Poekaymon

6 minutes ago, MustEatBrains said:

CGC says it’s a 9.9 so it must be right?  For the love of god always buy the book and not the grade on the label.  Why people waste money on 9.9s and 10s is beyond me and Ive had my fair share of them pass through my hands and can tell you 100% the difference in visual quality would never justify the dollars you would spend on a 9.9 vs a 9.8 and is just not ever worth it IMO.  But some people gotta chase after the best, even if it’s not the best. To each their own.

That's the validation I was looking for.

1 hour ago, newshane said:

What do you think a 10.0 is for? 

I knew that was coming.

Edit: Just in case you're not trolling, 9.8 = imperfections I can see, 9.9 = imperfections I can't see, 10.0 = no imperfections. 

36 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

 

1. I would say asking someone to spot the difference between 9.8 and 9.9 is difficult 

2. Especially difficult to come to some satisfying answer....

3. It's a 9.9, based on the pics itself, the dark backdrop is going to show any white paper in a scan, if it's the particles you mean it'll be dust either on the scanner, in the air between the enclave of the slab and scanner, on the outside of the slab or inner well. Not on the book.

If it was on the inside of the inner well, I dont know that dust scratches or such, i will leave that up to you

the white I'm more concerned about, but even the seam of the well on the scan on the right looks white or blemished, and compared to cgc going over a book with magnification with a restoration check or other, I'm sure it would get to the heart of the matter between a 9.9 better than a scan.

4. I honestly dont think cgc takes a 9.9 choice lightly, but it's in the eye of the beholder as I recall a IH 181, and up for opinion 

To be clear, I was never questioning CGC or arguing that it wasn't originally a 9.9--just questioning whether it still is.  I allow that the dark background on the scan will show more dust, and it could just be dust with some really unlucky placement, as I mentioned.  If so, they should probably do a new scan.  Ah well, think I'll pass.

I've been pretty curious about 9.9s and 10s since getting back into this.  People seem to want anywhere from 5 to 30x 9.8 value for them.  Almost immediately after I started last year, a Killing Joke CGC 9.9 went up on the bay.  I bid $600 on it--I figured 2-3x or so 9.8 value was fair.  As I recall it closed at closer to 1k and I was absolutely floored.  Especially on that book which has like 50 9.9s.  Even still, I kind of yearned for that shiny 9.9, and I resolved to be a bit more aggressive if some of my favorites popped up 9.9 or 10 in the future.

Fast forward a week ago when a 1988 Wolverine 9.9 popped up on a certain auction site.  I figured I'd take a shot, but when I looked closely at the picture, it did not seem perfect to me, particularly, the upper left corner.  Now maybe it's just dust or something but it sure looks a lot like various 9.8s I have with mildly blunted or "fuzzy" corners.  In particular, it looks like one that I shipped to someone which definitely had razor sharp, pin perfect corners, but immediately upon receiving it he asked for a refund and sent me back a picture of the same book with some corner blunting/tearing that most likely happened in shipping somehow.  The case was perfectly fine, and I took it back. 

So I wanted to look into this Wolv 9.9 and did a little digging for history on this particular copy and found out that it used to belong to someone on these boards, and has traded hands a couple times since then.  So I looked at the original picture of it posted by the person who got it slabbed, and sure enough, it did not have any corner issues--at least, not visible (maybe it did but it was masked well, like it was on the edge, and after being shipped however many times since then, it came a little loose).

I've been accused on these boards already of being too picky when it comes to 9.8s.  (Let's skip the "9.8s are all equal" debate for the moment.)  But if you are paying 10x or more over 9.8 prices or a 9.9, it's justified in that case isn't it?  I think there shouldn't be anything whatsoever visible to the naked eye.  I dunno--you guys tell me.  So here's a comparison pic of the same book, cropped to the corner.  The pic on the left is the original posted to these boards in 2016 after the person got it back from CGC (they then sold it a couple years later).  The pic on the right is the one posted by the auction site for the current auction. 

1.  Let's assume that actually is some issue with the book and not a piece of dust or something external to the book itself.  Is it still a 9.9?

2.  And here's a hypothetical.  Unrelated to this auction, let's say there was a 9.9 which had sustained post-grading damage such that it could obviously no longer get even a 9.8.  Would you rather have A) that 9.9 in name (but at best a 9.6 in actuality) or B) a 9.8 of the same book?

As with kellyssuperheroes, CGC saves me from another one.  This beatlebluecat is one shady baller.

Edit: I realize I can't go necroing every shady seller, so this will be my last.  But I was just about to buy from two in a row, saw warning signs, and here are the threads.  Is the moral here no raws off ebay?

