RockMyAmadeus

This has not a single thing with to do with any particular member. I have spoken for years on this board against using Paypal personal for merchandise, so the claim that this has anything to do with a specific member would not be accurate. Stealing is stealing, is it not? Is one form of stealing ok, but another is not? That's what it boils down to.

I would like to propose a new rule. According to the terms of this sales forum, people are not allowed to use Paypal Personal to pay for merchandise, as stated here: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472&gonew=1#UNREAD ...then those who deliberately choose to use Paypal personal for merchandise give up their right to place anyone who then doesn't ship said merchandise on the Probation list. Here is my reasoning: PP isn't appropriate for merchandise. It is against Paypal's TOS. Fees are how Paypal provides this service. Avoiding those fees is, therefore, stealing from Paypal. So...if one steals from Paypal, why should they then be able to turn around and claim they, too, were stolen from? I suspect, if the books were to be opened, the amount of fees stolen from Paypal by using Personal payments for merchandise or services would dwarf the amount of money lost by those who simply never shipped. Yes, I understand that some people view Paypal as "an evil corporation, that doesn't deserve their fees." But the reality is, if you feel that way, you should avoid Paypal entirely, rather than stealing from them. And if you steal from Paypal...why should you then have the right to turn around and claim "Foul!" on someone else? Seems reasonable to me. Thoughts?

$10 by late May? That would be quite a shocking price (equivalent to a $2.95 cover price book being $100 in two months today.) Yes, this is likely true. The movie happened in enough time that unsold returns were still waiting to be processed, and quickly vacuumed back out into the marketplace. The first "off the shelf" books to go up in price were ASM #121 and #122, in 1973. That was the first time in comics history that there became a fairly instantaneous back issue demand for a brand new book. They took the comics world by surprise. Even Conan #1 wasn't as sought after as quickly as those two. Then, there was Shazam #1, and then Howard the Duck #1....both victims of "questionable" distribution methods...and others before SW #1.

The are 346 9.8s of all flavors of Star Wars #1. There are 373 Spectacular Spiderman #1s. There are 150 Nova #1s. There are 99 Ms. Marvel #1s, although Ms. Marvel is a late player to the game. There are 210 X-Men #121s. (And this all assumes no duplication!) I don't know if that is "far, far more 9.8 copies than every other bona fide BA key", but Star Wars #1 has been the most important book of 1977 since the beginning. Of course, it's going to have more higher grade copies than most....but it still doesn't beat PPSS #1. It probably will...but a lot of the other "bona fide Bronze Age keys" from this era still aren't worth slabbing.

This crazy book has always suffered from a massive amount of misinformation, some of it still being repeated in this thread. Here are the facts: Star Wars #1 came out weeks to months before the movie. Cover date is July, 1977. In those days, both Marvel and DC publication (that is, "this book is now for sale") dates ran three (not two) months ahead of cover dates (a situation that would not change until late 1988 for DC, and late 1989 for Marvel...ever wonder why all Marvels in late 1989 have "MID" copies, when they weren't bi-weekly? And just what is "Holiday" and "Winter" issues of DC?), meaning that this would put the publication of the book in April of 1977. Star Wars #4....the first issue for which the US Copyright office has searchable, online information, was published on June 14, 1977: That is the entry, exactly as it appears. The USCO obviously has the other books' information, but it is not in its online database. We know from direct experience and testimony that the publication dates for the USCO are almost always the same as the release/for sale dates, within the week, which would (generally) put the #1 as being published/on sale in March. Yes, I understand that some sites say "Ship date March 8, on sale date April 12", but this has no meaning. Ship date from where? Sparta? Marvel comics were printed at Sparta in 1977, as World Color printed the vast majority of all magazines at that point. Everything was allocated at World Color's massive breakdown warehouse, and then shipped directly to the ~500 ID wholesalers around the country, based on their orders. Since comics were so low on the pole for these ID wholesalers, yes, it sometimes took a couple of weeks to get comics, once printed, to the actual newsstand to sell them (which is why the DM became such a roaring success so quickly...timeliness.) But...it didn't take five weeks for the books to be shipped from World Color's breakdown warehouse and then placed on the newsstand. As Lazyboy alluded to, this was 1977, not 2007, and distribution still worked "the old way." There was no such thing as an "on the street date" that was official until well into the 1980's, unless we're talking about the DM, and in 1977, the DM was still embryonic, and had practically zero influence on the larger distribution system...yet. That doesn't mean, however, that the books didn't appear at different times, in different regions, throughout the US. That said, it is safe to say that #1 appeared on the stands "sometime in late March/early April of 1977", well in advance of the film's release, and #2 came out (and perhaps #3 as well) before the film as well. Star Wars the movie wasn't supposed to be a hit; production delays pushed the release date back from its original December, 1976 release to May. Studio execs feared they had a flop on their hands. The Fox board watched a rough cut of the film...and their reaction was "meh." The first test audience...their reaction was positive, but not earth shattering. In fact, producer Gary Kurtz has a survey card that said "“This is the worst film I’ve ever seen since Godzilla versus the Smog Monster.”" Why is this important? Because the Star Wars COMIC wasn't a hit, either...at first. People may retroactively "remember" things differently, but the facts are still the facts. In 1977, the big thing in comics was "#1." #1 this, and #1 that. As long as it was "#1!!!", it was a big seller. #2, and on? Forget it. But that #1 was a surefire hit, which is why you see more concentrations of #1s from both Marvel and DC from 1976 to 1979 than almost any other period of time in their history, until the 1990's. It was #1 mania, and it was fueled by Shazam, and Howard the Duck, and all sorts of #1s that had taken the hobby by storm. In that environment came Star Wars #1. So, yes, it was going to have a "larger than average" print run....but average for a #1, like Logan's Run or Ms. Marvel, as Mike stated. Sidenote: Star Wars #1 35s weren't produced in any higher or lower numbers than the rest of the 35s, according to Sol Brodsky, and had no bearing on the print run of the regular copies. These were test books, printed for test purposes, distributed to test cities, completely separate and apart from the regular print runs of these titles. It would have made absolutely zero sense whatsoever to not have a CONTROL on the test books, and that control was the same print run for all of them. Having them be some sort of percentage of print run, making every issue have a different number printed, would have made the test results much harder to figure out. And as rjrjr stated, the reason Star Wars #1 35 is more common today is because it was the only one recognized for decades, and it was recognized almost immediately. The amount of 35 cent variants extant does tell you something about the print run of the 30 cent version, and that is: absolutely nothing whatsoever. Was Star Wars #1 a "hit" from the very first day? Hard to say. It was a new #1...but there were lots of new #1s, and new #1s were in the spotlight in those days. So, as a new #1, it certainly would have gotten a share of that. Was it a hit because of the movie? No, clearly, not immediately, because it came out weeks to a couple of months BEFORE the film came out. Was it a hit AFTER the movie came out? Oh yes, without a doubt, a monster, monster hit. As rjrjr said, it was reprinted immediately 4 times, and then reprinted constantly after that in multiple formats for years. But was it a "hit" because it was "Star Wars" on, say, May 3rd, 1977....? All evidence says "not really." And that means that the print run for the first printing, regular copies...even though they were hoarded and saved, just like the rest of the #1s of that era....weren't hoarded and saved in any greater numbers initially (that is, in any numbers higher than what was already being done at the time with other books.) I would also be surprised if someone was able to order 500 copies from a "comic book distributor." At the time, pretty much the only one doing Direct market comic book distribution was Phil Seuling and a tiny handful of others, and REMEMBER: there is no Direct Market version of #1, but there IS a DM version of #2-up (boy, would it be handy to have the old STL web pages back again. ) Marvel was still in its cover marking test phase at this time, testing the fat diamonds to see if the DM would work. This helps: http://www.ebay.com/gds/How-to-tell-if-your-Star-Wars-Comics-are-REPRINTS-/10000000178300524/g.html But even it has flawed information (such as comic shops not getting the Direct Market test copies. They did. The Fat Diamonds weren't solely produced for Whitman, though Whitman was far and away the largest purchaser of them. He also makes no mention of the books marked "reprint" on the first page near the indicia.) 500 copies for one customer of one comic book distributor would have been quite substantial, EXCEPT FOR Western (Whitman), which was ordering its own scads of books for its three packs. It is vital to point out that not a single Whitman 3-pack of Star Wars is known to have contained a regular, first printing #1. DM #2-up? Yes. Reprints? Oh yes. But #1? Nope, not a single one. Western didn't order any (and they had a habit of not ordering #1s anyway.) There IS some sort of hybrid test-thingie, but that is known by only 2 or maybe 3 copies, which has a fat diamond and a UPC code, which would make it like the regular Whitman/DM copies of #2-4, but again...there are only 2-3 known, which means it certainly didn't get distributed. So, it is much more likely that fuzzy memory is once again at play, and they were ordered from the usual ID wholesale system. Finally, remember: Don't believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear, including what I write. Find out for yourself. A lot of stuff is pulled straight out of thin air, and "retconned", due to fuzzy memory, into existence, that never happened. Just because someone is loud and brusque doesn't mean they are correct. Research, question, analyze, challenge.

X-Men #90. (I'm not here, though.)

I find it even more amazing that the books are already re-listed when the seller doesn't even have them back yet... Why are you blasting me? I've been nothing but amendable to you since the start. Yes I relisted them. Had to, your dispute put me in a financial bind and I need to re-sell them quick. It's not as if they've already been re-sold. It is a 7 day auction ending next week. Timed so that I can inspect and send them out to the new buyer within the listed time period, unless you plan to damage me further by dragging your feet on the return. And for the record, I lowered the grade on the #1. There we go with the not reading the description again. If you have anything else to say. The best way to reach me is directly, please do so if you have anything else to say Why would you relist them without having them in hand to make sure they're in the condition you say they are? What if they are damaged in transit? What if they don't show up? Sure, you can "end the listing and cancel bids", but that seems a bit like you're leading potential bidders on, who think you have the books in hand, and they are what you say they are.

Surely you're not suggesting "owning an offer" is the same thing as owning a piece of tangible property...? Nevertheless, as I said, whether you own your offer or not (or whether there is even such a thing AS "owning an offer"), when you disregard the seller's asking price to make a lowball offer, it's much worse than a seller asking an unreasonable price. The first is a direct act of contempt...the second is a passive request. They're not the same thing. Sure I am. Seller gets to own the asking price. Buyer gets to own the offer price. No, the seller owns the item. Owning a tangible piece of property is not the same thing as "owning" an intangible concept. Well, hey, lots of people still believe the earth is a flat disc around which the sun, moon, and stars revolve.

Surely you're not suggesting "owning an offer" is the same thing as owning a piece of tangible property...? Nevertheless, as I said, whether you own your offer or not (or whether there is even such a thing AS "owning an offer"), when you disregard the seller's asking price to make a lowball offer, it's much worse than a seller asking an unreasonable price. The first is a direct act of contempt...the second is a passive request. They're not the same thing.

I don't think anybody has suggested anything differently, here. I know I haven't. Elektra101 was silly to get upset about Donmeca's extreme lowball. He should have just blocked him and moved on. We're just discussing philosophy.

Yes, we both can keep doing that, true. True, but that's not what I said. You're not looking at it "the wrong way"...you are correct: if you look at it on the surface, both sides would appear to be guilty of "looking for a sucker" and, in that respect, of being "disrespectful." I do not disagree with your basic contention, on the surface. But it's not that simple, and there are several broader issues involved. The privilege of property ownership, for one. Degree of "disrespect" for another. Motive, for another. It's not as simple as you're suggesting. here's the motivation for the lowball offer (buyer): I want to buy as cheaply as possible, hopefully get lucky. If not, it doesn't really cost me anything, so why not. here's the possible motivations for a high high asking price (seller), in no particular order: 1. Want to get lucky and catch a sucker. 2. Unsure of value, want to get offers and get an idea of value (possibly for insurance). 3. I want to display this to those ebay peons and I get off on people making offers for something that those losers can never own. 4. I'm selling this for how much I paid for it. 5. I'm crazy and genuinely think this is how much its worth. 6. I know the price is higher than market, but I'm really attached to this item and its kinda rare, but if someone made me an offer at this price I wouldn't be able to turn it down. So why not leave it up at that price, doesn't cost me anything. Are most probably in the camp of Motivation 1? Probably. But I don't think its unfathomable to be in any of the other camps. I know I've done a few myself at #4 and #6, and know people who have done #2. There's probably some reasonable things I've left out too. Suffice it to say that while most have financial motivations for posting ANYTHING on ebay at ANY price, that not all motivations (financial or otherwise) fall in the category of 'trying to catch a sucker'. By the way, I don't see anything wrong with selling an item you own for any price, as long as you don't misrepresent it. It may just be a strategy, and some strategies are obviously better than others. Judging peoples attempts to profit on luxury/recreational/hobby items seems like a huge waste of time and energy. If the strategy is wrong, the market will correct it. And if that seller ends up losing money, they will correct it. Or not. Doesn't affect me either way. Who has the time to judge the business/marketing strategy of everyone they come in contact with? Yes, this addresses much of the broader issues involved, thanks Revat. Here's some more: Wombat says: "It's just as disrespectful to ask a ridiculous price for an item as it is to make a lowball offer." Not true. The most important reason why that isn't true is ownership: this item belongs to the seller, and it is his to dispose of in any way he sees fit. If he wants to ask a million dollars for a $100 item, that's his right. It's his. It belongs to him. That is the privilege of ownership, that diminishes, if not entirely negates, the "disrespect" aspect of asking an unreasonable price, without even going into motive. And he is the one who, when considering selling the item, has to come up with an asking price, not the prospective buyer. The buyer doesn't own it, and has no right to set the asking price of an item that he doesn't own. That is the seller's prerogative. On the surface, yes, both scenarios may appear be an attempt to take advantage of others, and be disrespectful in that manner. But it isn't always the case for the seller, as Revat laid out, while it IS ALWAYS the case for the lowball offering buyer. Why? The key, major difference is that the seller has set the asking price of the item. The buyer, therefore, has a starting point, a foundation, to work from, that the seller did not have. He/she knows from the start what the seller wants or expects, whether it is reasonable or not. Therefore, the prospective buyer has an advantage over the seller: the prospective buyer knows the price upfront. So, if the buyer can see the price the seller wants...reasonable or not...and decides to make a lowball offer, they are being disrespectful to the seller, because they already know fully well what the seller would like, and then completely ignore that, in an attempt to secure the item for much less than what it is currently "worth." It is open contempt, and says to the seller "I don't give a flat damn what you're asking, this is what I'm offering, take it or leave it." (To be sure, now, we're only talking about lowball offers, offers that are, by definition, substantially lower than established fair market value.) Of course, it's never expressed that way openly, but always couched as "well, gosh, here's my offer, I hope you can accept it!"...but behind the façade is (almost) always the contempt for the seller's asking price, hidden or not. The seller, when establishing a price, had to do research (if they are a decent seller) to figure out what they wanted, and what was reasonable (to them), for the item in question. Dismissing that price, therefore, to make a lowball offer is contemptuous of the seller's time and effort. Does a buyer face the same kind of contempt from the overpriced seller? No, because the buyer is never obligated to make the purchase, and, indeed, not even obligated to do any research on the price. That's the prerogative of the buyer. The seller is ALWAYS obligated to come up with a price (for direct offers, like BINs and whatnot.) The prerogative of the buyer is to determine if the item is fairly priced (to them) or not. That's the advantage every buyer has (and why NOT pricing the item, and expecting the buyer to come up with a price, is the corollary to making a lowball offer. It's not the buyer's responsibility to come up with the price. It's the seller's. If the seller doesn't, a buyer is perfectly within his/her rights to offer 10 cents for a $10,000 item.) The "sucker" aspect is thus of a different type and level. If a seller asks a crazy price deliberately hoping for a sucker, they're hoping for someone who is ignorant of the market, and doesn't know better, and (this is critical)...can't be bothered to do even the slightest bit of research to find out if the asking price is a fair one or not. Many buyers paying "ridiculous" prices don't care; they just want the item. You can't fault a seller for that. There is no gun to anyone's head to buy any item at any price (at least, not yet.) On the other hand, if a buyer makes a lowball offer, they are hoping that the seller is desperate enough to accept such an offer in the face of an already established price from the seller. So which is worse? (Potentially) preying upon the willfully ignorant? Or deliberately preying upon the desperate? You could say "well, the buyer is making a lowball offer because they can't afford more! They're not trying to rip the seller off...they're just offering what they can pay!" If the buyer can't afford the item, 1. they should stick to what they CAN afford, and 2. why are they trying to buy luxury, non-essential items that are worth more than they can afford in the first place? That answer, while an interesting theory, never holds water in real life. If you can't afford something you want, either find something you can afford, or save up until you can afford the more expensive item (or, do what everyone else does, and buy it on credit. ) The problem with the lowball buyer, Revat, in saying "it doesn't cost me anything" is that it sometimes does, in not so obvious ways. For example...that person who made a $50 offer on my $2,000 book (CGC 9.8 Harbinger #1 SS by the way)...? They've been blocked. They won't be able to make offers any more. They may not care. They may never be interested in anything else I have, but if they ever are, they won't be able to do business with me. Again, chances are, they won't, but...I HAVE had people who were blocked for making lowball offers who came back later wanting to buy something, and I turned them down (Ironman4472, for example, who is a member here.) So, it *can* cost them something down the line. Plus, there's also the fact that I do tell people who make silly lowball offers, and they might do the same thing. Donmeca, for example, will never be able to buy anything from me. Not because I dislike him personally, or have any personal problem with him, but because I don't like the way he conducts himself with others. It's purely a business decision.

What has been said, if you take it to heart, will be for your benefit. Who is anyone to try to help other people around here? Good question. Nevertheless, you're not being lynched...just criticized. Criticism, if legitimate, though it stings, can produce great benefit if thoughtfully considered and applied. Don't take it personally. It's not meant to be personal (for the most part.)

Yes, we both can keep doing that, true. True, but that's not what I said. You're not looking at it "the wrong way"...you are correct: if you look at it on the surface, both sides would appear to be guilty of "looking for a sucker" and, in that respect, of being "disrespectful." I do not disagree with your basic contention, on the surface. But it's not that simple, and there are several broader issues involved. The privilege of property ownership, for one. Degree of "disrespect" for another. Motive, for another. It's not as simple as you're suggesting.

When did recognizing disrespect become an emotional response? The answer to your question is no. The corollary you're looking for is not pricing the item in the first place. I think the whole idea of disrespect is an emotional response. "Disrespect" isn't an emotion. Emotions are things like "anger", "fear", "joy", things one feels as part of a mental response to circumstances. "Disrespect" is an action. That is not the answer I gave, no. The corollary you are looking for is a seller not pricing their items. That is the corollary to the buyer who makes lowball offers. I disagree on both points. On pricing you brought up a buyer looking for a "sucker" to take advantage of with a low ball offer. I see no difference with a seller pricing way high looking for a "sucker". I understand that you see no difference, but as I said, there is one, and it's foundational. It hinges on the idea of what one may do with one's property when offering it for sale. The distinction may seem subtle...or even non-existent, as you have stated...but it is not, and goes beyond comparisons of who is looking for a "sucker." That's only looking at the situation on the surface. You say there is a difference. I say there isn't. Probably not more to discuss. There is, but I don't know that taking the time to explain it will accomplish anything. I'll just say that you're looking at the appearance, when there's more beneath the surface that isn't so obvious at first glance. Not trying to be coy; just acknowledging that trying to delve deeply into any particular subject here isn't necessarily a net gain.

When did recognizing disrespect become an emotional response? The answer to your question is no. The corollary you're looking for is not pricing the item in the first place. I think the whole idea of disrespect is an emotional response. "Disrespect" isn't an emotion. Emotions are things like "anger", "fear", "joy", things one feels as part of a mental response to circumstances. "Disrespect" is an action. That is not the answer I gave, no. The corollary you are looking for is a seller not pricing their items. That is the corollary to the buyer who makes lowball offers. I disagree on both points. On pricing you brought up a buyer looking for a "sucker" to take advantage of with a low ball offer. I see no difference with a seller pricing way high looking for a "sucker". I understand that you see no difference, but as I said, there is one, and it's foundational. It hinges on the idea of what one may do with one's property when offering it for sale. The distinction may seem subtle...or even non-existent, as you have stated...but it is not, and goes beyond comparisons of who is looking for a "sucker." That's only looking at the situation on the surface.

When did recognizing disrespect become an emotional response? The answer to your question is no. The corollary you're looking for is not pricing the item in the first place. I think the whole idea of disrespect is an emotional response. "Disrespect" isn't an emotion. Emotions are things like "anger", "fear", "joy", things one feels as part of a mental response to circumstances. "Disrespect" is an action, something one does, not feels. That is not the answer I gave, no. The buyer is not doing "the same" as the seller, though it may appear so on the surface. The corollary you are looking for is a seller not pricing their items. That is the corollary to the buyer who makes lowball offers.

When did recognizing disrespect become an emotional response? The answer to your question is no. The corollary you're looking for is not pricing the item in the first place.

Oat Willy, I guess you never thought I happen to be a board member. So for everyone else that wants a clarification, here are the facts from my side. I am assuming he is referring to the following auction since that's the only item I have initiated a return request on. http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVIL-ERNIE-1991-92-Eternity-Mini-Series-1-5-1st-LADY-DEATH-/121681830184?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=n2GhZLDVL556jUvAIKQ9ErCZbNc%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc Normally I don't bother with returning items unless I feel the books are grossly over graded compared to what was advertised which happens to be the case here. He advertised issue #1 as VF+ but it was more of a Fine / Fine+ condition. I just like how he twisted the situation claiming I didn't read the description and am returning it just because I felt like it. Sorry my friend, I got better things to do with my spare time. Now let's get to the second part. I sent him a message telling him that I would like to return the books since I feel they are over graded. After I didn't hear back from him, I initiated a return request through eBay hoping to get a response back. He did respond back later that day to my original eBay message stating that he is out of town and can take care of it on 7/13. I responded back that I am ok with this. Now I never initiated any type of PayPal dispute which he is claiming. The only thing I did was start a return request through eBay and that was it. I do not know why his PayPal account went into negative balance nor was this any of my intentions. Again, I just like how this was twisted in his version of the story in which he stated he replied first and I opened a PayPal dispute afterward which is far from the truth. I would definitely like to hear more on what Oat Willy has to say now that the facts have been brought out from the other side of the table. If this was all a misunderstanding, then I would like to get this resolved amicably. Who's twisting what? I replied to your message asking to do a return almost immediately, letting you know that I would accept the return. Didn't hear anything back from you, and after a couple days I thought you had either decided to keep the books, or you were going to follow my instructions and send them back. Then I get your reply to my message AND the notice of your dispute at the same time. When you filed the dispute, they immediately pulled the funds out of my paypal account. My balance was at 0.00 so this threw my account into a negative balance. I found this out this morning when I tried to pay an invoice for an item I had purchased. Well guess what, now that seller's finances are affected also because I can't pay them via paypal. That's not the buyer's responsibility. It is important that a seller not "spend the money" until he is sure that the buyer is satisfied with his purchase. This additional issue can be resolved simply by adding to your Paypal account the negative balance. At this point, it would be inadvisable for Esca to cancel the dispute until it is fully resolved. A buyer cancelling a dispute is saying to eBay "everything is ok, and it has been resolved to my satisfaction", which it has not. That's the best attitude to have as a seller.

Let's not forget i DIDN'T send you a message.... i made an offer, then you declined with you offer afterwords i made another offer with a message. The way I interpreted via the way you posted it on here as if i messaged you PRIOR to making the offer... which NEVER happened. Elektra101 You ever seen That 70s show??? well think of Ashton Kutcher saying BURN !!! because you just did that to yourself... im glad you blocked me, but i was about to do it to you prior..... Not that Elektra101 behaved in a professional manner...he/she did not...but is it correct that you made a $150 offer on a book that hasn't sold for $150 since 2012, and has a current 12 month average price of $690, and a 90 day average of $700...? And followed it up with a $200 offer...? If that is true, I'm not quite sure what ground you have to stand on, here. It's still BUY IT NOW OR MAKE AND OFFER. it doesn't state anywhere on ebay that the offer has to be a certain amount. while at this point considering the movie is coming out next week, it might climb up in sales with the next few days. i still don't feel i was low balling him. (emphasis added) Just wanted to make sure all the facts were in before rushing to judgment. Here are the sales for the last 6 months: Jun-05-2015 $650 Cert# 1204009033 May-25-2015 $612 Cert# 1203909002 May-24-2015 $717 Cert# 1290478005 May-17-2015 $750 Cert# 0208120010 May-04-2015 $650 Cert# 1301226015 Apr-22-2015 $699 Cert# 1202739004 Apr-17-2015 $799 Cert# 0240986001 Apr-16-2015 $725 Cert# 0208120009 Apr-15-2015 $700 Cert# 1305165020 Apr-09-2015 $700 Cert# 0252230010 Apr-05-2015 $627 Cert# 0247445011 Mar-22-2015 $657 Cert# 1290478003 Mar-22-2015 $710 Cert# 1216468008 Feb-28-2015 $625 Cert# 0232770009 Feb-18-2015 $790 Cert# 1202485012 Feb-03-2015 $820 Cert# 1202485013 Jan-15-2015 $707 Cert# 0243792009 ...but you still don't feel a $150, then $200, offer was "low-balling"? Interesting. It really comes down to respect, doesn't it...? I don't keep up with all the current sales on any particular book. as far as respect goes, last i checked this is ebay, you can offer any amount of money you wish. not what someone feels they deserve. if someone doesn't like it, they shouldnt have a buy it now or best offer listed. If you "don't keep up with all the current sales on any particular book", how did you come up with an offer of $150 and $200...? What if the book was only worth $40? How could you know? You're 100% correct....with a best offer, you can offer any price you want, from 1 cent to 1 cent less than the BIN. So, it's incumbent on sellers to not make it possible for others to make lowball offers...? You can't just respect them on your own, and do a few seconds worth of research, to come up with a fair offer? After all, we're talking about fair market value, not some pie-in-the-sky asking price. Or is it really that you secretly hoped you had found a sucker who didn't know any better, and hoped you could take advantage of them...? No, because they have best offer, that opens them up to disrespect, because they asked for it, right? Does common courtesy ever come into play, and if so, when? I mean, hell, even Elektra101 admitted his sending you those messages was inappropriate. Any give on your side...? As is often so very, very true in life...it's not really about what we CAN do...but what we SHOULD do...that makes all the difference.

All true. Taking it personally, and responding with silly messages, is unprofessional and a waste of time. Nonetheless, offering an insultingly low price on a currently "hot" book is also a waste of time, and disrespectful. If a seller sets a price, especially (and this is key) a price that is at or near current market value, making an offer of 75%+ less than that is rude, whether the seller accepts it or not. There's just no getting around that, any way you look at it. Setting an "auto-decline" is easy when you have 2-3 items you're selling. Not so much when you have 300. I just had an offer of $50 for a $2,000 ask. Why waste your and my time with such a frivolous offer? On to the blocked list they went. No fuss, no muss.

Let's not forget i DIDN'T send you a message.... i made an offer, then you declined with you offer afterwords i made another offer with a message. The way I interpreted via the way you posted it on here as if i messaged you PRIOR to making the offer... which NEVER happened. Elektra101 You ever seen That 70s show??? well think of Ashton Kutcher saying BURN !!! because you just did that to yourself... im glad you blocked me, but i was about to do it to you prior..... Not that Elektra101 behaved in a professional manner...he/she did not...but is it correct that you made a $150 offer on a book that hasn't sold for $150 since 2012, and has a current 12 month average price of $690, and a 90 day average of $700...? And followed it up with a $200 offer...? If that is true, I'm not quite sure what ground you have to stand on, here. It's still BUY IT NOW OR MAKE AND OFFER. it doesn't state anywhere on ebay that the offer has to be a certain amount. while at this point considering the movie is coming out next week, it might climb up in sales with the next few days. i still don't feel i was low balling him. (emphasis added) Just wanted to make sure all the facts were in before rushing to judgment. Here are the sales for the last 6 months: Jun-05-2015 $650 Cert# 1204009033 May-25-2015 $612 Cert# 1203909002 May-24-2015 $717 Cert# 1290478005 May-17-2015 $750 Cert# 0208120010 May-04-2015 $650 Cert# 1301226015 Apr-22-2015 $699 Cert# 1202739004 Apr-17-2015 $799 Cert# 0240986001 Apr-16-2015 $725 Cert# 0208120009 Apr-15-2015 $700 Cert# 1305165020 Apr-09-2015 $700 Cert# 0252230010 Apr-05-2015 $627 Cert# 0247445011 Mar-22-2015 $657 Cert# 1290478003 Mar-22-2015 $710 Cert# 1216468008 Feb-28-2015 $625 Cert# 0232770009 Feb-18-2015 $790 Cert# 1202485012 Feb-03-2015 $820 Cert# 1202485013 Jan-15-2015 $707 Cert# 0243792009 ...but you still don't feel a $150, then $200, offer was "low-balling"? Interesting. It really comes down to respect, doesn't it...?

Let's not forget i DIDN'T send you a message.... i made an offer, then you declined with you offer afterwords i made another offer with a message. The way I interpreted via the way you posted it on here as if i messaged you PRIOR to making the offer... which NEVER happened. Elektra101 You ever seen That 70s show??? well think of Ashton Kutcher saying BURN !!! because you just did that to yourself... im glad you blocked me, but i was about to do it to you prior..... Not that Elektra101 behaved in a professional manner...he/she did not...but is it correct that you made a $150 offer on a book that hasn't sold for $150 since 2012, and has a current 12 month average price of $690, and a 90 day average of $700...? And followed it up with a $200 offer...? If that is true, I'm not quite sure what ground you have to stand on, here.

There's a shop in Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory that keeps its comics in the basement... they could be in trouble. Last time I was there, though, it was all drek. Batman Adventures #12 was drek 7 years ago, too...

Maybe we'll finally have that long prophesied Ice Age that was promised by the chilluminati in the 70's...

Well said. Except this isn't a data-rich, scientific expedition, where minutiae matters and makes a difference. You're all talking about trying to make rules that cover every possible permutation of human behavior as a buyer/seller on these boards, and it's simply not possible to do that without strangling the entire thing to death in the process. But hey, by all means, 10 years of this back and forth has only made the Probation List (and the HOS) grow to gargantuan sizes, so what do I know.