Color touch, should I get CGC fees back?

[arexcrooke]

My goal is for everyone to be the way they were before the sale. Therefore, if one wants the benefit of the CGC slab, one must pay for that benefit.

 

(thumbs u

 

I don't understand why folks don't understand this line of thinking. Who cares about the CGC case? It's not our duty to keep it in plastic, it's to put both seller and buyer back to their original starting position. This accomplishes that goal.

See, i dont think that the goal is to get everyone back to where they started.

1-To crack the book out after it has been graded is

2-The seller sounds like he is a good, honest, and trustworthy seller (please, give us this guys name because if he is going to refund a $2k purchase, he has earned the right to be named)

3-Transplant was the one who paid for the opinion of CGC. It doesnt sound like the deal was built around a contingency of being sold IF it comes back at X grade and Y amount of resto. So, to me, that makes the cost of slabbing the book a cost that Transplant bears and bears alone.

4-Cracking out the book sounds spitefull. Again, it was Transplants decision to slab the book.

5-If im in Transplants shoes, im just glad to be working with a seller who is going to refund my moeny. Im not going to fuss over the $125 in slabbing fees. I would much rather be out $125, than $2125

 

As soon as I choose to slab a book, thats my choice, and I do not feel as if the seller should be responsible for my choices. They should only be responsible for the book they sold me, and not anything else if I choose to slab it. The caveat being if there is an agreemement that is contingent on the book coming back from CGC in an agreed upon condition

[whomerjay]

My goal is for everyone to be the way they were before the sale. Therefore, if one wants the benefit of the CGC slab, one must pay for that benefit.

 

(thumbs u

 

I don't understand why folks don't understand this line of thinking. Who cares about the CGC case? It's not our duty to keep it in plastic, it's to put both seller and buyer back to their original starting position. This accomplishes that goal.

See, i dont think that the goal is to get everyone back to where they started.

1-To crack the book out after it has been graded is

2-The seller sounds like he is a good, honest, and trustworthy seller (please, give us this guys name because if he is going to refund a $2k purchase, he has earned the right to be named)

3-Transplant was the one who paid for the opinion of CGC. It doesnt sound like the deal was built around a contingency of being sold IF it comes back at X grade and Y amount of resto. So, to me, that makes the cost of slabbing the book a cost that Transplant bears and bears alone.

4-Cracking out the book sounds spitefull. Again, it was Transplants decision to slab the book.

5-If im in Transplants shoes, im just glad to be working with a seller who is going to refund my moeny. Im not going to fuss over the $125 in slabbing fees. I would much rather be out $125, than $2125

 

As soon as I choose to slab a book, thats my choice, and I do not feel as if the seller should be responsible for my choices. They should only be responsible for the book they sold me, and not anything else if I choose to slab it. The caveat being if there is an agreemement that is contingent on the book coming back from CGC in an agreed upon condition

 

There is no implicit understanding when buying/selling comics that the seller is on the hook for any additional monies the buyer puts into a book based on the assumption it is unrestored. Also, where do you draw the line? If I bought a fine X-Factor #1 and decided to get it Express tier graded with overnite Fed-Ex return, and it came back with slight resto (a dot a color touch), is the seller obligated to refund my $100 expenses (plus the 50 cents I paid for the book)? Unless you have an explicit agreement with the seller prior to the sale, what you spend further on the book you do at your own risk.

 

Another point that no one has mentioned is that as a buyer you must ALWAYS think when buying an expensive book raw that there is a significant risk of restoration or undisclosed flaw, and you are gambling when making such a purchase. Any quality book I have that I intend to sell gets CGC'd, because I will make more money that way. It doesn't get CGC'd when it is not of sufficient quality, and I sell it raw with full disclosure. Why do certain BSD submit some of their big ticket GA books for slabbing, but not others of seemingly similar quality/pedigree? The answer is obvious to me. With this Ducks book, you essentially bought what you thought was a bargain and you were going to do what the seller didn't do (CGC it) in order for it to realize its full value/marketability. The gap between

 

(what you bought it for) + (cost of slabbing)

 

and the resale value of the book CGC'd has to be worth the risk you take in getting a not-as-represented book.

 

To me, it is rarely worth the risk, so I buy what I think are bargains already in slabs.

 

It sounds like the dealer is being fair with you, I say you are lucky, get your refund, and move on (although I agree with whoever said you might consider keeping the book).

 

[sterlingcomics]

It has nothing to do with being spiteful; why should the seller get the benefit of CGC's opinion if he didn't pay for it? Courts decide how to make people "whole", and this is where I'm coming from. No one should get a "windfall" or additional benefit---on EITHER side here. Again, it sounds like they are working out, so this is just my passing comments.

 

If I were the seller I probably would've met him halfway on the fees and done so happily given the cost of certification. For a lower priced book and submission cost I think I'd be less likely to pay for slabbing costs but returns for raw books not ad advertised absolutely. Kudos to those sellers that stand behind their product...

[arexcrooke]

It has nothing to do with being spiteful; why should the seller get the benefit of CGC's opinion if he didn't pay for it? Courts decide how to make people "whole", and this is where I'm coming from. No one should get a "windfall" or additional benefit---on EITHER side here. Again, it sounds like they are working out, so this is just my passing comments.

 

If I were the seller I probably would've met him halfway on the fees and done happily. Most of the long term sellers would do that too. It's the attitude and approach that is brought into the disagreement that effects the outcome I think. And the mental disposition of both parties. Kudos to those sellers that stand behind their product...

I see your point, but i dont think i would be upset if I didnt get the slabbing fee back as i was the one who did it and why should the seller be responsible for my actions?