On 1/31/2020 at 2:37 PM, mattn792 said:

Massapequa is in Nassau County.  Maybe they’d be interested in their local recidivist?

Forgive me for the necro but this thread, along with some enthralling Dupcak stories I found on Google, has been highly entertaining.  (Also, if any thread deserves to be kept alive it's this one.)  I found this thread initially as I was actually considering buying something from kellyssuperheroes but even as a neophyte, I could tell that something was very off, so I searched his name along with CGC and sure enough you fine folks already cracked the case.  What I really enjoy is that he doesn't even change his MO.  The things people were saying in 2013 and earlier are just as true today.  Stick with what works, I guess.  I almost respect it.

I went to law school with a current Nassau ADA, but I just don't see how there's anything to be done.  We all know what he's doing, but if eBay doesn't care, and if he refunds everyone who complains and otherwise conforms with his stated policies, it's just the perfect scam.  Grading and even the presence of restoration is so subjective and easily explained away, you're just never going to prove anything.  If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears, but I'm pretty sure he'll just keep on keeping on as long as it's even mildly profitable.  Ball's in eBay's court.

On 3/25/2020 at 5:28 PM, MCMiles said:

I accept first unconditional claim here in the thread or PM. Time Stamp rules. I'll figure it out.

Payment due within 7 days unless terms are agreed upon before "I'll Take It". 

I accept Paypal, checks, MOs. 

Returns accepted but must be mailed within 7 days. Must be shipped and returned the same way it was sent. 

No returns on slabs. No HOS or Probation list members please. 

Free USPS Priority mail shipping in the U.S. Calculated and discounted International shipping is available.

I've been around here a long time but haven't sold much here in some time. Plenty of references available.

$150 plus shipping. Via USPS priority mail 3lbs from 80016

Take.

1 hour ago, Cozmo-One said:

CGCData.com has all sorts of good info (yes, it is ASM300)

http://cgcdata.com/cgc/cgctop/

 

Very nice.  21,606 submissions and zero 10.0s.  You think a 10.0 would go for 20k+?

Also, ASM 300 beats all Spider-man 1 (1990) variants combined.

Also, ASM 300 beats Hulk 181 in sub 9.2 grades as well.

4 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Basicallyyyyyyyy... Pressing pre-screen is for people who aren't well-educated on press-able defects.

If you have money to burn - why not?

I definitely have more money than sense, though that’s not saying much. 

On 2/7/2020 at 5:36 PM, comicsyte95 said:

Iron Man Manual by Daniel Wallace (2013, Hardcover) $10

Take.

Submitting a bunch of moderns.  I kinda doubt any of them will be improved by a press, but it seems like there is no reason not to screen for pressing.   The timetable says that a pressing screen is 15 days + tier time.  I presume that means if pressing won't help, that it only adds 15 days?  

Assuming that's correct, aside from the small additional cost and wait, is there actually any reason not to screen them all for pressing?

Thanks!

54 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

If they're using a single image for multiple copies, why do you think they would pay attention to which one they send out? The simple answer is that they sent out a different copy to the first winner.

As for the other bidders, maybe they weren't paying attention this time or already spent their money on something else. The fact that you won this one for the starting bid, after the earlier auction went much higher, suggests that the seller does not use shills.

I was just pointing out possibilities, however unlikely. I agree that they didn’t use shills in the second auction. Your explanation may be The most likely, though it’s still surprising to me that everyone would suddenly become uninterested or unable. 

UPDATE

Now if anyone recalls, this started because a seller had multiple items up with no reserve, all had many bids, and all sold.  I bought and received one of them.  It was as pictured.  Then a few days later he reposted several of the high end ones again, with the same pictures, including the one I just bought.  

One of the ones he reposted was one which in the first round of auctions I bid on but did not win as it went up too high.  He reposted that one with the same pic and CGC # etc.  I messaged him after making this thread and got no response.  I decided to bid on that one again anyway and try my luck, figuring I could return it on the basis of having a different CGC number if necessary.

Now this is where it gets stranger, as far as I'm concerned.  Last time it had like 5 (or more) different bidders, one of which was me, who had multiple bids between $350 (starting) and $550 (closing).  This time I was the only bidder and got it for the opening price (350--same as he started it at last time).  I assumed what would come would be a different book, but I just received it today, and it was exactly as pictured.  (same # that was in both auctions, etc.)   So now I'm even more confused because this makes less sense to me than a simple lazy repost.  I guess the top bidder either flaked or was a shill and the seller ust reposted it without offering it to the other bidders, of which I was one?  But even that doesn't explain why none of those other bidders decided to try a second time.  

Now, the one I bought the first time also got reposted, and sold, so I can guarantee the person who won that auction isn't getting the exact book that was pictured because it's here in my hand.  (Unless he has replicator-level counterfeiting skills.)  Would really like to contact the winner of "my" book in the second auction and find out the CGC # of the book they actually received, but of course, can't see the user name of the winner.

This is purely academic at this point as I got my book, and I'm satisfied with it, but I still find it interesting.

21 hours ago, AndyFish said:

If you use your actual name on message boards two things happen; 1- You never forget your user name and 2- You never say anything in a forum you wouldn't say in public because you have nothing to hide behind.

Just my

That's why I always use my real name, Poe Kaymon.

ASM 300?

36 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Fair question.

That's an unrealistic expectation, because it's not true, as I said earlier. There is a consensus about what a baseline 9.8 is, and even though it's not described by CGC, you can (and many have) gleaned what a baseline 9.8 CGC book is by looking at (and submitting) thousands of examples. 

I disagree that that statement represents an expectation, but maybe "baseline" was the wrong word.  I didn't mean that you and others can't look at books and estimate whether they will be graded 9.8s.  I simply meant that if someone tells you something is a 9.8, that doesn't actually tell you exactly what the book looks like--pretty uncontroversial, I think.  And picky/ocd/unrealistic people like me try to find the best copies even within the 9.8 group, so that 9.8 tag becomes the starting point and not the finish line.  (Again, this only applies to buying the thing in the first place, and not buying it and returning it even though it came as pictured.)    

To really make it clear, say I buy a 9.8 from a stock photo.  Having looked at lots of 9.8s, I can reasonably expect it to be a decent copy.  But it can show up to my door with:

1.  A "perfect" cover but something wrong on the back

2.  Minor handling issues, say in the corners, that nonetheless didn't prevent it from earning a 9.8.

3.  Very light stress lines were the only thing keeping it from being a 10 and that a noob like me wouldn't even notice, and which a noob like me would say 'how in the world is this baby not a 9.9 or a 10?'

4.  Massive production issues that don't stop it from being a 9.8 but which a noob like me would say 'holy hell I'd rather destroy this book than look at it again'  

5.  Additional issues which people on this very board, experienced people such as yourself, disagree about whether the book would actually be regraded at a 9.8--I've seen the threads.

6.  Enough defects that it seems like it was a "gift grade" (as I've heard veterans on this forum say) or that it was mislabeled (saw that in another thread) 

And on and on.  I'm not disputing that most or all of these are legitimate 9.8s.  I'm not disputing that people like yourself probably would have guessed that most of them were 9.8 in raw form.  I'm not disputing that if someone buys one of these (especially from a stock photo) they are out of luck.  I'm only saying that just knowing something is a 9.8 doesn't tell you exactly how it looks, and that's important to some of us buyers. I'm pretty sure that's beyond dispute, and completely realistic, but I could be wrong.

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Reading through this thread, your expectations are unrealistic

I was referring to this, which came after you quoted me.  

22 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That said, let me qualify: you (and everyone) has the right to be as absolutely picky as you want to be...we need picky people to keep everyone honest (raises hand.)

But...no one has the right to have unrealistic expectations. There's a difference. Sometimes the line is very fine, but there is a difference. Saying "this book doesn't meet my personal standards" is one thing, and perfectly acceptable...but saying "this book is improperly graded" or "this book was damaged after grading" or "this book is not as described"...especially if it's the first slab you've ever bought, and the book is a perfectly typical example of the grade given...those are unrealistic expectations, and adjusting expectations to fit reality is necessary to avoid endless frustration.

Now you just need everyone to agree on whether they are simply being picky or if they are actually being unrealistic. A semantic quagmire!  I'm still having trouble understanding just how I am being unrealistic--so maybe you can give me some examples.  I've purchased hundreds of books and only returned two of them.  I've been happy with the majority of my purchases--I simply pass on a lot of stuff.

In terms of expectations, all I expect is that the book arrives as pictured.  If I missed something in their pics that otherwise would have stopped me from purchasing it ordinarily, well, that's on me.  As I said, I've only returned two books so far.  Both had extreme SCS.  I don't know if they sent it like that or if it happened in shipping, but I took pictures of them immediately upon arrival, showed the sellers, and both sellers took them back without a struggle.  So far so good.

1 minute ago, IkewithMike said:

Sorry I made you point that out to me. RMA is someone I have bought books from, thought perhaps my 2 cents would be warranted, since it's a public forum and online.

Party on.

7 minutes ago, IkewithMike said:

RMA not only stated you had that right, they are standing up for it

Never said he didn't say that.  That's why I specifically addressed it to the broader debate going on--"you" meant sellers in general, not your friend RMA specifically and individually.  Sorry for the confusion.

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

PS. I agree with you that sellers should NOT be posting stock images of graded books, especially books that are signed. Whether you have 1 or 100, each one should be individually scanned, and if you receive a different book than the one shown, and the seller didn't say "these are stock images", then you have just cause to return it.

And that's what this thread was about. I'm glad we are in agreement.

In terms of the broader debate that this has turned into: just like you have the right to set your prices at whatever you wish (tons of sellers have "unrealistic expectations" about what their books are worth, by the way), I have the right to be picky (or OCD, or unrealistic, or whatever else has been said here) in what I choose to buy.  I've never returned anything on the basis of my OCD/unrealistic expectations--I just didn't buy them in the first place. 

10 hours ago, BmoGreen said:

Hey, thanks for posting my post over here. Would love some more discussion of that issue 221 pictures I posted. Would anyone on this thread be happy receiving that book? 
 

I would not have bought that first one (the 221) if I saw that, and if the picture were at an angle so that I couldn't see that, I would not be happy upon receiving it.  Though I would probably just suck it up, and have in similar situations.  This is why I no longer buy from people who post pics at odd angles or with strange cropping.  

1.  I can't remember what it was now, but I bought a 9.8 a while back where the seller had posted a pic at an angle and, sure enough, after I received it I noticed that both corners that you couldn't see well in his pictures were blunted badly.  I doubt it'd get a 9.8 if regraded, and I am quite sure the seller crafted his post in such a way as to hide those corners, but I didn't try to return it because I felt it was my fault for not being careful enough.  I did feel cheated though, and I vowed to not let it happen again. 

2.  Another time I bought a 9.8 with perfect scans.  When it arrived it had a large discoloration at the bottom middle.  I'm sure it was a printing error and that it was still actually a 9.8, but I was quite unhappy.  I was ready to return it and went back to the post and, to my extreme surprise, that defect was right there in his pictures, totally visible and obvious.  I somehow just completely missed it when I was hyper focused on the corners and the spine.  I sucked that one up too because it was straight up my fault.

So, back to your books: your second book is fine, imo.  The first one I would probably just suck up, but I might ask for a return, even with a restock fee or something if necessary, because I just personally wouldn't want to own it.  If not, then I'd just resell it and buy another one, at a loss, no doubt, because unlike some sellers I wouldn't hide the flaw when I made my own post.

As an aside, I also recently bought a 221.  I don't remember any miswrap or bindery chips, but I didn't examine it closely.  Will take a look when I get home.

Never once said that the books weren't accurately graded, so I have no idea what those links are adding to this discussion.  Just buyer bashing time?  Should I post some links to sellers trying to get double or triple FMV to even it out?  Let me know what the rules of this game are.

Good tip. I considered it, but it turns out 10s are pretty rare and expensive. I’ll just stick to 9.8s that meet my exacting standards—there are plenty of those. 

15 minutes ago, Kevlar said:

Twisting hypothetical? I asked if a seller has 5 copies should they change the picture each time one sells. Here are 4 examples of mutliple listings of almost $500 books (and I've had similar ones with values over $1500):

4 copies @ $550: https://www.ebay.com/itm/352261054154

4 copies @ $400: https://www.ebay.com/itm/352374920648

6 copies @ $350: https://www.ebay.com/itm/202699257665

7 copies @ $400: https://www.ebay.com/itm/352728983501

Again...I'm not arguing that they shouldn't CLEARLY either say "stock photo" or like we say: "DISCLAIMER: Book grade is guaranteed as you are purchasing a CGC book, however picture may not be the exact book as we often have multiple copies with different certification numbers, signature placements and colors, etc."

My claim was should I update the picture each time a book sells and I won't. As I said...if I lose a sale because someone doesn't like that it's not the exact book they know they will be getting I'm ok with that. And if I decide to auction one off I'm just going to click on "change to auction" and it creates an exact copy and I start the auction at $.01. I'm not going to go back and take ANOTHER picture even thought that auction is not long a "quantity 5"....and the next time I auction another I'm using the same picture. Like I said...a modern CGC 9.8 is a modern CGC 9.8....if I feel one is an outlier because a signature is smudged or doesn't show up as easily I will list those separately but otherwise a 9.8 is a 9.8.

1.  What I meant by twisting the hypothetical is that you are arguing a scenario which I didn't even present in this thread.  And you're focusing on the dollar value, when you clearly meet the 2nd condition I listed.

2.  You say a 9.8 is a 9.8, and then you give a precise example of an outlier situation which disproves that.  

3.  To recap: 1) you have a disclaimer 2) you have Quantity X on most of your auctions 3) you list 9.8s separately if they are outlier 9.8s.  In short, none of what I've been talking about applies to you, my man.  Keep on truckin'.