eBay flipper/swindler that rivals Comickeys & Robojo33...check this out!

[bluechip]

But it is not a seller's responsibility to point out that a perfectly obvious color marking defect might (just might) be called restoration by you or someone else, and further to add that you think restoration is "bad" and that if you were there to talk to the buyer you'd tell him not to buy the book.

 

Huh?

 

The guy cracked a PLOD & listed it with no mention of resto. Are you suggesting that it's the buyers responsibility to spot the resto?

 

 

If the glue or color touch is obvious and defaces the book in some way, then the seller's job is to treat it like a defect and grade accordingly, but it's not his responsibility to call it resto or to use any other term that makes no sense, regardless of what term a grading company might use (especially if he knows the grading company uses the term(s) inconsistently.

 

 

I hate to say this, but this is some of the biggest bunch of wildly_fanciful_statement i've ever heard on these boards.......

 

I agree. :o

 

So a seller is wrong if he offers you a book and the glue or markings ("color touch") are not only obvious to anyone, but on top of that he even points them out to you, he is still wrong because he doesn't use the word "restoration."

 

If he points out to you that a piece was added, he's still wrong unless he uses the word "restoration"?

 

(and on top of using the terms you approve, is he supposed to tell the buyer that if you were there you'd tell him to stay away from it?)

 

Those are the points made and the questions asked.

 

Which means those are the precise points you are calling wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

But no one has made any attempt to say why they're wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

Instead of just saying they're wildly_fanciful_statement, or posting horrified faces in agreement with people who say so, I would really like to hear a concise argument as to why that is so.

 

 

Just to repeat:

 

 

 

 

Instead of name-calling and icons, please, tell me why that is so.

 

When did I name call you?

 

 

if a seller states that the book he is selling has colour touch, pieces added, glue, etc, then it's not required to use the word restoration because he's made it plain to see what has been done. However, if the book was a PLOD that had resto removed, then it should still be disclosed as a former PLOD in case some resto was missed until certified by CGC that the book is "clean".

 

The thing I thought was BS was that the seller shouldn't have to point out what has been done to a book (whether you call it resto, colour touch or whatever). As I understand it, the seller being discussed in the thread has cracked out PLOD's and sold them with no mention of them not being in original condition which is IMHO a way of swindling people.

 

It's a bit disingenuous to say that using words like wildly_fanciful_statement and blater is not the equivalent of name calling.

 

As for you very VAGUE description of what the seller did I do not disagree that in principle that sounds like a swindle. But nobody has given any real DETAILS about what made those books "PLODs" in the first place. I have asked several times because I was curious to know if the books were simply color touched, and whether the seller disclosed as much when he sold it. If so, then nobody can call him a swindler on the basis of that alone.

 

As I said, a person should have to point out defects. I never once said a person should not have to do that.

 

I said only that you cannot force people to use the same words as another person would because you want to force the seller to pass along not only the defects but your opinion about them.

 

That's the biggest problem with the colored labels. Because two books can have the same defects, but different color labels, the colors amount to nothing more than an opinion that one of the idential books is "good" while the other is "bad." And we can all too easily imagine how such opinions can end up favoring one seller over another.

 

If a person discloses everything that's wrong with a book or been done to the book then there is simply no way they should also have to disclose it once was in a PLOD. Might as well force people to carry a warning that includes a competitor's opinion about the value of the book. So long as the colors are applied inconsistently, they convey not facts but opinions.

 

Here's another thing. When it comes to extensively restored books in PLOD labels, the label completely fails to distinguish between a book which started out like this...

 

 

 

...and a books that started out like this...

 

 

 

Either of those could be restored to appear as a VF.

 

There is no way those books are equal, but the extensive restored colored label treats them as if they are equal.

 

As a buyer, I would feel swindled if somebody passed them off as equal. Yet that would be the effect of relying on the purple label as the guide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Inhuman Fiend]

SCUMBAG UPDATE:

 

As a result of increasing negs and neutrals from his massive overgrading (and perhaps this thread) the dirtbag ssteve1011recently switched his eBay seller name to 19jack76. And he is now using a shill to sell some of the more obvious scams he failed to sell under his old ID...funny thing is, he was once again foolish enough to make it easy to connect himself to the shill. Why? Because this mental giant won a whole bunch of .99-cent auctions from himself with his shill and gave himself a lot of really positive feedback. Here are the shill auctions...obviously the same hugely overgraded crapola he bought and tried to sell under his old ID:

 

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZsspidey76

[General Zod]

That link goes to "sspidey76".

