Looking for opinions

[VintageComics]

I do get a kick out of the responses that are in favor one way or the other because they have thier own interests to protect, rather than based on the situation.

 

What is amazing is how some people see themselves as an authority on someone elses integrity and motivation at the expense of their own.

 

It's also amazing that almost nobody can hold down a factual discussion without making it personal.

 

And even more interesting is that it's the same usual suspects that go around lobbying grenades from the sidelines.

 

I mean that's what the Hive is all about, right?

 

R.

 

 

WTF are you talking about? Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with you.

 

Your paranoia about cliques is just down right odd.

 

I wasn't talking about myself as this is only the second post in this entire thread.

 

It was directed at you.

 

You go around telling people that they are biased and take sides as if you don't.

 

How can you go around wagging a finger at people who post in this thread and judge them as if you are beyond reproach?

 

R.

 

[Ogami]

So was the conclusion nothing more than a case of greed and not understanding that this is not an exact science? Even in an exact science environment things go wrong.

 

Personally I think Matt handled this as well as he could have, and only pushed back when he absolutely needed to.

 

 

Pretty much sums it up!

No, it doesn't. I don't think he was being greedy. He was asking what he thought was a legitimate question. Should he be reimbursed up to 9.0 or an 8.0? I think his biggest mistake is not trying to pinpoint where the damage took place.

 

I would have been satisfied with being reimbursed for an 8.0, but I certainly would have PMed my friends and asked their opinion. The OP's biggest mistake was opening it up for the whole boards to give their two cents.

 

I agree with Doc. I've read this whole thread, and at the beginning I have to say that I thought the OP asking up to a 9.0 was a valid question. As I have seen the thread progress and understand Matt's policies, I think his refund his gracious and professional, but I still think the original question was valid.

[whisp]

Was trying to find the page where the guy that did the pressing showed the grades of what happened to the 28 books. Even some of them had lower grade or same so since grading is subjective we have no idea if the book would have been a CGC 9.0. It could have easily went from 8.0 to 8.5. I think in the end the book should be just valued at what it was before pressing since there is no way to know if it truly would have came back a 9.0 and he should be compensated at a 8.0 level. You would think this would be simple to solve since we know for fact it was an 8.0 before it all started and that pressing is not a gurantee of a higher grade. Have to love opinions

[MCMiles]

I do get a kick out of the responses that are in favor one way or the other because they have thier own interests to protect, rather than based on the situation.

 

What is amazing is how some people see themselves as an authority on someone elses integrity and motivation at the expense of their own.

 

It's also amazing that almost nobody can hold down a factual discussion without making it personal.

 

And even more interesting is that it's the same usual suspects that go around lobbying grenades from the sidelines.

 

I mean that's what the Hive is all about, right?

 

R.

 

 

WTF are you talking about? Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with you.

 

Your paranoia about cliques is just down right odd.

 

I wasn't talking about myself as this is only the second post in this entire thread.

 

It was directed at you.

 

You go around telling people that they are biased and take sides as if you don't.

 

How can you go around wagging a finger at people who post in this thread and judge them as if you are beyond reproach?

 

R.

 

When I take a side it's because that's what I believe in, not because I have an agenda to accomplish.

I'm sure the side I'm on may be the wrong side sometimes, but I try not to be on the wrong side. As far as matters here on the board there often really is no right or wrong side.

I don't believe I am all knowing and mighty righteous. I damn sure don't go around preaching that I am.

 

I admit, I may be guilty of taking a direct or indirect shot at someone every once in a while when I believe they are being a tool. If they can see it then they must get why it happened. If they can't then they are to self absorbed to ever get it anyway.

[NewWorldOrder]

It's not actually 9.0 entitlement. It's the value claimed on the CGC sub form for insurance purposes.

 

John, if you send a previously 9.4 book to CGC that was worth $1200 in 9.4, but you claim it as $2400 because you believe the book to be a 9.6, and it gets damaged at CGC. What do you think the claim amount should be? Because if you sent it in value tier and only claimed it at $100 and CGC damaged it then they are only obligated to pay you $100.

