• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Batman #1 on ebay misrepresented???

126 posts in this topic

For me, it puts the enire "Oregon" collection into question.

i wouldn't go that far ,maybe taking advantage with listing the #1 as part of the collection, but surely it is just a lack of knowledge or research by SA.... I believe on the bats, that they were legit, just not NM+ (more like fns and vfs)... maybe the selkirk or selnick or something like that?

 

My concern is that even if there is an OO collection, how many books not from this collection are getting lumped into it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone notice the high bidder on Silver Age's book and the seller on the other 2 auctions? hm There was speculation that Gus was shilling his auctions, I think we can stop speculating now.

yep, we noticed.... but, the speculation ended some time ago... Silver Age had previously been exposed as a shill bidder, and that is enough said about them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it puts the enire "Oregon" collection into question.

i wouldn't go that far ,maybe taking advantage with listing the #1 as part of the collection, but surely it is just a lack of knowledge or research by SA.... I believe on the bats, that they were legit, just not NM+ (more like fns and vfs)... maybe the selkirk or selnick or something like that?

 

My concern is that even if there is an OO collection, how many books not from this collection are getting lumped into it?

I suspect just the Bat 1... only because there is a lot of consistency with the others (the pictures, etc)... consistently overgraded! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just PM'd that the shill bidding has been reported to ebay... so, let's see if ebay does anything about it

 

Ebay? Do something abou shill bidding? Well, one can hope .. I am not too impressed by Ebay's policing efforts.

self policing, no...but, when reported, hopefully :wishluck:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone notice the high bidder on Silver Age's book and the seller on the other 2 auctions? hm

 

It's ridiculous. It would be hard for it to be more blatant.

 

Take a look at the screen shot below. The bids by the owner of the Batman #1 are highlighted in red.

 

I think anyone here who has won any of Silver Age's auctions in the last month or two should check their bid histories very carefully.

56185-bat1.jpg.8fe056669e44ffee1098aa723b461652.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was my former copy a year ago. I emailed SA Comics over the weekend. Greg wrote back and we talked live on the phone. I told him that this was not an OO copy as I owned it a year ago. I also told him the book came back PLOD 1.0 Slight (A). He was a little surprised and said he was going to make the changes on the site, so to give full disclosure to bidders. Apparently, Greg does not "work" for Gus. Rather he pulls in collections, uses SA Comic's eBay handle, and handles all questions on the books. All shipping is handled by Gus, and Greg gets a piece of the profits. I asked Greg why not sell them directly under his name, and I guess he doesn't want to handle all the shipping of books (he has a full time job)...here are scans of my former Bat 1.

 

Pre CGC

Batman1FCGD2.jpg

Batman1BCGD2.jpg

 

Post CGC

Bat1MycopyCGC1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice follow-through Ben - IIRC, that book was sold to you as a raw, unrestored, 2.0. :screwy::sumo::frustrated:

 

Funny how the same books make the rounds, isn't it?

 

That book was originally sold with with the disclosure about having glue at the spine. I am astounded that you don't consider glue to be restoration. Stunned in fact.

 

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice follow-through Ben - IIRC, that book was sold to you as a raw, unrestored, 2.0. :screwy::sumo::frustrated:

 

Funny how the same books make the rounds, isn't it?

 

That book was originally sold with with the disclosure about having glue at the spine. I am astounded that you don't consider glue to be restoration. Stunned in fact.

 

S

 

CGC got the grade right on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was my former copy a year ago. I emailed SA Comics over the weekend. Greg wrote back and we talked live on the phone. I told him that this was not an OO copy as I owned it a year ago. I also told him the book came back PLOD 1.0 Slight (A). He was a little surprised and said he was going to make the changes on the site, so to give full disclosure to bidders. Apparently, Greg does not "work" for Gus. Rather he pulls in collections, uses SA Comic's eBay handle, and handles all questions on the books. All shipping is handled by Gus, and Greg gets a piece of the profits. I asked Greg why not sell them directly under his name, and I guess he doesn't want to handle all the shipping of books (he has a full time job)...here are scans of my former Bat 1.

 

ben, did you ask greg why they are allowing the owner of the book to shill the auction (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was my former copy a year ago. I emailed SA Comics over the weekend. Greg wrote back and we talked live on the phone. I told him that this was not an OO copy as I owned it a year ago. I also told him the book came back PLOD 1.0 Slight (A). He was a little surprised and said he was going to make the changes on the site, so to give full disclosure to bidders. Apparently, Greg does not "work" for Gus. Rather he pulls in collections, uses SA Comic's eBay handle, and handles all questions on the books. All shipping is handled by Gus, and Greg gets a piece of the profits. I asked Greg why not sell them directly under his name, and I guess he doesn't want to handle all the shipping of books (he has a full time job)...here are scans of my former Bat 1.

 

ben, did you ask greg why they are allowing the owner of the book to shill the auction (shrug)

 

no, I wasn't able to get that far because Greg had to go and our talk was cut short...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was my former copy a year ago. I emailed SA Comics over the weekend. Greg wrote back and we talked live on the phone. I told him that this was not an OO copy as I owned it a year ago. I also told him the book came back PLOD 1.0 Slight (A). He was a little surprised and said he was going to make the changes on the site, so to give full disclosure to bidders. Apparently, Greg does not "work" for Gus. Rather he pulls in collections, uses SA Comic's eBay handle, and handles all questions on the books. All shipping is handled by Gus, and Greg gets a piece of the profits. I asked Greg why not sell them directly under his name, and I guess he doesn't want to handle all the shipping of books (he has a full time job)...here are scans of my former Bat 1.

 

ben, did you ask greg why they are allowing the owner of the book to shill the auction (shrug)

 

no, I wasn't able to get that far because Greg had to go and our talk was cut short...

ok, maybe that can be your first question next time you talk (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of CGC label color - how much do people care about glue in that grade? (as long as it's been disclosed) - I'm honestly asking the question, not sharing an opinion.

 

 

Any informed buyer should be able to see that copy is NOT a 2.0, though I could go as high as 1.5, but I'm a cover centric collector, and while that copy is beat and a somewhat soiled, there aren't any big chunks missing and it's not defaced. When one is talking grades below 2.0 though, it really is buy the book and know the specific defects, the actual grade being secondary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites