RockMyAmadeus

solid.

The difference. For now.

Sales tax works based on the buyer's residence...not the seller's. If I buy something outside of CA...unless I buy it for the purpose of reselling it...I am required, by law, to report that and pay MY state and local sales tax to CA. And, believe it or not, there ARE states who don't want to raise their sales tax, regardless of the money boon(doggle) that other states have contrived.

So the question becomes "does that collection and remittance have ANY impact on sellers in ANY way?" If the answer is "no"...fine. But what if the answer is yes? Who bears the ultimate responsibility for reporting and paying sales tax? Who will the states go after if they don't get their sales tax? eBay or the seller? (Answer: the seller.) What if eBay screws it up, as they are prone to do? The fact that sellers now need to keep this in the back of their minds at all is an additional burden. "eBay is just a venue"....remember when that quaint old idea was still in force...?

And that's the problem. The Supreme Court ruling and everyone agreed, "small business won't be affected." But what is "small business"? $10,000 in gross sales is nothing. That's what a smallish seller might get in a weekend at a decent convention. You can sell a handful of books and gross $10,000. It's a literal drop in the bucket. According to the Small Business Administration, you're a "small business" if you have gross receipts at or below a certain threshold, depending on the industry, and at or below a certain number of employees. The minimum for all industries is $750,000 and 100 employees. You have less than that, in any industry, you're a small business. For argument's sake, if you did $500,000 in gross sales, you could theoretically have done $10,000 of business in each and every state. And you're almost certainly going to pass thresholds in at least some of the states, if they even have them. Does that mean Washington state isn't going to try to come after their sales tax for those in other states who make sales to their residents...? I highly doubt it. "Our records show that you had $7,834 in sales to the residents of Washington for the year 2019, and you owe the state $653 in sales tax. Pay up." Repeat for all other states that collect sales tax. But eBay says they'll take care of all of that for you...? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

I believe your numbers for ASM #300 and NM #98 are reversed...but the point still stands. NM #98 was ordered more heavily than ASM #300, by about 20-30%. ASM #300 was more heavily ordered than #298 and #299...and #301, 302, 303, etc....but not by much. And Spidey wasn't selling all that great in those late '87/early '88 days. But yes, Spawn #1 was printed in huge numbers, and probably 90% of those books remain "in high grade" to this day, having been heavily speculated. I guess people didn't learn their lesson two years earlier.

Quite a few 9.9s and even 10s sold in the early days (pre-2010) for modest prices...before it became obvious that CGC artificially holds back those grades, making them far, far rarer than they actually should be, given the numbers. The number of 9.9s should not be a mere 1% of the number of 9.8s, when the number of 9.6s is roughly 50% the number of 9.8s.

This is stupid, and will only end up damaging everyone. The Supreme Court made a very poor decision supporting SD. It is yet another case of the legal system colluding with big business to drive out competition. Amazon has to pay sales tax in SD, even if it doesn't have a physical presence? No problem; Amazon has the infrastructure built in to do that. Require online sellers who do this part time from their homes to pay sales tax to dozens of other states, making a regulatory burden that most will either ignore or, if enforced, simply choose to stop selling to those states...? Another brilliant move. I already pay sales tax to the state of California, which benefits me nothing, is a regulatory burden, and costs me sales AND the portion of processing charges that sales tax costs me which the state does not reimburse. I will not be paying sales tax to Washington, SD, Maryland, or any other state.

Torpedo Comics in Vegas has a nice selection of back issues, but they are all very, very aggressively priced. They have raw books priced at CGC 9.8 prices. Their books, they can do what they want with them...but if you're going to ask 9.8 prices, you should have them in 9.8 slabs. The selection is stellar...full runs of 80s and 90s books...but they are all very, very aggressively priced, and negotiating is a hassle. There's a british/australian man who works there who has negotiating ability, and makes things uncomfortable for prospective buyers...subtly insinuating that the buyer is trying to take advantage of them. I would recommend NOT dealing with him, if at all possible. Otherwise, store personnel were polite, the store is well designed, and the selection is amazing, relative to what exists now... but you WILL pay for it.

That it a bit of a cheap snipe appreciate if you could give 1 or 2 examples of the described processes which will result in damages or reversion of flaws I don't think your understanding of the phrase "cheap snipe" is quite accurate. An example is the use of a board in the center of the book. Do not do this. Ever.

Seal assault. Not seal rape. Difference.

Yay, unnecessary hostility and aggression because someone didn't understand what someone else said, and assumed an inaccurate interpretation without bothering to ask what was meant first. Isn't the internet wonderful? There was nothing inaccurate about what I said. And if you were unclear, you should have asked before assuming. You are the type of person which makes 50 page contracts necessary. The "page and a half" wasn't for you, but rather to head off those who don't take the time to read and comprehend and think there was actually something demeaning about CGC in anything I said. Like I said: 50 page contracts.

