• 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.

Looking for opinions

Started by here to lern,

538 posts in this topic

Mr.Diggler

Mr.Diggler

Posted
Posted
I would love to know what the other 28 books were and how much more money was to be made from them :whistle:

When I see one book come into the lime light like this, and then realize that there are 28 more manipulated books behind it...am I the only one that just wants to vomit at the thought of it all?

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
I would love to know what the other 28 books were and how much more money was to be made from them :whistle:

When I see one book come into the lime light like this, and then realize that there are 28 more manipulated books behind it...am I the only one that just wants to vomit at the thought of it all?

+1

 

+2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
Unless the presser provides a guarantee upfront as to the quality of their work, they are under no obligation to reimburse the cost of an 8.0 copy of ASM17. Ethically, yes, but in practice no. They should, however, refund the cost of the pressing and re-encapsulation.

 

I'd like to know who pressed this book, because it certainly appears their work is unreliable.

Hey Bob, now that we know that Matt pressed the book in question, would you still classify his work as unreliable and discontinue the use of his services?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
Not very long ago there was a post on these Boards where the poster had a Watchmen #1 prescreened by an unnamed expert and complained that he didn't

get the desired grade. The boards trashed this guy, deservedly so. IMHO this post deserves no better. I can't believe I wasted my time reading this thread when all along Matt had offered an appropriate resolution. What was the problem that needed board input ? No way should Matt or anybody pay for a 9.0. This is a bad case of greed. Somebody close this thread, please.

 

Simple and to the point.

 

I would love to know what the other 28 books were and how much more money was to be made from them :whistle:

Wanting to be reimbursed from a 7.5 to an 8.0 isn't something I would consider to be greedy. Asking to be reimbursed up to a 9.0, well, that's a different scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
I would love to know what the other 28 books were and how much more money was to be made from them :whistle:

When I see one book come into the lime light like this, and then realize that there are 28 more manipulated books behind it...am I the only one that just wants to vomit at the thought of it all?

+1

 

+2

 

-1

 

Since pressing is already so prominent, I'd rather all books be manipulated so that I don't have to worry about it. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Nuance worship serves to indulge the self in lazy shades of weak-willed gray in a corrupted form of worthy self-actualization turned contrived sophistication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Nuance worship serves to indulge the self in lazy shades of weak-willed gray in a corrupted form of worthy self-actualization turned contrived sophistication.

 

copyandpastearguments.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites
here to lern

here to lern

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Can you actually read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Diggler

Mr.Diggler

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Can you actually read?

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Can you actually read?

 

Oh no you didn't.

 

Sean is gonna rip you apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Nuance worship serves to indulge the self in lazy shades of weak-willed gray in a corrupted form of worthy self-actualization turned contrived sophistication.

 

copyandpastearguments.com

No . It is in his sigline. :jokealert: Sir An of Drew. :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Diggler

Mr.Diggler

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Can you actually read?

 

Oh no you didn't.

 

Sean is gonna rip you apart.

:tonofbricks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
I think everyone is over reacting. His book was damaged, regardless of the other submissions, the person or persons providing the services are responsible for his book.

 

No, they are not. However, despite this, they are manning up and being told that said manning up is not sufficient.

Nuance worship serves to indulge the self in lazy shades of weak-willed gray in a corrupted form of worthy self-actualization turned contrived sophistication.

 

That is somewhat clever. It does not, however, change the fact that the OP agreed that his remedy was what was stated in Matt/CI's limitation of remedies. Matt/CI would be perfectly justified in giving him his refund and telling him to whistle Dixie while pounding sand down a rathole. Anything more that he gets is because Matt/CI wanted to keep a happy customer or not run the risk of having his reputation tarnished. Gee, look how awesomely that worked for him. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Like it was a big mystery that it was you, Matt. Now, let's see how many opinions change. lol

 

This whole thing should be very simple. He had an 8.0 to begin with in this scenario. Liked I said ealier, if he is to be reimbursed, it should be for an 8.0.

I believe that was my final analysis as well, do I win a prize (thumbs u

 

 

Only if I get one too for posting the same conclusion on page 1 of the thread. :sumo:

 

I :luhv: me some prizes.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
Posted
Not very long ago there was a post on these Boards where the poster had a Watchmen #1 prescreened by an unnamed expert and complained that he didn't

get the desired grade. The boards trashed this guy, deservedly so. IMHO this post deserves no better. I can't believe I wasted my time reading this thread when all along Matt had offered an appropriate resolution. What was the problem that needed board input ? No way should Matt or anybody pay for a 9.0. This is a bad case of greed. Somebody close this thread, please.

 

Simple and to the point.

 

I would love to know what the other 28 books were and how much more money was to be made from them :whistle:

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the crack out game, but the "greed" comments seem severe (to say the least).

 

The OP's posts went way out his way not to disparage either fee-based service. He even refused to answer questions that might have do so. He was asking for opinions.

 

And ,unless I'm misreading, at the point when the prep service sent his book on for encapsulation (as his agent) the OP did own a raw "9.0", based on the prep service's professional opinion. So I'm not sure why it's so "greedy", but the confusion has merit until one service or the other claims responsibility, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing