Gus'? Action 1 on eBay....

[Point Five]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

Does seem implausible given that the market for single digit Actions must run to at least a couple of hundred people, I would think.

[rjpb]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

That and spending 150 pages refusing to acknowledge that what 99% of the collecting community considers restoration should be called restoration probably didn't help insure confidence in the rest of the books.

[bluechip]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

I didn't guess that people coordinated bids. I had real info on it. Many posts here discussed doing the same in other cases. I didn't say it was a conspiracy against me but I suppose one could call it a conspiracy for the books at a desired price.

 

 

[bluechip]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

That and spending 150 pages refusing to acknowledge that what 99% of the collecting community considers restoration should be called restoration probably didn't help insure confidence in the rest of the books.

 

Actually, the real argument was that words describing the work are superior to colored labels. And, actually, 99% of people in the world would not consider a book with bad color touch restored. They'd consider the color touch a defect.

 

I also think, as said herein, that saying on a label that a book has color touch is not only just as good as calling it restored or putting it in a purple label, I think it's better. Especially if it says in detail where the color touch is. Leaving that information vague, while putting the book in a purple label, gives the buyer less information, not more. That's why, as I understand it, CGC is considering refining its restored label to give more information and less damnation.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above, anyone whose seen my listings since this should have noted they say the items are returnable if restored or even if they haven't been improved but somehow got a purple label. (and even if the same work, on a different book, didn't get a purple label) And I give more time than it takes for them to send it to CGC and get it back (which can mean totally eating ebay and paypal fees, even postage and slabbing costs). All for a label color that creates reactions so out of balance that a book with a dot of color touch in a corner is supposedly "worth" more than a book with the entire corner missing, entirely/

 

Return guarantees don't stop some people from saying that if a book turns out to get a purple label they should not only have the option to return it but they should also be able to keep the book and to dictate the price paid, even demanding a large discount from the agreed price. Some have a sense that the purple label justifies any such demands.

 

Others just hate the thought of somebody touching up a book so much they want the label to make others feel the same way.

 

Perhaps, this has been raised again because some people dislike the possibility that CGC may be refining the way it labels restored books.

 

To some, a restored label denotes a book touched with impure thought and a purple label might just as well say that a former owner touched it with his wee-wee. And I think they worry that any change in CGC labeling would make less people draw the same sort of comparison.

 

 

 

 

[goldust40]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

That and spending 150 pages refusing to acknowledge that what 99% of the collecting community considers restoration should be called restoration probably didn't help insure confidence in the rest of the books.

 

Actually, the real argument was that words describing the work are superior to colored labels. And, actually, 99% of people in the world would not consider a book with bad color touch restored. They'd consider the color touch a defect.

 

I also think, as said herein, that saying on a label that a book has color touch is not only just as good as calling it restored or putting it in a purple label, I think it's better. Especially if it says in detail where the color touch is. Leaving that information vague, while putting the book in a purple label, gives the buyer less information, not more. That's why, as I understand it, CGC is considering refining its restored label to give more information and less damnation.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above, anyone whose seen my listings since this should have noted they say the items are returnable if restored or even if they haven't been improved but somehow got a purple label. (and even if the same work, on a different book, didn't get a purple label) And I give more time than it takes for them to send it to CGC and get it back (which can mean totally eating ebay and paypal fees, even postage and slabbing costs). All for a label color that creates reactions so out of balance that a book with a dot of color touch in a corner is supposedly "worth" more than a book with the entire corner missing, entirely/

 

Return guarantees don't stop some people from saying that if a book turns out to get a purple label they should not only have the option to return it but they should also be able to keep the book and to dictate the price paid, even demanding a large discount from the agreed price. Some have a sense that the purple label justifies any such demands.

 

Others just hate the thought of somebody touching up a book so much they want the label to make others feel the same way.

 

Perhaps, this has been raised again because some people dislike the possibility that CGC may be refining the way it labels restored books.

 

To some, a restored label denotes a book touched with impure thought and a purple label might just as well say that a former owner touched it with his wee-wee. And I think they worry that any change in CGC labeling would make less people draw the same sort of comparison.

 

 

 

 

And we're back with the semantics and obfuscation. In the end, whatever the definition, and whether CGC does ever refine its terms (as if they would) all your points are moot. There's the consensus and there's you.

[bluechip]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

That and spending 150 pages refusing to acknowledge that what 99% of the collecting community considers restoration should be called restoration probably didn't help insure confidence in the rest of the books.

 

Actually, the real argument was that words describing the work are superior to colored labels. And, actually, 99% of people in the world would not consider a book with bad color touch restored. They'd consider the color touch a defect.

 

I also think, as said herein, that saying on a label that a book has color touch is not only just as good as calling it restored or putting it in a purple label, I think it's better. Especially if it says in detail where the color touch is. Leaving that information vague, while putting the book in a purple label, gives the buyer less information, not more. That's why, as I understand it, CGC is considering refining its restored label to give more information and less damnation.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above, anyone whose seen my listings since this should have noted they say the items are returnable if restored or even if they haven't been improved but somehow got a purple label. (and even if the same work, on a different book, didn't get a purple label) And I give more time than it takes for them to send it to CGC and get it back (which can mean totally eating ebay and paypal fees, even postage and slabbing costs). All for a label color that creates reactions so out of balance that a book with a dot of color touch in a corner is supposedly "worth" more than a book with the entire corner missing, entirely/

 

Return guarantees don't stop some people from saying that if a book turns out to get a purple label they should not only have the option to return it but they should also be able to keep the book and to dictate the price paid, even demanding a large discount from the agreed price. Some have a sense that the purple label justifies any such demands.

 

Others just hate the thought of somebody touching up a book so much they want the label to make others feel the same way.

 

Perhaps, this has been raised again because some people dislike the possibility that CGC may be refining the way it labels restored books.

 

To some, a restored label denotes a book touched with impure thought and a purple label might just as well say that a former owner touched it with his wee-wee. And I think they worry that any change in CGC labeling would make less people draw the same sort of comparison.

 

 

 

 

And we're back with the semantics and obfuscation. In the end, whatever the definition, and whether CGC does ever refine its terms (as if they would) all your points are moot. There's the consensus and there's you.

 

saying that something is semantics and obfuscation doesn't make a clear statement unclear.

 

If there is a consensus that any color touched book is truly as bad as one that a guy smeared with his weiner, I would be surprised.

 

And it's not semantics to say it's odd to consider a book "worth" less with color touch in the corner than an identical book with that same corner torn away.

 

Just as it has been odd that books were valued higher with corrosive tape than with archival tape. CGC has taken steps to correct that imbalance, so maybe it won't be as odd anymore.

 

I know I didn't like leaving five figures on the table a couple years ago when a CGC employee told me flat out that I would get a better grade, and sell the book for much more, if I taped up the split spine.

 

He wasn't advising me to, or saying it was right. But he was being very clear that I would make about 10K more on the book if I taped it. (and no, I didn't. So I was glad to hear later that CGC changed its rules to reflect that decision)

 

 

[goldust40]

Keep on tilting at windmills. After 165 pages your argument may be clear but it isn't right, and more importantly it isn't relevant. Speculating about how collectors think and equating separate defects have proven to be highly resistible points.

 

Anyway, I do wish folks would euphemize more often about restoration, too. Think of the possibilities.

 

 

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Other books offered at the same time went for very low prices to people working a bid ring via phone calls, emails and some PMS via this board. As a result, some posters in this thread ended up with the low prices single digit actions, etc

Sorry, but I can't resist... just reread your statement above and noticed this gem. I remember those other early Actions well, as I was quite interested in them until the later revelations in this thread.

 

Kind of funny that you think a handful of random boardies 1) were actively conspiring against you, and 2) had the power to influence the bids of the other 99% of ebay comic bidders who don't read these boards.

 

Perhaps the auction information simply didn't give ebayers the confidence they needed to bid their max?

 

 

I didn't guess that people coordinated bids. I had real info on it. Many posts here discussed doing the same in other cases. I didn't say it was a conspiracy against me but I suppose one could call it a conspiracy for the books at a desired price.

 

 

Not meaning to be argumentative, but I'm puzzled by how people on this board could have successfully conspired to hold down prices on your auctions. Even if they agreed to place only below-market bids, what would have stopped other bidders in an open auction from bidding higher?