Let's diagram your error, as there will undoubtedly be people who don't read beyond the headline, and will take your misunderstanding and run with it. Here's what I said: "It is a sad indictment of our hobby that further destruction to a book...no matter how well done, no matter how minimal...results in books being immensely more valuable, in many cases." That phrase in the middle..."no matter how well done, no matter how minimal" (emphasis added)...was exemplified by the next comment I made: "A Hulk #1 7.5 with a small amount of color touch is a $10,000 book...at most...while a 6.5 with the CT removed is a $35,000 book." In other words, I used the work done by Matt Nelson/CCS (NOT CGC, by the way) as an example of "well done" and "minimal" destruction. Further, in this thread, you stated that Matt refused to do the work on your TTA #27, as it would produce unsatisfactory results, regardless of the technical grade and blue label. This is the mark of professionalism: knowing the limits of what can be done, and balancing that against what should be done. I am ACKNOWLEDGING and PRAISING both the work of CCS AND Matt's ethics in drawing a line about what he won't do. Then, I gave a counterexample to illustrate the problem: "the wide gulf between restored and unrestored books will continue to fuel these decisions, and there will be...and are..."chop shops" that will butcher books, so long as they can get the coveted blue label." Those "chop shops"...which are NOT CCS, as should have been clear from my original post....WILL NOT and DO NOT respect the limits of what should be done, contrary to the practice of Matt Nelson/CCS, and will produce monstrosities that nevertheless will be rewarded in the marketplace...hence my comments in the first place. Hopefully, with that clarification, we can forego further assumptions about who is demeaning whom. By the way...the Hulk #1 is not a "bad example", but a perfect one: despite the very well done restoration removal, the fact is, the book DID go down in grade...or, rather, "apparent" grade...and it is inarguable that *some* measure of further destruction is necessary to "unrestore" just about any book, which was my point.

I've never subscribed to the "if you don't have anything nice" model of thought so why does the poll not have a "no" option? The poll was changed. It is not the original poll, nor the original choices.

To answer your question, nothing. The issue is the reason why that profit exists in the first place: the vast gulf in value between books even with minimal restoration and unrestored books in the same or lesser condition. The "restorers" didn't create this mess. The market, which irrationally punishes restoration far beyond what is reasonable, did.

You've failed to comprehend what I said. Perhaps you need some Soothing Newb Relief™ @Jeffro.

It is a sad indictment of our hobby that further destruction to a book...no matter how well done, no matter how minimal...results in books being immensely more valuable, in many cases. A Hulk #1 7.5 with a small amount of color touch is a $10,000 book...at most...while a 6.5 with the CT removed is a $35,000 book. I hate restoration as much as the next guy...but the wide gulf between restored and unrestored books will continue to fuel these decisions, and there will be...and are..."chop shops" that will butcher books, so long as they can get the coveted blue label. Sigh.

What a bunch of lying scumbags. "Banned"...? "Recalled"...? "Risque"...? "Seal Rape Cover"...? None of that is true. Sigh.

My favorite part about the Bronze age is that it's the time when buyers really started to become conscious of condition...as a result, you can find a reasonable amount of those books available in 9.8. Not a ton...lots of Bronze books with 1-10 9.8s on the census only....but a fun bunch of sets to build, and most importantly, complete. Want to build a complete 9.8 set of Daredevil #1-100? Yeah, ok. Good luck with that. Want to build a complete 9.8 set of Ms. Marvel? Totally doable. Or Rom? X-Men #94-up? Star Wars? DC Comics Presents? Rogers' Detectives? Maybe a little spendy, but still doable.

Worthless junk. I'll buy it for cover price.

I imagine they're mostly 30 centers....

There's someone who utterly fails to understand how the OA market works....

Yeah, I've been consumed with life. Anyone else want to do the work, they're more than welcome to. I will try again in the new year.

I'm not as certain that it's completely unintentional, though I'll admit it's possible. Either way, all those infamous innuendo covers sell, well... because perverts. Of course, I never understood why "lingerie panels" were always noted by OSPG with Golden Age books, but... because perverts. Like people never saw a Sears catalog before 1987... I don't make the market, I just live in it. But I'll agree that while Alf 48 is a cuiriosity, it's not really a key. Yeah, this is pretty much my sentiment. Same with all the "bondage" covers. Batman #129 is a "bondage" cover...? Really...? ANY picture of ANYONE tied up is a "bondage" cover, with what that implies....? Ok, sure, books like Wonder Woman #205 are obvious innuendos...but even uber famous Brenda Starr #14 (#2) is a bondage cover...?Just because there's a woman handcuffed to a radiator in (admittedly) torn clothes...? It's a radiator. What's the sexiness of being handcuffed to a radiator...? I think SOME of those innuendo covers were legit...maybe the "Beat Off" cover...but things like The Rifleman #10 and the like aren't actually innuendos. Fun, sure....but I don't think anyone took that picture....in 1958....and meant to imply what it implies. I'm no anthropologist, but I suspect comic book editors at Dell weren't familiar with slang for erections and the suggestive angle of the photo. Could be wrong...could be...but I don't think I am. Perverts.

Fixed, because 48 is not 50. And emphasized, because the first part is very accurate. Agreed. And only because perverts decided Alf was trying to violate the seal. He's not. The seal's just trying to get away. It's an awkward pose, to be sure, but I highly, seriously doubt that Dave Manak drew some sort of sexual innuendo in that cover. Plus, without getting too graphic...the position is completely wrong, assuming Alf with anthropomorphic anatomy.