[The Question?]

I bought a raw book from him that still had the archival paper in it... :doh:

 

 

 

 

[MR.COMICBOOK]

so as a newbie, I guess this goes on.

buyer BUYS comic from a seller.

buyer is excited about getting book for good price

buyer summits comic to CGC

CGC gives a disapointed buyer a PLOD.

some buyers takes PLOD out of CGC holder

SELL it on Ebay for much higher profit.

boy I got a lot of catching up to do.

never would have known this dishonest practice was going on if it wasn`t for this board..

it`s funny most Comicbook collectors read about superheroes who have high morals(Captain America,Superman etc...) but when it comes to sticking it to a fellow collector I guess the morals change.

[mackenzie999]

Newbie question: what is a plod? A purple CGC label? I have just returned to comic collecting after a 30 year absence and so far I'm having second thoughts about it.

[cd4ever]

Newbie question: what is a plod? A purple CGC label? I have just returned to comic collecting after a 30 year absence and so far I'm having second thoughts about it.

Yes, it stands for Purlple Label of Death (or Doom). Which is the CGC label color for a restored comic.

 

Unless of course it's an old comic....and only a little restored. Then it's a blue label.

[The Troll King]

so as a newbie, I guess this goes on.

buyer BUYS comic from a seller.

buyer is excited about getting book for good price

buyer summits comic to CGC

CGC gives a disapointed buyer a PLOD.

some buyers takes PLOD out of CGC holder

SELL it on Ebay for much higher profit.

boy I got a lot of catching up to do.

never would have known this dishonest practice was going on if it wasn`t for this board..

it`s funny most Comicbook collectors read about superheroes who have high morals(Captain America,Superman etc...) but when it comes to sticking it to a fellow collector I guess the morals change.

 

Hey newb, find a different avatar

[MR.COMICBOOK]

so as a newbie, I guess this goes on.

buyer BUYS comic from a seller.

buyer is excited about getting book for good price

buyer summits comic to CGC

CGC gives a disapointed buyer a PLOD.

some buyers takes PLOD out of CGC holder

SELL it on Ebay for much higher profit.

boy I got a lot of catching up to do.

never would have known this dishonest practice was going on if it wasn`t for this board..

it`s funny most Comicbook collectors read about superheroes who have high morals(Captain America,Superman etc...) but when it comes to sticking it to a fellow collector I guess the morals change.

 

Hey newb, find a different avatar

done

[Inhuman Fiend]

That link goes to "sspidey76".

 

Indeed it does...that is the shill he created. Let me clarify: First he changed his main ID from ssteve1011 to 19jack76, then he created the sspidey76 shill to "launder" his massively overgraded buys made under his other ID.

[loboagain]

Unfortunately, I did not see this thread before I bought from this clown..I will let you guys know what happens. I hope I get my books...

[loboagain]

Also, anybody know anything about ebay seller JOVIGIRLTX? See seems to be selling a ton of HG 9.8 books? Thanks.

[Inhuman Fiend]

Hey Lobo...Jovigirl is cool. I've sold some stuff to her as have a few other board members, she is a legit high-grade collector as far as I know. Think she has been selling a lot of stuff off lately for whatever reason...

 

And good luck with the scammer we've been discussing...what did you buy from him?

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Hey Lobo...Jovigirl is cool. I've sold some stuff to her as have a few other board members, she is a legit high-grade collector as far as

 

I've also bought from Jovigirl . No problems.

[MR.COMICBOOK]

go to goofbay.com

put in

19jack76 or sspidey76 for his bid history

this will tell you what he has been up to.

[maloney414]

Hey Lobo...Jovigirl is cool. I've sold some stuff to her as have a few other board members, she is a legit high-grade collector as far as

 

I've also bought from Jovigirl . No problems.