 

The OP was and is unclear where the damage occured, and can't deal with CGC directly because the book was subbed through CI.

 

 

, Love the book the example you used BTW. As of today its dead accurate on both our ends.

 

To answer your question I feel I would only be entitled to what is was worth prior to sending the book to CGC. It was a 9.4 prior to CGC and no promise it would go up any higher to a 9.6.

 

$1200.00

 

 

Well, then why would you insure the book for $2400? Why would you insure a book that is worth a minimum of $1200 - but in all likelyhood double that - for only $1200?

What if the book was raw? Are you going to cover your azz, or risk the possible value.

 

 

 

I wouldnt insure the book for $2400. $1200=Insured

 

All books wether they are "raw" or CGC I only insure what I paid so I can be made whole again in case of damage when I send them off to CGC.

 

I don't see how an insurance company would pay a claim on a value not yet determined or assuming the book would have graded that high if the book was not damaged.

 

(I am an commercial insurance underwriter as my day job, which as usual I am on the boards instead of working, hahaha)

[VintageComics]

WTF are you talking about? Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with you.

 

Your paranoia about cliques is just down right odd.

 

I wasn't talking about myself as this is only the second post in this entire thread.

 

It was directed at you.

 

You go around telling people that they are biased and take sides as if you don't.

 

How can you go around wagging a finger at people who post in this thread and judge them as if you are beyond reproach?

 

R.

 

When I take a side it's because that's what I believe in, not because I have an agenda to accomplish.

I'm sure the side I'm on may be the wrong side sometimes, but I try not to be on the wrong side. As far as matters here on the board there often really is no right or wrong side.

I don't believe I am all knowing and mighty righteous. I damn sure don't go around preaching that I am.

 

I admit, I may be guilty of taking a direct or indirect shot at someone every once in a while when I believe they are being a tool. If they can see it then they must get why it happened. If they can't then they are to self absorbed to ever get it anyway.

 

Everyone takes a side they believe in.

Why someone believes in a particular side is an entirely different matter.

 

The point is that you are accusing people for taking a side because you assume to know what vested interests they have.

 

People rarely go preaching they are self righteous or all knowing but it sure sounds like you just did a page ago.

 

Me? I have always stated I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

R.

 

[MCMiles]

It's not actually 9.0 entitlement. It's the value claimed on the CGC sub form for insurance purposes.

 

John, if you send a previously 9.4 book to CGC that was worth $1200 in 9.4, but you claim it as $2400 because you believe the book to be a 9.6, and it gets damaged at CGC. What do you think the claim amount should be? Because if you sent it in value tier and only claimed it at $100 and CGC damaged it then they are only obligated to pay you $100.

 

The OP was and is unclear where the damage occured, and can't deal with CGC directly because the book was subbed through CI.

 

 

, Love the book the example you used BTW. As of today its dead accurate on both our ends.

 

To answer your question I feel I would only be entitled to what is was worth prior to sending the book to CGC. It was a 9.4 prior to CGC and no promise it would go up any higher to a 9.6.

 

$1200.00

 

 

Well, then why would you insure the book for $2400? Why would you insure a book that is worth a minimum of $1200 - but in all likelyhood double that - for only $1200?

What if the book was raw? Are you going to cover your azz, or risk the possible value.

 

 

 

I wouldnt insure the book for $2400. $1200=Insured

 

All books wether they are "raw" or CGC I only insure what I paid so I can be made whole again in case of damage when I send either off to CGC.

 

I don't see how an insurance company would pay a claim on a value not yet determined.

 

(I am an commercial insurance underwriter as my day job, which as usual I am on the boards instead of working, hahaha)

 

That's good. You are still putting you faith in CGC. We all do it, we all sub books in value tier that in all liklihood are worth more than $100.

 

CGC says to claim the value you want the books insured for. I'm sure that is for shipping purposes, but it also serves as a guideline in case somethong happens at CGC.

 

So if you buy a VF AF #15 at a yardsale for $20, is that all you're going to claim on the form when you submit it?