[THE_BEYONDER]

It has nothing to do with being spiteful; why should the seller get the benefit of CGC's opinion if he didn't pay for it? Courts decide how to make people "whole", and this is where I'm coming from. No one should get a "windfall" or additional benefit---on EITHER side here. Again, it sounds like they are working out, so this is just my passing comments.

 

If I were the seller I probably would've met him halfway on the fees and done happily. Most of the long term sellers would do that too. It's the attitude and approach that is brought into the disagreement that effects the outcome I think. And the mental disposition of both parties. Kudos to those sellers that stand behind their product...

I see your point, but i dont think i would be upset if I didnt get the slabbing fee back as i was the one who did it and why should the seller be responsible for my actions?

 

You wouldn't mind losing $125?

[sterlingcomics]

I see your point, but i dont think i would be upset if I didnt get the slabbing fee back as i was the one who did it and why should the seller be responsible for my actions?

 

That's EXACTLY where I am, dude. :thumbsup: I wouldn't be upset at all. In fact, getting returns for slab fees I think in general should NOT be expected without prior knowledge and expectation setting, although I know that many do pursue the matter in this way when deals go south.

[sterlingcomics]

You wouldn't mind losing $125?

 

Not the point. It's the fact that the buyer has responsibilities in the transaction as well as it was his decision to spend it. I also think one of my take-aways is making absolutely sure what the policy is on part of the seller to make sure if a situation goes awry you know what the resolution will be.

[THE_BEYONDER]

You wouldn't mind losing $125?

 

Not the point. It's the fact that the buyer has responsibilities in the transaction as well as it was his decision to spend it.

 

The seller has responsibilities as well. One of which is not to sell restored books as unrestored.

[sterlingcomics]

You wouldn't mind losing $125?

 

Not the point. It's the fact that the buyer has responsibilities in the transaction as well as it was his decision to spend it.

 

The seller has responsibilities as well. One of which is not to sell restored books as unrestored.

 

Right, which is why he is refunding the cost of the book.

[arexcrooke]

It has nothing to do with being spiteful; why should the seller get the benefit of CGC's opinion if he didn't pay for it? Courts decide how to make people "whole", and this is where I'm coming from. No one should get a "windfall" or additional benefit---on EITHER side here. Again, it sounds like they are working out, so this is just my passing comments.

 

If I were the seller I probably would've met him halfway on the fees and done happily. Most of the long term sellers would do that too. It's the attitude and approach that is brought into the disagreement that effects the outcome I think. And the mental disposition of both parties. Kudos to those sellers that stand behind their product...

I see your point, but i dont think i would be upset if I didnt get the slabbing fee back as i was the one who did it and why should the seller be responsible for my actions?

 

You wouldn't mind losing $125?

Im not loosing $125. It was my choice to slab the book and therefore the cost is sunk cost and opportunity cost that I incurred.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

It has nothing to do with being spiteful; why should the seller get the benefit of CGC's opinion if he didn't pay for it? Courts decide how to make people "whole", and this is where I'm coming from. No one should get a "windfall" or additional benefit---on EITHER side here. Again, it sounds like they are working out, so this is just my passing comments.

 

If I were the seller I probably would've met him halfway on the fees and done happily. Most of the long term sellers would do that too. It's the attitude and approach that is brought into the disagreement that effects the outcome I think. And the mental disposition of both parties. Kudos to those sellers that stand behind their product...

I see your point, but i dont think i would be upset if I didnt get the slabbing fee back as i was the one who did it and why should the seller be responsible for my actions?

 

You wouldn't mind losing $125?

Im not loosing $125. It was my choice to slab the book and therefore the cost is sunk cost and opportunity cost that I incurred.

 

It's not the buyers fault the book came back restored. I don't see why the buyer should be out $125 because he sent in a book that should have came back with a Blue label according to the seller. The seller fooked up...and should be on the hook. Mistakes can be costly. The mistake was made by the seller. It sucks....but the seller should pony up the slabbing fees IMO.

[Foolkiller]

To me, I agree with some of the earlier responses... you the buyer are choosing to get the book slabbed. Unless there was some agreement to assent to CGC's opinion, the buyer is making the decision to get the book checked out. The buyer should get their money back for the book, but not the grading fees.

[arexcrooke]

again, i see you point Chris, but i think its my responsibility to eat the fees.

In this hypothetical excercise, what is to say that i couldnt have detected the CT myself?

Why does the buyer get a free pass and the seller doesnt?

[THE_BEYONDER]

again, i see you point Chris, but i think its my responsibility to eat the fees.

In this hypothetical excercise, what is to say that i couldnt have detected the CT myself?

Why does the buyer get a free pass and the seller doesnt?

 

It's the responsibility of the seller to know what they're selling.

[arexcrooke]

Its the responsibility of the buyer to know what he is buying too.

[dekeuk]

 

Couldn't he have saved himself the $125 by just putting the book under a black light and seeing the color touch for himself before spending $125 to get CGC to tell him this?

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Couldn't he have saved himself the $125 by just putting the book under a black light and seeing the color touch for himself before spending $125 to get CGC to tell him this?

 

 

Couldn't the seller have done the same thing prior to listing the book?

[arexcrooke]

we can loop this all day long Chris, but the burden lies on the buyer just as much as the seller.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

we can loop this all day long Chris, but the burden lies on the buyer just as much as the seller.

 

I disagree. The seller is responsible for what they are selling. The buyer asked the seller if the book was restored. Seller said it wasn't. It was. Seller fooked up.

 

Next you're gonna tell me that I should be an expert on diamonds if I ever plan on buying a diamond engagement ring.....

[MrBedrock]

When buying a home the seller fills out all kinds of disclosure forms.

Then the buyer pays an inspector to go over the house.

If there are undisclosed problems they are negotiated, but the buyer doesn't get the inspection fees back (unless they are part of the negotiation).

Maybe CGC is like an inspector.