 

Jovigirl has had her moments of questionable tatics too.

 

She bought this AF 15 Restored CGC 5.5

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320208455156&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D320208455156%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1

 

Appears she cracked it out of the case and sold it as a "solid 7.0 to 7.5" here

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130198956263&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D130198956263%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1

 

She was honest about the PLOD stuff though.

[loboagain]

Hey Lobo...Jovigirl is cool. I've sold some stuff to her as have a few other board members, she is a legit high-grade collector as far as I know. Think she has been selling a lot of stuff off lately for whatever reason...

 

And good luck with the scammer we've been discussing...what did you buy from him?

 

Bought ASM 39 and 40 and he has mailed the items as I have a tracking number so we shall see what it looks like when I get it. I will scan and post the books.

[brasseye]

Now THESE are the same book.

Nice mark up. I should start doing this. Seems to be good money in it.

 

Buyer

Seller

 

 

Yeah, you're going to do well dealing in mostly high-demand Silver and Bronze books that you buy as VG and sell as VF. The fact that he has pretty decent feedback on massively overgraded books is yet another illustration of why this kind of business plan will always succeed: Lots of suckers out there!

 

Sounds like the business plan of many old school comic dealers....

 

Your right, same game, new arena!

[brasseye]

SCUMBAG UPDATE:

 

As a result of increasing negs and neutrals from his massive overgrading (and perhaps this thread) the dirtbag ssteve1011recently switched his eBay seller name to 19jack76. And he is now using a shill to sell some of the more obvious scams he failed to sell under his old ID...funny thing is, he was once again foolish enough to make it easy to connect himself to the shill. Why? Because this mental giant won a whole bunch of .99-cent auctions from himself with his shill and gave himself a lot of really positive feedback. Here are the shill auctions...obviously the same hugely overgraded crapola he bought and tried to sell under his old ID:

 

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZsspidey76

 

Thanks for the update (thumbs u

But it is reassuring that there isn't a blanket of ignorance out there, as guys aren't all blindly buying this guys mutton dressed up as lamb.

 

It seems it should be 'don't buy the label (CGC or ebay), buy the book'.

Even in some of his poor azzed photo's, the books are clearly overgraded.

[ciorac]

Color touch that doesn't improve a book's appearance is not restoration. It's a defect. And while it's fair to expect somebody to point out the existence of color touch, it is not rational or proper to say they should be forced to call it restoration.

 

 

OK, i'm back and will have another go at this.

 

i'm foregoing any references to prior posts at this time, because you have touched on many different facets of the issue, so i'll stick to just this statement that you've recently made.

 

Where on earth did you get the notion that that Color Touch isn't resto if it fails to improves a books appearance??

 

it's an intriguing supposition, but one that i personally have never heard uttered before.

 

the only remotely similar instance that i'm aware of is when some 60+ year old books get a Blue Label from CGC due to the amount of CT being extremely small.

 

AND, just to set the record straight - I did NOT resort to name calling yesterday - i merely stated that your position about not being required to disclose what you perceive to be obvious restoration, was BS..............

 

Set the record straight further. Again, you completely MIS-STATED my position. I did not say people should not be "required to disclose... restoration." I said they should be expected and required to disclose what was done. But nobody is required to use the same terms you use. If a person points out color touch on a book, he has done all that is required. He does not have to pass along the fact that you would call it "restoration."

 

And, regardless of what you say, a book has not necessarily been restored if it's been color touched. Color touch that doesn't improve a book doesn't "restore" it. The word restore means to bring it back to a previous state. Defacing a book does not bring it back to a previous state.

 

 

Wrong. Plain and simple. You are wrong. Color touch is NECESSARILY restoration. "Restore", in the lexicon of comic book terminology, means an attempt to, or the act of, apparently, or directly, returning a book to a previous state. The restoration need not be good, or pleasing to the eye as you suggest.

 

If you seal a tear, and color touch over it. Guess what? You've restored it. If you color touch a color-breaking crease on the spine...guess what? You've restored it. Just because you scream at the top of your lungs that it is not restoration, or you call it "markings" or "defacement". The only thing defaced of late has been your reputation.

 

Shame on you Bob.