to submit it under a standard or express tier...and the UCC provides that, while the buyer is responsible for the cost of said inspection, that cost may be shifted to the seller if the item does not conform to the terms of the contract (probably not applicable in your case, since you plead ignorance.) Nolo has more information on this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/buyers-performance-under-the-ucc.html While I appreciate your passionate responses, the fact is, you're giving people bad information, that could cause them unnecessary grief were they to follow your opinion. A transaction doesn't become "final" merely because a buyer chooses to get an independent, third party opinion as to the item's condition, regardless of your stance. That's quite clear in the UCC and other applicable commercial law. Your opinion stands in stark contrast with long established consumer protection rights, and anyone reading that and thinking they could do the same would cause themselves problems that are easily avoided. In other words: getting an expert opinion, in a reasonable time frame, is the right of the buyer, and does not void their ability to reject an item, or revoke acceptance of it.