• 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.

Fraud FF 27 in Comiclink auction

Started by LordRahl,

164 posts in this topic

DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
I don't understand how any reputable auction house or dealer can justify selling anything "graded" by PGX. I guess it all comes down to greed, because common sense obviously has nothing to do with it.

 

As far as I'm concerned Josh and C-Link are as liable in this as PGX and the owner of the book.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are liable, but I am disappointed that PGX books are starting to litter their auctions.

 

I would. :grin:

 

Nice avatar BTW, is there a larger version of it somewhere I could see?

 

You want them LARGER??

 

I don't know about "them", but yes, I'd like to see a larger version of this:

 

1940.jpg

 

:roflmao: I thought you were talking about DiceX's new avatar!! :roflmao:

 

My bad! :)

 

Ok, well I wouldn't mind seeing a bigger picture of that avatar either, now that you mention it. :grin:

 

hm

 

I had to edit it a little to get it under the 20k allowable size.

Arch needs to give us a little more room.

150x150 in size would be nice too.

 

 

 

 

I agree...Arch!!!...we need more room for boobs!!!... :makepoint:

 

epic_boobs.jpg

 

boobs.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snitzer

snitzer

Posted
Posted
This is why the Network of Disclosure should exist. If anyone in the "sales chain" were a NOD member, the point would be moot - the information would be freely available.

 

NOD is a noble organization, and definitely should exist.

But NOD membership, in and of itself, does not ensure that things like this won't happen. An anonymous venue like a C-Link auction is the ideal place for anyone, NOD member or not, to move an undesirable or tainted book.

Very true. We`ve seen NOD members violate the rules. They suffered some embarassment, but at the end of the day that was all.

 

Now if NOD had a charter rules that allowed the rest of the members to hold a blanket party if a member violated a rule... hm

 

We'll work on that blanket part. Of course, it should be posted to YouTube as well with a little NOD teaser ad at the end with our logos (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingDonut

FlyingDonut

Posted
Posted
All I'm taking away from this thread is that you guys like animated gifs of boobs.

 

And you don't? I fear for the youth of America. Damn whippersnappers. Not liking boobs. What has the world come to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

Its cool that Josh responded by pulling the book...

but are we SURE its the same book? I compared the lower left corner of each scan and it looks to me like they are not exactly identical. I darkened the one with a lighter bkgnd at teh edge of the spine because optically it helps make a visual comparison.

 

So are they the same book??

 

 

57790-Picture9.png.925722e616313cab9de5294ddab783fa.png

57791-Picture10.png.cf72d9018e0c93d4fdfb8dd0e01c623d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
Its cool that Josh responded by pulling the book...

but are we SURE its the same book? I compared the lower left corner of each scan and it looks to me like they are not exactly identical. I darkened the one with a lighter bkgnd at teh edge of the spine because optically it helps make a visual comparison.

 

So are they the same book??

 

 

 

It's the same book.

One scanner doesn't focus on the image as it bends around the spine as well as the other scanner.

Same reason some scanners make slabbed books look blurry, because they can't focus on anything that is slightly away from the surface of the glass.

:gossip:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
Its cool that Josh responded by pulling the book...

but are we SURE its the same book? I compared the lower left corner of each scan and it looks to me like they are not exactly identical. I darkened the one with a lighter bkgnd at teh edge of the spine because optically it helps make a visual comparison.

 

So are they the same book??

 

 

 

It's the same book.

One scanner doesn't focus on the image as it bends around the spine as well as the other scanner.

Same reason some scanners make slabbed books look blurry, because they can't focus on anything that is slightly away from the surface of the glass.

:gossip:

 

 

Are you sure you're not being distracted by other boobs, er I mean books. :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted
Its cool that Josh responded by pulling the book...

but are we SURE its the same book? I compared the lower left corner of each scan and it looks to me like they are not exactly identical. I darkened the one with a lighter bkgnd at teh edge of the spine because optically it helps make a visual comparison.

 

So are they the same book??

 

 

 

It's the same book.

One scanner doesn't focus on the image as it bends around the spine as well as the other scanner.

Same reason some scanners make slabbed books look blurry, because they can't focus on anything that is slightly away from the surface of the glass.

:gossip:

 

 

what are you using to determine its the same book? Are there particular aspects Im missing?

Because the wrap looks off by almost a 32nd"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LordRahl

LordRahl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
look at Namor's foot. we see the entire second toe on one book but not the other.

 

 

Seriously? Same miscut, same right edge cut, same small chip missing from the top right corner, same rounded bottom right corner, same sharp spine side corners, same printing spots in the same position on Reed's torso. All that vs slight scanner variance. Maybe the book was pressed and is now slightly flatter accounting for what you are seeing. The odds that 2 high grade FF 27s are out there with the same production defects and IDENTICAL handling defects are probably close to the odds of winning the lottery. Believe what you like but I'd bet the value of a true CGC 9.4 that this is the same book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

yeah Im serious, but I dont care either way. I dont have a pony in this race. But the lower left corner is not identical in both scans.

 

also, the printing spots on Reed would remain for a pretty decent portion of the print run So hundreds or even 1000s of books would have them in the same place.

 

The upper right corner looks folded in in the CGC slab, but unfolded or pressed flat for PGX.

 

The rounded right bottom corner doesnt look rounded to me, but rather the white floor Things foot is standing on.

 

Same right side cut, but really, so what? They cut them all over the place. Thats just one side. To my eye the left side is wrapped differently, so the right side isnt conclusive of more than just one cut being identical.

 

 

what else is there that identifies each book as the same? To me the most convincing argument is that Josh believes it based on the Board's collective opinion about the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Park

Park

Posted
Posted

I keep trying to go back in this thread and take a look at the book(s) but I am constantly distracted by the ginormous............sigh. :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing