RockMyAmadeus

I understand this (and thank you for the explanation!) but...if we're going to get bogged down in the legal weeds of who said what, when, where, and how, at what point does "gentlemen's agreement" come into play? As it stands, in this "accept all returns, no matter what" online mercantile environment we're in, it would look like bad faith to deny at least a return to assess damage, which is what the seller did. I understand that the seller should not have accepted the return to preserve his rights, but the seller DID say that he would have to "see the book up close to respond to the damage you've mentioned." In other words: the seller put conditions on acceptance of the return, if not the return itself. It wasn't a return without conditions, and therefore not an unconditional return. Therefore, since it wasn't an unconditional return, I don't see how it could override the buyer's negligence in...and I know there's a legal term or phrase here that I'm forgetting..."proactively approving the condition upon receipt." And, in that case, I don't see how the seller has given up his right of refusal of a "full refund return" under these circumstances. I wonder if landlord/tenant law might apply here...that is, if a tenant accepts a place as it is, without informing the landlord of damage upon move-in, that the tenant may even be liable for those issues, because there's no way to prove who actually did the damage after a reasonable amount of "inspection time." Just wondering out loud, here, so it may not be applicable.

You've done the very thing you decry here, and far more vehemently, to others. What makes you imagine that you are, therefore, immune to it yourself? You did something that isn't common, to say the very least, but you don't seem to think you've done anything wrong, nor are you willing at all to recognize, much less admit, that you've caused any part of this issue. You've shown no contrition of any kind, no humility, no "I'm sorry I created this problem, how can we resolve it?" But you think criticism isn't fair...? Really...?

I find myself not agreeing that the actions of the seller...to accept a return...render the previous actions of the buyer moot, but I'm not a lawyer. I don't see how accepting a return...just a return, mind you, not a "no questions asked" return...rises to the same level or degree of negligence of a buyer who admits that he saw a problem, but then went ahead and told the seller everything was fine, and then changed his mind 6-7 days later. Can you explain precisely why such an action renders the negligence of the buyer moot? Is there some sort of implied warranty in accepting a return that I don't understand, here? And...can't sellers accept returns, but with conditions, implied or not? Granted, the seller allowed a return, but did he grant a "no questions asked or needed" return?

You were 12 when it came out. That really ought to be the end of that. And no, you are quite incorrect when you say it was "speculated on." When Spidey #300 came out, "nobody" cared about Venom. Venom didn't appear again...anywhere...for another year (#315-317), and then didn't appear AGAIN for another year after that (#330-333.) I think it's safe to say that a statistically negligible amount of people speculated on the book because of Venom. They didn't even speculate on it because of the art. how do I know this...? Look at the literature of the day. You see no mention of Venom, anywhere, in the trade publications (Overstreet, CPG, CBG) for nearly four years after he first appears. #299 just looks like "muscly Spidey." He doesn't appear anywhere else but ASM for a very long time. The character wasn't a big hit with the general public for quite some time. Long boxes...? Of a random anniversary issue of ASM, by a relatively unknown artist, in a title which had been in the doldrums for years prior...? No. Juvenile "memories".

Print run would have been perhaps 300-450k copies, which includes the newsstand copies, most of which have likely survived.

Yup.

It's important, in discussions like these, to identify what one means when using qualitative, rather than quantitative, terms like "scarce" or "rare." What are we comparing it to? Relative to #363, #361 has a print run of perhaps 50%, right out of the gate. Relative to #365, #361 is downright scarce. But that's relative. #361 is about as common as #360 and #359 as Direct copies, and substantially more common as newsstands, for the reasons stated above. But compared to other books of the era, #361 isn't a particularly special book in terms of overabundance of extant copies. X-Men from the same month, for example, would have had a print run perhaps 5 times greater than #361.

It wasn't, for reasons explained already. I'm happy to go over them at some length again if you'd like. Summarized version: instantly hot books...like this was....and books that sustain a reasonable aftermarket value for some time (6 months or more)...like this did...do NOT end hoarded. They end up being sold/traded/dispersed relatively quickly. The vast majority...90% plus...of people who would have bought multiple copies of this book in February/March of 1992 would have sold/traded those multiples by the summer of that year. In this case, ygogolak is correct. 50 copies is hardly "hoarded." It only seems comical if one lacks perspective.

No. They aren't on the same level at all, as explained exhaustively above. They're really not even in the same ballpark. It is the buyer's responsibility..obligation...to make sure that the item they receive is satisfactory, and to let the seller know immediately if it's not. That's part of the obligation of any transaction. That's how transactions work. It is NOT the seller's responsibility to "properly vet a return" before accepting one, or risk losing the right to refuse that return upon further examination. That's not a part of due diligence. It is, rather, a mark of good faith that a seller would accept a return without question. They aren't comparable. At all.

I don't agree with the idea that Spidey #300 was a speculated on issue from the get-go. Here's why: 1. McFarlane's art wasn't OMGWTFBBQMCFARLANE!!!!! until Hulk #340. Prior to that, he had been inked by others, notably Sanders III, and his linework was buried. Hulk #340 is really the first issue where the Todd art we all know and love was really showcased. Yes, Tec #578 several months earlier, but no one was reading Tec at the time. Readers only had about 3 months to notice before ASM #300 came out. 2. McLeod buried Todd's linework in #298 and #299. Just buried it. It was awful. 3. ASM #300 was the first issue of ASM Todd inked himself. 4. Venom? Who's Venom...? Venom didn't become ultra-popular until Carnage came out. Then, it became all about Venom, peaking with Letrhal Protector #1 in 1993. This was long, long, LONGGG before villains became popular in their own right. When #300 came out in Feb of 1988, I don't think a single Silver Age villain outside of Doctor Doom and Green Goblin was broken out in the OPG. 5. Many, many national retailers advertised copies of #300 for $1.50-$4 or so for several months after it came out. Likewise, the OPG updates had it move up moderately throughout 1988 and 1989. It took two+ years (June of 1990, and McSpidery #1) for those issues to go bonkers...#300 was $7.50 in the big guide that came out in April, and $30 by the June Update (I want to say #12...? #13?) Even still, it was about Todd, not Venom. 6. While the issue would have been ordered more heavily because it was an anniversary issue, again, this was before the era when such things caused substantial notice. So...I don't believe the reports that people "bought cases of this issue", especially...ESPECIALLY...since Spidey had been in doldrums for years and years and years prior to this, with the only bright spot after ASM #121-122 being...you guessed it!...#252! But that was all about the new costume, and, of course, #300 did away with that costume for a very, very, very long time (at least on Peter.) It just wouldn't have made any sense. The hot books of the time frame we're talking about were ASM #129, which was setting the comics world on fire, and Supes' 50th anniversary, and the Punisher Ltd Series, and Longshot, and anything else Art Adams touched, and Hulk #181. #300...? That book had to wait until 1993 to really break away from the pack. It just doesn't make much sense to have speculated on it, any more than it would have made sense to speculate on, say, Fantastic Four #319, or Cap #344, or Hulk #345, or Iron Man #225, or any of the other double sized issues of that timeframe.

Sure, but isn't that, like, 37 cents US...?

No issues on my part; the discussion is valid and valuable. I think any good seller would accept a return if a customer is unhappy, almost as a knee-jerk reaction these days. I know I do. But just because the return was accepted...at least initially...doesn't absolve the buyer. The issue isn't that the buyer didn't have time to look over the book...I think any seller wouldn't have a problem with that...it's that the buyer said to himself "hmmm...this looks like it might have a problem. Oh well, not important", and then said to his seller "All A-OK, thank you!"..and THEN had a problem with it, a week or so after the fact. "Sterling reputations" aside, if that was someone I didn't know, I, too, would be very suspicious, and probably decline the return. Not doing your due diligence is a killer. As Paddy_McS said, "I'd be going over a $1500 book with a fine tooth comb before leaving kudos."

Not that this thread is about this, but I do not enjoy my time here very much. I took almost 6 months off from posting at all. I was in a mood the last week, which is the only reason I've posted at all. I have refrained from posting many, many times because of the management of this board. As a result, a ton bunch of misinformation and misunderstanding is posted that is never corrected...by anyone, because most of the folks who would have done so have, like me, mostly moved on. The mr. hype his variants guy has gotten away with metaphorical and factual murder, and that's really a shame. Until and unless something drastically changes, that won't change, either.

Cool! I remember that set. I love those books. I won't tell you how many copies I have. (it's more than a short box)

Really...? Cool. I had no idea. Glad it went well. Do I have to look for a "Randall" to figure out which book it was?

Didn't blow past whatever it was that was said. Disagreed with it. Buyer, by not doing his due diligence, forfeited the right to "split the damages"...if he ever had such a right. Not only did he express satisfaction with the book, he admits to knowing there was a potential problem with the book upon receipt and STILL expressed satisfaction, in writing. Thus ends the seller's obligation. It would be one thing if the buyer showed ANY sort of contrition or humility about the situation...but he has not, and returned tit for tat. In that case, any good will he may have enjoyed is gone. By the way...even if there was a "split the money" scenario, the buyer would only be entitled to half the difference in value, if any, between the undamaged book and the damaged book, not half the value of the entire book (unless he wasn't refunded the original amount paid, of course.)

PS. I've spoken about this before, and I know it seems much less collegial, but it really is confusing for a lot of people when first names, rather than usernames, are used, if they're different. For example...I had no idea who Randall was...I figured out that it was ChiSoxFan, and I'm no dumb bunny...I think. I know it can seem a little less friendly, but it's a lot more confusing the other way, especially for casual readers.

I disagree entirely that Mxwll should be responsible for ANY of the cost of this situation. As he has correctly stated, the buyer didn't let him know there was a problem until after the buyer had the item OPENED for close to, if not at, a week, and, far more egregiously, previously declared his satisfaction with the item, even though he admits to having seen what could have been a problem when he first opened the package. Who knows what could have happened in the ensuing time? I certainly wouldn't take DavidtheDavid's word for it, especially given his history of inattention to detail, and in light of his own testimony. The lack of due diligence on the part of the buyer moves all responsibility for this squarely onto his lap. What should have happened is that, upon receipt, the book should have been fully examined, and the damage addressed, so that Mxwll could, if necessary and warranted, file a USPS claim. If that had happened, it should be an open and shut case, with no rancor on either side. That didn't happen, and any USPS investigator worth his or her salt, knowing this situation, would say "sorry, you acknowledged your satisfaction with the item upon receipt. Claim denied." But I do very much agree that neither party has risen to the level of the Probation list, much less the HOS. Deep breaths all around, and a renewed sense of decorum and professionalism, are what's necessary now.

Ah, so it is! Thank you! I wouldn't have guessed that. It looks like a magnifying glass over a piece of paper. I guess that stands for "review"? Anyways, thank you.

Sorry for the length of that...details and all. Formatting is substantially harder on this board than the old one.....and I don't see a preview function, like the old one had. A shame.

Let's break this down, shall we, and see if we can't cut through the vitriol and see what's really the case here. Here are comments you've made throughout discussion: This is a "tit for tat" response. In this post, you directly smear his character, intimating that he may have tried to purposely defraud you. But you say you're merely making "observations of (his) behavior, like (him) being erratic", and this is not a "pot-kettle moment"...? Really...? Implying that he's trying to defraud you is just you pointing out that he's being erratic...? Really....? You sure have an interesting perspective! How could he explain the damage, unless he caused it...? And if he caused it, then he is trying to defraud you, for which you have no evidence. How could he have "shipped a book that did not match the images", if the book matched the images at the time it was shipped? He requested a return because he was acting in good faith. He assumed you were, too. He reversed course because he thought about the circumstances, which are rather unnerving, and changed his mind. Not too hard to understand. How does he intend to make you whole? How do you intend to make him whole? Or are you not concerned with that? Compare this comment directly above with this comment here: To my eyes, it looks like you're "hypothesizing" reasons "to support your unsupported contentions", too. Also...I'm not quite sure you understand what the Hall of Shame is, or how it works. The Hall of Shame is intended for egregious, obvious acts of deception or fraud, or repeated acts of irresponsibility demonstrating contempt and disregard for others. A single bad transaction, wherein both parties are making, or appear to be making, good faith efforts at resolution, regardless of the level of professionalism, or its lack, involved, is almost never "HOS material." That's perspective that is out of alignment with reality. As well, you may not be aware of this, but suggesting that the seller is working to have "both the book and the money" is quite the character attack. At no point, again to my eyes, does it appear that Mxwell Smrt is attempting to take back the book AND keep your money in the process. That would be fraud. He has certainly suggested that you cover the difference for the damage he believes you did...and you wouldn't be the first person to inadvertently damage an item, and then claim "it was already like that" upon discovering you'd damaged it...but at no point is it at all the case that Mxwell Smrt is attempting to get both the book back and the entire amount you paid, as well. That's "calling him a con artist", even if only "hypothesized." Those are unprofessional, irresponsible comments to make, and just as much of a character attack as you claim is being made against you. But the most damaging piece of evidence against you...and for which you should, at the very least, be quite a bit more gracious in response...is that you received the book and were satisfied with its condition. That some have suggested that you not doing your due diligence is somehow equivalent to the seller accepting the return is, again, out of perspective. The seller was being gracious. You stated, with no ambiguity, that you were satisfied with the condition of the book upon receipt. In fact, here's what you said: Either you 1) didn't do your due diligence, or 2) damaged the book, by accident or not, and want to pass responsibility to the seller. The first is irresponsible, the second is fraud. Either way, the fact that you expressed satisfaction with the item without doing your due diligence means that you should, at a minimum, understand the seller's position, and be much more gracious than you have been. You sent the PM expressing your satisfaction in the late night hours of June 16...and then didn't send the PM with the complaint until June 23...a full 6-7 days later. But here's where you do the most damage to your case: So, by your own testimony, you saw the damage that you are now claiming is the reason for the return (and FULL refund), but you STILL said "Gorgeous book. Really happy to have that in my hands", AND you left kudos for him. In other words...you saw what might be damage when you first opened the package...didn't inspect it carefully at that time...expressed your satisfaction with the book...then, 6-7 days later, you decide to look at it more closely and THEN you had a problem with it...? Houston...? We certainly do have a problem. When you expressed satisfaction, you told the seller that you accepted the book in the condition it was in. This isn't like missed restoration, or something that would take a skilled grader to assess. You freely admit that you saw an issue, but couldn't bother with examining it further at the time. Not only did you implicitly accept the book when you did that, but you explicitly did so, as well. You really don't have much ground to stand on, here. As an aside, this comment from Mxwll is also telling: See that? Mxwll demonstrates good faith here. He doesn't presume you damaged the book at first. He acknowledges that he could have missed something, that it could have been his responsibility, even if he doesn't believe it. That's good faith at work. You, on that other hand, have not done likewise. You've started a retaliatory "Probation List nomination" against Mxwell Smrt, instead of letting the issue be worked out here, cluttering up the boards with unnecessary threads. That's unprofessional and churlish. You opened a Paypal dispute before the seller even received the book back is also unprofessional and churlish. And, most tellingly, you, yourself, have been guilty of drawing erroneous conclusions, rushing to judgment, and character attacks against others on this board, people you haven't even been involved in transactions with, the very thing you accuse Mxwell Smrt of doing to you. You've been careless, sloppy, irresponsible, and callous in your judgment of others, and now it's come back upon you. I daresay you're reaping what you've sown. I don't think anyone is saying that Mxwell Smrt's reaction has been professional, either. It hasn't been. He's angry, and has said things he shouldn't have said. He shouldn't have accused you of damaging the book without proof, and his reaction has been, admittedly, over the top. Granted. But it was your responsibility, as the buyer, to inspect the item and let the seller know immediately if there was a problem. You didn't do that. You expressed your satisfaction. And, worse, you expressed your satisfaction even after you admittedly noticed something wasn't quite right. Therefore, the onus is on you to not respond in kind and escalate the situation. You aren't both on the same moral field, equally responsible. You bore the greater responsibility, because you didn't do your due diligence....if, indeed, that's what happened. Let's go back to your original comment: I've very carefully examined all the comments posted in this thread, PMs and all. I don't see where Mxwll called you a "liar"; though he did accuse you of lying. Bit of a linguistic difference, but that may be picking nits, granted. At no point did he call you a "con artists" (sic) At no point did he call you a "BS artists" (sic) At no point did he say you were "full of BS" (though he did say you were "FOS" a couple of times, and that he was calling you out on your BS.) Minor quibbles...? Maybe. But it demonstrates that you play fast and loose with the details. Details, DavidtheDavid, matter. You have been sloppy, irresponsible, and cavalier about the details. If you can't be precise about the small, meaningless details, how can anyone expect you to be precise about the important ones...like a back corner crease that should have been noted upon receipt? Let's look at this comment: The seller makes a good faith effort to accept a return for a dissatisfied customer, then changes his mind after thinking about it, and you use it against him as proof that he "accepted your new information"...? Classy. If you had done your due diligence, you wouldn't have put the seller in this position in the first place. Then, you state in your Paypal claim that there has been "no good will" on Mxwll's part, which, as I demonstrated above, isn't at all true. You conveniently leave out that you received the book...saw it might have issues...but then expressed satisfaction anyways...and then waited another 6-7 days to examine the book more carefully to THEN see that it had problems...if, in fact, that's what really happened. In other words, you lied to Paypal. You said the book "arrived damaged" (which it clearly did) but you decided it didn't bother you at that time. It was only after you saw HOW damaged it was that you decided there was a problem....all of which you conveniently left out of your complaint to Paypal. Sloppy, if not deceitful. But, then, that's typical of my experience with you, and I suspect others, as well. And you haven't even apologized for your lack of due diligence, or shown any sort of contrition about it. How powerful would "I'm sorry I missed it. I should have looked more closely when I received it. Is there anything you're wiling to do?" be to resolving this amicably? Mxwll was, at least at first, willing to admit he might have missed something, and said so. You actually did miss something, a major, material something, but it's beneath you to even say sorry...? Or would you rather not do that, because it is an admission of culpability...? As to the claim others have made, that "both sides made mistakes"...I'd sure like to know what mistake the seller made that would have made him liable for damages in this situation? We know the mistake the buyer made: he neglected to do his due diligence. Failing to do your due diligence has cost countless litigants countless dollars over countless years. But what mistake did the seller make that would make him...in any way...liable to be "equally at fault"...? Being angry and calling names and rushing to judgment are mistakes, no doubt...but not mistakes that would result in the seller bearing any responsibility for the damages. It could be...if one wasn't up on their reading comprehension. What Mxwll said was "and if by chance YOU (emphasis mine) lose the dispute, well...I guess we'll see." That doesn't say "and if by chance *I* lose the dispute", in which case, you'd have a valid claim of a veiled threat. But he didn't say that. He said YOU. If YOU lose the dispute, we'll see what happens. What would he possibly do to you if YOU lose the dispute...? Gloat...? Succeed in getting you put on the (essentially ineffective) Probation list...? If you lose, HE WINS. What threat would there be from him at that point...? Sloppy. Details matter. True words, there. Presuming that both the seller and the buyer are telling the truth, or believe they are telling the truth, it looks like the book was simply damaged in transit. Whether the box itself was damaged or not is irrelevant. This kind of damage is common, and happens all the time, as others have said. But the party that bears responsibility in this for failing to do his due diligence is the buyer. You don't get to say you're satisfied, and THEN change your mind, especially when you notice cause for concern from the outset. That's not how it works. If you don't have time to check, the answer is very simple: don't say anything until you do, and thoroughly examine it within a reasonable period of time. But DO NOT say anything, especially not "all good!", until you do your due diligence. And you certainly don't leave kudos on a public message board until then.

Yeah, that sure sounds typical across the country. I have 20-30 #361s, but far, far too many #362s and #363s...10 packs worth. Ugh. Maybe now they'll finally be movable!

Character...or its lack...is always revealed in testing. Some people go to great lengths to appear honest, decent, and fair-minded, but when the fire comes, they do not stand. Want to learn who someone really is...? Give little weight to their words, much weight to their actions, and pay close attention to how they treat people they do not like.

I imagine speculation orders on this one were rather light, based on that 1/6th page cover shot in #359. Sharp eyed readers. Stupid me, I bought tons of #358...cuz, you know...gimmicks.

That's like asking "how long should I expect my wife to be in labor?" or "how long will the contractor take to build my house?" It's done when you see the baby, and can move into the house. Every book is unique, and requires...even if slightly...different approaches to each. People don't understand this. And some require a third, or a fourth, or a fifth...me, I err on the side of gentle, always. It's like getting a haircut...you can always cut off more if you need to, but you can never UNcut if you've cut too much. It is a balancing act between not enough and too much. Every single book. Some people opt for force: almost always with bad results. I think you're saying that 15 minutes isn't long enough, right? If so, definitely, it's not. I think people aren't thinking the process through because they've never done it, and have no idea what the process...and it is a PROCESS...entails. The videos you see online...? Especially the "terrorista" one from 10 years ago? No. Cute, but no.