DrWatson

You know what would also be helpful? It would be great if sellers also disclosed how much they paid for a book they're selling. I, for one, would like to know how much they are making on the sale as that would influence my decision on whether or not I want to buy.

Sort of related to some this discussion. What if books are subbed as a pre-screen and don't pass then are resubmitted (without any sort of manipulation/pressing) and pass on a subsequent submission?

 

I've had this happen. I've only done two modern 9.8 pre-screens. On my second, I resubbed some of the books (because I really felt they were 9.8s) and some of them did make the cut and came back as 9.8s.

 

What's the feeling - should that be disclosed?

Why not? Let's just keep adding to the ridiculousness. Some of my slabs have seen me naked. I should probably disclose that if I sell them. Such trauma could encourage them to become bad seeds. They might grow up to dabble in Registry sets and experiment with pressing. Before you know it, they will be getting signatures and hanging out with PGX slabs in Oregon.

I'm just a middle man in this transaction.

Lucky Pierre

Some pedigrees are obvious due to their distinctive characteristics.

Either that or your prices on the items you currently have for sale are too high for the CGC boards.

I think you should post that in his sales thread

Too late in the weekend.

It probably is just coincidence. Either that or your prices on the items you currently have for sale are too high for the CGC boards.

 

Thanks for the input. I thought I was good being a little below GPA on Hi Grade Silver. Maybe just a bad time for higher dollar books.

The boards can be notoriously cheap. You know you've priced something at least 50% off if g-man buys it.

It probably is just coincidence. Either that or your prices on the items you currently have for sale are too high for the CGC boards.

I don't think it's a matter of dishonesty, just deception by omission.

It is not being deceptive to leave out information such as, "This book used to a 9.2, but became a 9.6 on a straight resubmission."

To say that listing the book for sale as a 9.6 and NOT stating that it used to a 9.2 is deceptive is whack-a-doddle.

This book was in a 9.4 blue label holder. I cracked it and got it signed by Steve Englehart. If I ever decided to sell it, is the proposal that I have to disclose what it was before? Also, this is not hypothetical.

 

No, you don't have to.

 

But if it were me, I would. I certainly would on a big ticket item like an old SA highgrade book with a four grand asking price. Indeed I did so the one time I sold a book that fits the bill. And if you don't, and someone else knows that it used to be graded two units lower, be prepared that they might provide the information that you've chosen not to.

 

Bob, that is part of the issue as I see it. Whether you are right or wrong being left completely aside, if this becomes the precedent, then the precedent that is set is not just going to obtain for multi-thousand dollar SA books. If the consensus is that this is an issue (like pressing was) then it will be important to be consistent across the Board.

 

And even though I consider it to be a non-issue (as i did pressing) I will provide in my sales threads all the information that the Boards determine to be appropriate.

 

So is Bob an outlier, or is this something that has consensus?

Outlier.

I am super late to this party. Is there a contingent of Boardies that is stating that in order to be a good seller here you need to disclose whether your book was formerly graded?

Yes, there is. Give 'em ginger lawyer hell.

 

No. This boardie is stating that in order to be a good seller here you should disclose if your book was formerly graded two or more units lower.

Is that not formerly graded?

 

You and I both know there's enough wobble in the level of consistency at CGC that a change of a single grading unit isn't enough to raise an eyebrow. When a book changes two or more grades, it's material information to at least a subset of prospective buyers.

Whether or not it is material information is your opinion. Your "wobble" can move anywhere from one grade to three grades. You're splitting atoms.

I am super late to this party. Is there a contingent of Boardies that is stating that in order to be a good seller here you need to disclose whether your book was formerly graded?

Yes, there is. Give 'em ginger lawyer hell.

 

No. This boardie is stating that in order to be a good seller here you should disclose if your book was formerly graded two or more units lower.

Is that not formerly graded?

I am super late to this party. Is there a contingent of Boardies that is stating that in order to be a good seller here you need to disclose whether your book was formerly graded?

Yes, there is. Give 'em ginger lawyer hell.

cracking a Pedigree slab, press it or not but resub it without the old label for whatever reason is ok

This is not okay, and frankly, quite foolish as a pedigree copy of a book is likely to receive a higher grade than it's non-pedigree counterpart in the same condition.

 

Agreed. IMHO anyone who loses the pedigree status in the hopes of a higher

grade is motivated by greed and cares nothing for the hobby or the history of

the hobby.

Well, I don't know I would go that far, but you can say they certainly aren't concerned with pedigree status. My thought would be if they are only interested in the bump, then perhaps they should look for another book.

cracking a Pedigree slab, press it or not but resub it without the old label for whatever reason is ok

This is not okay, and frankly, quite foolish as a pedigree copy of a book is likely to receive a higher grade than it's non-pedigree counterpart in the same condition.

You are so selfish.

And you are deceptively quick.

So, now everyone has to post what a book was previous to the current grade?

 

I thought this book would come back a CGC 9.4 when I subbed it raw. However, here it is graded a CGC 9.8.

Or

 

This book used to be a CGC 9.2, but it came back a CGC 9.6 on a straight resub.

 

I'm all for voluntarily disclosed pressing and the like, but the above is ridiculousness and all over someone's sales thread in the name of community is nothing short of rudeness.

 

If you people really want to be saviors, why don't you start calling out sellers who can't grade worth a damn. That might actually be constructive.

I don't think this is about a seller's requirement to disclose. It is about the proper etiquette in presenting the undisclosed information by a third party.

If the third party wants to disclose the information, then they can post in this thread or start a thread in General.

I am obviously in a very small minority, but I have no problem with them posting that information right smack dab in the middle of the sales thread. It is more concise and easier to spot for all concerned.

And it is certainly a ton more entertaining for the bystanders.

You are so selfish.

So, now everyone has to post what a book was previous to the current grade?

 

I thought this book would come back a CGC 9.4 when I subbed it raw. However, here it is graded a CGC 9.8.

Or

 

This book used to be a CGC 9.2, but it came back a CGC 9.6 on a straight resub.

 

I'm all for voluntarily disclosed pressing and the like, but the above is ridiculousness and all over someone's sales thread in the name of community is nothing short of rudeness.

 

If you people really want to be saviors, why don't you start calling out sellers who can't grade worth a damn. That might actually be constructive.

I don't think this is about a seller's requirement to disclose. It is about the proper etiquette in presenting the undisclosed information by a third party.

If the third party wants to disclose the information, then they can post in this thread or start a thread in General.

 

I'm all for voluntarily disclosed pressing and the like, but the above is ridiculousness and all over someone's sales thread in the name of community is nothing short of rudeness.

 

This coming from someone who had no problem threadkrapping in a thread dedicated to the memorial of a dead man

 

Which one was that? I'm not denying it, at this point, but apparently I've forgotten it.

We've all had books that rose and fell between submissions. I personally had an All-Star 58 that began graded life as a 9.6. It looked like a 9.8. On resubmission, it dropped to a 9.4. I subbed it the third time trying to get it back to a 9.6 and it came back a 9.8. One book, three different submissions and three different grades. That's how it is with CGC. No published standards equals grading flexibility and sometimes crazy shifts between submissions.

Anyone should be able to provide as little (within posted board selling guidelines) or as much information in a sales thread as they want. However, the expectation of or the requirement of a seller to say a book was previously graded a different grade by CGC is reaching. What you see and what you are paying for is that number in the upper left hand corner. It doesn't matter what it was or what it might be in the future. It's what it is at the time of the sale.

I know that all 9.4s, 9.6s, 9.8s or X.Xs aren't the same. My advice to everyone is not to purchase a CGC graded book from someone who doesn't offer a return policy. If you receive a book you don't feel is reflective of the given grade, then send it back.

So, now everyone has to post what a book was previous to the current grade?

I thought this book would come back a CGC 9.4 when I subbed it raw. However, here it is graded a CGC 9.8.

Or

This book used to be a CGC 9.2, but it came back a CGC 9.6 on a straight resub.

I'm all for voluntarily disclosed pressing and the like, but the above is ridiculousness and all over someone's sales thread in the name of community is nothing short of rudeness.

If you people really want to be saviors, why don't you start calling out sellers who can't grade worth a damn. That might actually be constructive.

Your opinion and not fact is whether that omission is relevant. It is not relevant to everyone. Did he omit that he was not the original owner? Were you being deceitful when you implied the comic had lost a pedigree? Half truth?

 

'Fact check'

- There was never any mention of the FF26 losing a pedigree designation. Indeed, it didn't: http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch%2Easp%3Fwhere%3Dsell%26title%3Dfantastic%2Bfour%26ItemType%3DCB%26pg%3D5%26x%3D14%26y%3D2&id=903188

- It's not opinion but fact that the boards include buyers using the marketplace who want to know if a seller is witholding this type of information on a comic (a two-unit change in CGC grade upon regrading), information that would impact their buying decisions.

- It's understood that not every marketplace buyer wants or requires the same information to make buying decisions comfortably

 

 

You do realize every time you use the term "Fact Check" and/or define simple English words to college and graduate school educated people (who know exactly what the words mean already) you lose more people that might have supported your overarching theme of transparency in selling, right?

Is that a fact?

Fact check

 

 

The majority of your fact checks are facts wrapped in your opinion.

As are yours. Fact.

 

I only have one fact check and this is it?

I think one about covers it (thumbs u

 

Oh got it.

I'm sure Oh got it. He's pretty smart. But did you get it?

Sweet. A numpty flame war.

I'm not sure I could bring myself to charge that much for one if I found it, though. Maybe because I'm not one of the people willing to throw out $500 for the issue, so I couldn't expect someone else to... But if you guys haven't found one, I doubt little old me ever will.

 

That's the spirit.

I fear that...that I may love him

This thread has more nut jobs than Squirrel for Hire magazine.

I guess I can feel kinda sorry for Trey and his explanation makes sense but I have trouble believing he didn't know it was wrong to sell PGX books here.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it acceptable. I can also understand that slamming Trey and ignoring others who sell PGX books is

unfair but Trey is the only one who has admitted it and we can only suspect

others based on cropped scans

Others are called out when it's noticed. Bio-Rupp was tarred and feathered not long ago for acting like he was selling PGX books. He should have received a strike for it as well.

 

"Tarred and feathered"? Really? Was that how you remember it? Oooook then... it appears that "strike" you got must a zinged the ole Watson noggin' there.

 

That said Watson... try not to get anymore strikes until after December because Clooneython 11 is gonna start on Thurs Dec 15th. Remember you are still entitled to your 10% off Torch-Bearer discount until the end of 2011

Kiss my . You're on the same list as Trey Canon.