[MCMiles]

WTF are you talking about? Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with you.

 

Your paranoia about cliques is just down right odd.

 

I wasn't talking about myself as this is only the second post in this entire thread.

 

It was directed at you.

 

You go around telling people that they are biased and take sides as if you don't.

 

How can you go around wagging a finger at people who post in this thread and judge them as if you are beyond reproach?

 

R.

 

When I take a side it's because that's what I believe in, not because I have an agenda to accomplish.

I'm sure the side I'm on may be the wrong side sometimes, but I try not to be on the wrong side. As far as matters here on the board there often really is no right or wrong side.

I don't believe I am all knowing and mighty righteous. I damn sure don't go around preaching that I am.

 

I admit, I may be guilty of taking a direct or indirect shot at someone every once in a while when I believe they are being a tool. If they can see it then they must get why it happened. If they can't then they are to self absorbed to ever get it anyway.

 

Everyone takes a side they believe in.

Why someone believes in a particular side is an entirely different matter.

 

The point is that you are accusing people for taking a side because you assume to know what vested interests they have.

 

People rarely go preaching they are self righteous or all knowing but it sure sounds like you just did a page ago.

 

Me? I have always stated I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

R.

 

Good, because you're wrong.

[whisp]

Wish I could find any AF 15 at a garage sale

[Mr.Diggler]

Me too. I would press the mess out of it so I could really maximize it's potential. I love the grade way more than the book.

[VintageComics]

WTF are you talking about? Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with you.

 

Your paranoia about cliques is just down right odd.

 

I wasn't talking about myself as this is only the second post in this entire thread.

 

It was directed at you.

 

You go around telling people that they are biased and take sides as if you don't.

 

How can you go around wagging a finger at people who post in this thread and judge them as if you are beyond reproach?

 

R.

 

When I take a side it's because that's what I believe in, not because I have an agenda to accomplish.

I'm sure the side I'm on may be the wrong side sometimes, but I try not to be on the wrong side. As far as matters here on the board there often really is no right or wrong side.

I don't believe I am all knowing and mighty righteous. I damn sure don't go around preaching that I am.

 

I admit, I may be guilty of taking a direct or indirect shot at someone every once in a while when I believe they are being a tool. If they can see it then they must get why it happened. If they can't then they are to self absorbed to ever get it anyway.

 

Everyone takes a side they believe in.

Why someone believes in a particular side is an entirely different matter.

 

The point is that you are accusing people for taking a side because you assume to know what vested interests they have.

 

People rarely go preaching they are self righteous or all knowing but it sure sounds like you just did a page ago.

 

Me? I have always stated I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

R.

 

Good, because you're wrong.

 

 

As far as matters here on the board there often really is no right or wrong side.

 

R.

 

[whisp]

Me too. I would press the mess out of it so I could really maximize it's potential. I love the grade way more than the book.

 

 

 

Yeah I don't like spider man so it would be sold for sure if I ever found one. Could finish my Moon Knight collection and then some.

[NewWorldOrder]

It's not actually 9.0 entitlement. It's the value claimed on the CGC sub form for insurance purposes.

 

John, if you send a previously 9.4 book to CGC that was worth $1200 in 9.4, but you claim it as $2400 because you believe the book to be a 9.6, and it gets damaged at CGC. What do you think the claim amount should be? Because if you sent it in value tier and only claimed it at $100 and CGC damaged it then they are only obligated to pay you $100.

 

The OP was and is unclear where the damage occured, and can't deal with CGC directly because the book was subbed through CI.

 

 

, Love the book the example you used BTW. As of today its dead accurate on both our ends.

 

To answer your question I feel I would only be entitled to what is was worth prior to sending the book to CGC. It was a 9.4 prior to CGC and no promise it would go up any higher to a 9.6.

 

$1200.00

 

 

Well, then why would you insure the book for $2400? Why would you insure a book that is worth a minimum of $1200 - but in all likelyhood double that - for only $1200?

What if the book was raw? Are you going to cover your azz, or risk the possible value.

 

 

 

I wouldnt insure the book for $2400. $1200=Insured

 

All books wether they are "raw" or CGC I only insure what I paid so I can be made whole again in case of damage when I send either off to CGC.

 

I don't see how an insurance company would pay a claim on a value not yet determined.

 

(I am an commercial insurance underwriter as my day job, which as usual I am on the boards instead of working, hahaha)

 

That's good. You are still putting you faith in CGC. We all do it, we all sub books in value tier that in all liklihood are worth more than $100.

 

CGC says to claim the value you want the books insured for. I'm sure that is for shipping purposes, but it also serves as a guideline in case somethong happens at CGC.

 

So if you buy a VF AF #15 at a yardsale for $20, is that all you're going to claim on the form when you submit it?

 

In that "grey area" of a situation I would fly or drive the AF 15 to CGC for on-site grading and insure it for what I think it may grade.

 

The problem I keep coming back in the OP's situation is the book NEVER received a CGC 9.0 and THEN got damaged.

 

I have no idea where and when the book got damaged, but it wasn't after grading.

 

The book only went down .5 of grade and he got his money back for 8.0 value.

 

I toally see how this would tick me, you, or Joe off as a customer but I keep coming back to he had a large order which appears to have yielded him amazing results on the others.

 

This is no proof that book would grade up even if undamaged.

 

Take your money and just move on.

 

 

 

 

 

[DiceX]

I've been away all weekend, and this looks like the weekly titfest.

Can someone please sum up all 512 posts in 20 words or less?

I'd appreciate it so I don't have to waste an hour of my life.

 

 

[slym2none]

I've been away all weekend, and this looks like the weekly titfest.

Can someone please sum up all 512 posts in 20 words or less?

I'd appreciate it so I don't have to waste an hour of my life.

 

 

Be clear and concise about EVERYTHING when entering into a contract. The devil's in the details!

 

 

 

-slym

[Count]

Forgive me for bailing, but I have too many other things to do. Feel free to PM.

Joe

 

we forgive you; we only wish you'da bailed 35 pages ago.

 

You know, the more I think about it. I wish he had bailed even prior to that.

 

It sucks his book was damaged, and I feel for him or any collector that has a book damaged.

 

But the more I re-read some of this thread, the less empathy I have for him. As Matt pointed out he scored very well on the 28 or 29 books he submitted. One was damaged. He was offered a very fair, by any account, compensation for the damage. He declined and asked for additional compenstation that wasn't due, by any standard I am aware of. Unless you consider punitive damages, but since there is no evidence to support intentional damage by Matt, and it would be ridiculous to assume there was, his stance was unreasonable.

 

Then it appears when he wasn't satisfied with the offer of compenstation he attempted to "extort" or "coerce" Matt into agreeing to the additional compensation by threatening to take the matter public onto the CGC boards.

 

He claims he just wanted opinions of whether or not he was entitled to 9.0 compenstation for the damage, but deflected 20 pages of assertions that he wasn't entitled to any more than was being offered.

 

Seems to me it is more likely that "here to lern" was seeking validation that he was right to take this ill-advised tactic with Matt.

 

Hopefully he has "lerned" the error of his ways.

 

Did I miss anything? Or does this about cover it?

[DiceX]

So "HereToLearn" is really "HereToCauseProblems".

 

Thanks for the summary. I'm glad I didn't bother.

 

 

 

[seanfingh]

So "HereToLearn" is really "HereToCauseProblems".

 

Thanks for the summary. I'm glad I didn't bother.

 

 

 

You would have had fun, papaw.

[DiceX]

So "HereToLearn" is really "HereToCauseProblems".

 

Thanks for the summary. I'm glad I didn't bother.

 

 

 

You would have had fun, papaw.

 

I'm gettin' too old for this .

 

 

[DrWatson]

So "HereToLearn" is really "HereToCauseProblems".

 

Thanks for the summary. I'm glad I didn't bother.

No, that wasn't his intention at all, but that's just my opinion.