Another cover our *spoon*. CGC dosen't know anything return policy.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

How you can type this load of utter arse whilst keeping a straight face is beyond me.

[bhhooks22]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

You're silly.

 

'Your silly" ! , ....very polite my man , ...very polite !............. (thumbs u ........................BH

[bluechip]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

You're silly.

 

'Your silly" ! , ....very polite my man , ...very polite !............. (thumbs u ........................BH

 

 

What I expected. No rebuttal to specific points. Just that it's b.s.

 

Assume you're not complaining when I say that I'd offer a refund for a book that was sold as unrestored but had a tear seal.

 

So, just what are you saying then? Really, just make it clear.

 

Are you saying that if a book has a mark on it, neither buyer nor seller will knnow what the mark is until it's been slabbed?

 

Even if the mark is plain to see, and both parties (seller and buyer) also know that some blue label books have marks exactly like it?

 

What exactly is the point? That marks and glue spots may sometimes be resto and sometimes not?

 

I won't be coming back here; too busy. So I know the teabaggers here will surge into this hoping it will buy them some brownie points. But I'll make note of who surges so that later I can present some interesting info to the same people and sit back and wai for the righteous indignation that I know will not follow (because the books were offered by others)...

 

 

[Sal]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

Whatever. My intended inference was that you have a definition of restoration that appears to encompass the five feet of space around you, as I have yet to see a single person adopt your particular take on it, and that this seller has an equally arsed and singular opinion.

 

Or at least I thought he did, until that gem there.

 

Whatever refund policy you do or don't have has nothing to do with that particular issue here

[DiceX]

So, just what are you saying then? Really, just make it clear.

 

I believe he's trying to say you are a *forking* ding dong.

insufficiently_thoughtful_person, insufficiently_thoughtful_person, infadel, or perhaps smegma.

 

I won't be coming back here; too busy.

 

I'll call the caterer. Let the party begin!

 

So I know the teabaggers here will surge into this hoping it will buy them some brownie points. But I'll make note of who surges so that later I can present some interesting info to the same people and sit back and wai for the righteous indignation that I know will not follow (because the books were offered by others)...

 

How about you go fist yourself, pencildick.

 

 

[Dano]

Why I do not buy anymore...

 

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

[Dano]

And by the way, I used to buy a lot.

 

Dan

[sterlingcomics]

I'll get some kindling.

 

Drama Queen!

 

 

It's cold here in NC. Only 100 degree weather. :shrug:

[sterlingcomics]

Why I do not buy anymore...

 

That's why I concentrate on well priced slabbed books, or buy raw from those that "Get it". Jump back in the saddle!

[Flaming_Telepath]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

Whatever. My intended inference was that you have a definition of restoration that appears to encompass the five feet of space around you, as I have yet to see a single person adopt your particular take on it, and that this seller has an equally arsed and singular opinion.

 

Or at least I thought he did, until that gem there.

 

Whatever refund policy you do or don't have has nothing to do with that particular issue here

 

(worship)

 

Too true. (thumbs u

 

The only possible reason I can see for Mr 'What's Restoration Really' take on matters is pure convenience.

 

Oh, and utter greed. (thumbs u

[Calamerica]

You are entitled to a refund.

 

The Seller sold you a book that did NOT disclose resto.

 

Yes, one eBayer, named Thunderdart asked me for a refund on two Silver Surfers that came back with the virtually undetectable BLACK color touch on the no's 1 & 3.

 

He was leery of my "no return/as is/all sales final" policies but I felt that I had to refund him because my UV light cannot pick up the BLACK color touch( professional btw).

 

Thunderdart contacted me about two months after he bought the Silver Surfer set from me. I still have the two PLODs and they are registered somewhere in one of my Registry sets.

 

I think if you push the issue NOW, through Paypal/eBay you should have an easy win. Slamdunk.

 

CAL been there done that.

 

 

[brasseye]

MC, Cal has the right of it. Push through on establish channels, and that should either negate, or change his thinking about his indefensible standpoint re the resto work.

 

His argument is so full of holes, it is laughable. Don't let him get away with it!

 

 

[whomerjay]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

Whatever. My intended inference was that you have a definition of restoration that appears to encompass the five feet of space around you, as I have yet to see a single person adopt your particular take on it, and that this seller has an equally arsed and singular opinion.

 

Or at least I thought he did, until that gem there.

 

Whatever refund policy you do or don't have has nothing to do with that particular issue here

 

Actually, I'm going to miss BC; he inspires some snappy retorts.

[whomerjay]

So, just what are you saying then? Really, just make it clear.

 

I believe he's trying to say you are a *forking* ding dong.

insufficiently_thoughtful_person, insufficiently_thoughtful_person, infadel, or perhaps smegma.

 

I won't be coming back here; too busy.

 

I'll call the caterer. Let the party begin!

 

So I know the teabaggers here will surge into this hoping it will buy them some brownie points. But I'll make note of who surges so that later I can present some interesting info to the same people and sit back and wai for the righteous indignation that I know will not follow (because the books were offered by others)...

 

How about you go fist yourself, pencildick.

 

 

see, they keep on coming.

[whomerjay]

Either way, the seller needs to give you some money back. It wasn't bluechip or silver-age-comics, was it?

 

 

Without an "industry standard" about restoration - a position I personally think is road apples - it's still been monkeyed with, and said monkeying should have been proactively disclosed.

 

 

I'd out the seller, but understand your reluctance.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and "We are interested only in our buyer's opinion of the book when he receives it." is also a load of . Can you imagine a car dealer trying to get away with that? "Hey, sorry your mechanic found eight square feet of bondo on that used car we sold you, but you should have gone over the whole thing with a magnet when you were giving it a once-over on the lot."

 

 

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

Whatever. My intended inference was that you have a definition of restoration that appears to encompass the five feet of space around you, as I have yet to see a single person adopt your particular take on it, and that this seller has an equally arsed and singular opinion.

 

Or at least I thought he did, until that gem there.

 

Whatever refund policy you do or don't have has nothing to do with that particular issue here

 

(worship)

 

Too true. (thumbs u

 

The only possible reason I can see for Mr 'What's Restoration Really' take on matters is pure convenience.

 

Oh, and utter greed. (thumbs u

 

And I enjoy the piling on.

[Timely]

CGC, for instance calls taping of a tear amateur restoration, while no one else does

 

This is incorrect. CGC considers tape a defect, not restoration.

 

West

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Isnt Bluechip a shill ? I remember some kind of bad karma around him... Which guy was he ?

 

Waiter ! Link Please..

[Wally's Comics]

[awe4one]

I did not sell this book, whatever it is. But it's unfair and incorrect to imply I would not allow the return of a book that somebody found a tear seal on, especially if it was clear from the outset somebody wanted a book that's unrestored, and I would know that meant tear seals for some people, so I would see it coming if he found a tear seal. Where I do agree with the seller is in how they describe a dot of marking or glue. I can show any buyer numerous examples of books that have marks and glue and some of them have purple labels and some of them have blue labels. So, if the buyer knows it's on the book, then it's up to the buyer to know what he calls it and to bid or not bid accordingly. The eight feet of bondo would be a better analogy if the book in question had more than a tear seal, but even if you go with that analogy, it's a whole different question if the buyer knows it's there, then he knows it's there; period. Doesn't make any difference whether some mechanic calls it bondo or preservation or restoration.

 

You're still around? I would have bet you'd been banned after your Action Comics #1 scam...

 

Jim

[seanfingh]

I personally , would ALWAYS make it right for the buyer and my reputation , unless I really thought they we're some scam artist . These things don't happen that often (or shouldn't) so it's usually best , and easiest to take the high road !..................BH

 

Of course , not if I'm dealing with the likes of , ...er , .... Divad , ...Watson , Cloudtwit , 1970(Roy) , Sean , ....etc...............

 

F U and your high road Hooks. Like you have a comic I would be interested in.