RockMyAmadeus

(swoon) What a beauty I just picked up a copy at SD! Only $10! Of course, it's missing a couple pages, so... Story's complete! Really, Icc, she's a beauty. Congrats!

I really like the fact that removal from the HOS is mentioned. Even if it is entirely symbolic, and will likely never, ever happen, it's important that the possibility exist. Thanks.

You know what's totally unbelievable...? Abraham Lincoln learned law ALL ON HIS OWN. No college. No law school. He did it by reading these funny things called BOOKS. He read voraciously, he read all the time, and that is how he learned what he learned. It doesn't matter where information comes from, if it's correct. It is the learning that counts. YOU might try reading a book or two. Might do wonders for your personality. Oh, and I may not pass the California State Bar Exam at this point, but I'll go up against YOU on any test, any day of any week. (thumbs u (PS...since I went to four years of college, do I have 1/3 the right to speak as an attorney...? ) Would seeing who can pee the farthest be considered a test? Oh please. This is yappy dog trying to prove his own against big dog. Classic.

You know what's totally unbelievable...? Abraham Lincoln learned law ALL ON HIS OWN. No college. No law school. He did it by reading these funny things called BOOKS. He read voraciously, he read all the time, and that is how he learned what he learned. It doesn't matter where information comes from, if it's correct. It is the learning that counts. YOU might try reading a book or two. Might do wonders for your personality. Oh, and I may not pass the California State Bar Exam at this point, but I'll go up against YOU on any test, any day of any week. (thumbs u (PS...since I went to four years of college, do I have 1/3 the right to speak as an attorney...? )

Remember, there are golds for Mantra, Strangers, Exiles, etc...

Here's the gold and silver next to each other: Note the difference in the holograms' tones. Because of the nature of holograms, it's sometimes tough to tell. In hand, it's easy.

that's pretty sweet. When was it printed ... ? Never mind. I just bought it on ebay ... seriously. I see a SILVER holographic cover just sold for $19.99 from comix4all...was that the one you bought? The silver holo is common. This is the GOLD holo. HAHA ... yes, well there you go. I guess that's what happens when you run without the research... hehe. Soooooo, tell me more about the gold .... There you go. It's not a bad price to pay for it, even still. The golds were made for every silver holo cover out there. They are all extremely rare, with the exception of Ultraforce, which was only produced in gold. Most people aren't even aware the golds exist.

that's pretty sweet. When was it printed ... ? Never mind. I just bought it on ebay ... seriously. I see a SILVER holographic cover just sold for $19.99 from comix4all...was that the one you bought? The silver holo is common. This is the GOLD holo.

Not as rare, but still not one you see every day.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer. Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger? When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale. A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market. Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation. And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428. If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get. In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer. Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list. Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria. Obviously, I don't agree in the slightest. The CGC boards are just as much a part of reality as anything, and established civil case law can, and should, at least have a marginal bearing on what is done here. Of course not. It's not the seller's fault you held on to the book for two months. It's yours. The issue...again...is one of timeliness. Of course you don't get to ask for the detriment of changing currency exchange rates, if you, the buyer, decide to keep the item for two months. You should have returned it in a timely manner. It was the buyer's CHOICE to send the book back in opposition to USPS regulations, which resulted in the book being lost for quite some time. Had the buyer sent it back correctly and promptly, there wouldn't have been an issue. 14 days is a reasonable amount of time in which to return an item, without further consequence. Four months is not.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer. Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger? When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale. A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market. Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation. And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428. If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get. In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer. Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list. Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria. Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary. Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - would you feel that is probation worthy? Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk. Any real attorneys care to comment. Some members feel that excessive viewing of Judge Joe Brown affords them the legal knowledge to speak in absolute terms about the outcome of a legal proceeding. Leave it alone Bababooey, you're wasting your time. Like many a young men who think they can conquer a grizzled old whore, it's entertaining for about 3 minutes, you leave unfulfilled and spend the next month getting rid of the crabs. You are one angry, angry chap. One might say "mind your own damn business; Bababooey is an adult who is free to chat with whomever, and as long as, he wishes, who neither needs, nor asked for, your advice on the matter, and that you're just fomenting strife and hostility to further your angry agenda, cementing your reputation as a desparate approval seeking troublemaker with nothing valid to contribute to any conversation", but it won't be me who does. And no one wants to hear about your experiences with STDs.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer. Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger? When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale. A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market. Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation. And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428. If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get. In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

FU lawyerboy.

When you only have 1 copy for sale, it's not that hard to keep track of it. You're missing a critical point: directly and specifically because of Dekeuk's refusal to return the book PROPERLY, the book was out of my hands for weeks and weeks and weeks...I got it back in MAY (the transaction was in JANUARY.) If Dekeuk had PROPERLY returned it, instead of violating USPS regulations, I would have received it back in a timely manner. Instead, it was lost in the USPS "refused packages" graveyard for months. It is the timeliness of the return, not the return itself, that is the issue. If the book had miraculously risen in price, Dekeuk would simply not have been responsible for damages...but he'd STILL have been liable for the PL, had the rules been different at the time. I did not miss that critical point, I acknowledged that I read what you wrote however I was addressing the compensation issue not the "cause" of your frustration with this buyer. However had I known beforehand that it took 'weeks and weeks and weeks" I may have felt differently. I was specifically responding to this statement of yours: And the answer to that question, of course, is no, and it wasn't the logic that was being employed. It is only if the buyer makes a significant delay in returning an item that it becomes an issue. Return it in a week? No problem. Return it after 6 months? Problem. And if that clearly irresponsible delay results in monetary damage, then yes, it should be part of the deal. If I sell a Green Lantern #59 three months before Green Lantern comes out, when the market is cooking (and this is easily observable), and the buyer doesn't return it until two months AFTER the film has bombed at the box office, and the price has dropped like a rock, the buyer's delay cost the seller money and should be compensated. That's how civil court cases like this work (depending on whether the plaintiff can prove the loss was the result of the delay, and they mitigate their damages.) That's my point.

Dunno if I posted this yet, but this is the rarest book Ultraverse ever printed. About 200 printed, then they all vanished. The other golds show up now and again, but the Prime has shown up once in the last 5 years.

Think how I feel... I've been buying Vampi Royal Blues for over a decade. I have purchased TWO Vengeance #1 RBs, both for about $150 shipped. In May of 2010, a copy surfaced on eBay, and I didn't check my e-mail notices. It sold for $25.

When you only have 1 copy for sale, it's not that hard to keep track of it. You're missing a critical point: directly and specifically because of Dekeuk's refusal to return the book PROPERLY, the book was out of my hands for weeks and weeks and weeks...I got it back in MAY (the transaction was in JANUARY.) If Dekeuk had PROPERLY returned it, instead of violating USPS regulations, I would have received it back in a timely manner. Instead, it was lost in the USPS "refused packages" graveyard for months. It is the timeliness of the return, not the return itself, that is the issue. If the book had miraculously risen in price, Dekeuk would simply not have been responsible for damages...but he'd STILL have been liable for the PL, had the rules been different at the time.

Of course not. It doesn't "work both ways" in real life, either. I mitigated my damages, as I am required to do by most civil case law, but if I had sold for more, I'd have no basis for a (legal) claim in the first place. The defendant doesn't get to be unjustly enriched because of his bad dealing, but if he causes damage, he must provide restitution. A civil case lawyer could probably explain it better. However, since Pov has stated that the PL will not apply retroactively, it's a dead issue. Wish he'd said that two weeks ago.

Please call me when you do. There are a couple of L&R #1 ashcans on eBay right now.... The cheapest one that I found was $499.99. Is that price anywhere near what this book is worth? I have a copy, but I know I paid nowhere near that amount. I have seen them sell for less at auction. They do go for a couple hundred dollars pretty consistently though. The $499 one has been there a while. One sold for $100 on Ebay last week....didn't see what grade it was in but certainly that's a lot cheaper than the crazy BIN prices floating around And that one was listed three times, once at $125, and then at $100 without a sale.

Both books have found new homes, at fairly aggressive prices. I'll be very sad to see the Primer #5 go, but really, at that price, how could I say no?

So, Dekeuk's read my PM, it's been a week, no response. PL?

No 9.8s...? Drek.

It's supposed to say "variant cover" on the label, but that's ok. Tough book in 9.8. Most copies you see were generally mangled in the printing process.