PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 20 20

[N/A]

I considered something similar. I thought a year would cover it. Under your scenario then the buyer has to prove receipt date, submission date and CGC receipt date. I was hoping the year would make it simple.

[N/A]

 

If a seller states "as is, no returns" then they should be able to do so. Nothing about any book should be assumed. Unless a seller states that it is unrestored then it is not required. The risk/reward of this is usually reflected in the price.

 

It sounds like a year is a very reasonable cut-off for the PL.

 

I think we are on the same page.

 

Buyer should get one year to notify the seller about the problem. Buyer should then give the seller a chance to make things right and be able to nominate for PL if they can't work it out.

 

If seller is willing to work with the buyer there is no need for the buyer to run to the PL to beat the deadline.

 

If the seller was notified within a year and stalls the buyer "check is in the mail", etc.) they should not be able to avoid PL because the buyer took 13 months to nominate them.

 

Similar. With CGC turn around and current postage times I still think the nomination should be within one calendar year. I understand the stalling suggestion but a year should give any buyer ample time to file a nomination.

[N/A]

I'm here Harvey

 

And the fact that technically the nominated party never came to this thread and presented any argument against the nomination is ignored?

 

If the person nominating has no right to do so then why would there need to be a response?

 

I understand your position and empathize with your take on this. Why not look at it from another angle...

 

I personally feel I have the right to protect my fellow buyers and sellers here. I've dealt with most people active on the boards in one capacity or another via both buying and selling... so I have a vested interest to keep this place safe.

 

No amount of time is going to change the fact that a seller advertised a book with no restoration and the book the buyer received had a completely different cover married to it. We also can't change the fact that one year's worth of PMs concerning this issue were read by the seller and left unanswered and unaddressed.

 

The PL list is basically my only means to protect others concerning questionable transactions. Until Mike contacts me concerning a resolution to this, I would hope the nomination stands because there should be no time frame concerning the protection of others

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

 

This is not directed at Rupp...... just for the record, a married cover, when done correctly, can be very difficult to detect. I bought a book (with full disclosure) of a married cover book that even Matt Nelson missed on a pre screen. It's nothing to be ashamed of missing and may not "jump out at you". As for the issue of Buyer's Responsibility...... when I'm a buyer, I do NOT expect to be spoon fed creamed peas, have the dribble wiped from my chin, soiled diapers changed, and made to look both ways before crossing the street. After all, these are USED periodicals that we pursue, and a multi million dollar industry exists for sorting out and identifying all the many problems that exist in them. To assume they are problem free and to purchase with that assumption is short sighted and unrealistic. Become an educated buyer before spending big money on raws...... it's really your best defense...... and don't bet the farm on a raw AF 15. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Agreed.

 

As for Rupp's response.....

 

The ending is quite the political answer.

Yes, we should all fight terrorism, safety should always be a concern and protecting children a priority. The blanket is not a catch all.

 

You and I are very similar since we both buy and sell. The protection of the community is for the whole community which means buyers and sellers. Finding the balance is the basis for all these discussions.

 

It seems that if you had asked for a full refund then the nomination would have been denied. It appears everyone agrees that the time has passed for a full refund including yourself so clearly there is a deadline when a transaction is considered complete. Your request is completely reasonable but at which point is it simply too late?

 

The group seems concerned about protecting the sellers who may be trying to scam. I get that but there are also buyers that try to scam. Discussing the extremes is always easy which is why this example is a great opportunity to decide on a timeline. Protecting the community, for me, means upholding the integrity of the tools we use to self police. I see this as opening the door to a bunch of transactions that may degrade the integrity of the PL. Part of providing a safe place to transact is to have a time when the transaction is considered complete no matter the circumstances.

 

Not necessarily "political"... but more to the point.

 

I would have loved to have discussed this with Mike over the course of the year, but chose to read and ignore each of my PMs on the subject until it was made public. Even then refusing to address the issue.

 

Again no amount of time was going to make this book unrestored after it was explicitly described as not.

 

I take my share of the burden by not asking for a total refund this late in the game. I just feel that some of the burden should be shared by the seller since his description was not accurate to begin with.

 

Still a great discussion

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

 

Do we agree that at some point a transaction should be considered closed? If so then when should that be?

 

You do make it more difficult by being so reasonable.

[Iceman399]

People often state they take up to year to find 4 books to sub under the coupon tier, granted that is now gone. I still don't think giving a buyer only 2 months to get the books moving to CCS/CGC enough time to fill a sub of a few books just to ensure they are covered under the marketplace rules.

[N/A]

People often state they take up to year to find 4 books to sub under the coupon tier, granted that is now gone. I still don't think giving a buyer only 2 months to get the books moving to CCS/CGC enough time to fill a sub of a few books just to ensure they are covered under the marketplace rules.

 

 

I don't know what to say to this. I do not think it is fair to sellers to go beyond the year. If someone holds books for months and needs the assurance of a 3rd party for restoration then I would suggest they confirm this with the seller. I have to think that the vast majority submit books they intend to grade in a timely manner. At some point a buyer needs to assume risk. The timeline you described is a buyer trying to make their submissions the cheapest possible. At some point you get what you pay for.

[Iceman399]

People often state they take up to year to find 4 books to sub under the coupon tier, granted that is now gone. I still don't think giving a buyer only 2 months to get the books moving to CCS/CGC enough time to fill a sub of a few books just to ensure they are covered under the marketplace rules.

 

 

I don't know what to say to this. I do not think it is fair to sellers to go beyond the year. If someone holds books for months and needs the assurance of a 3rd party for restoration then I would suggest they confirm this with the seller. I have to think that the vast majority submit books they intend to grade in a timely manner. At some point a buyer needs to assume risk. The timeline you described is a buyer trying to make their submissions the cheapest possible. At some point you get what you pay for.

 

Oh I agree need some responsibility on both parts. I recently bought a book from a great dealer and hope to buy more from. First thing I asked about was resto and he said would cover all costs if it was. It wasn't, but wanted to make sure I had my basis covered. Mind you the book was a lot more money than Rupp's book so it was sent directly from the dealer to CGC. On the lesser value books it only makes sense to have a grouping of smaller books to keep costs as low as possible.

Cheap or not, a Value/Econ sub (unless its a hot book) should not be sent fast track. With a max value of $150 on value...paying $35 + return shipping is killing any resale value (if planning to sell it) and if not why spend the extra $10 when you can grade an extra book for every 3 you planned to fast track allowing you to build up a bigger slab collection.

[Transplant]

A board exclusive... Lifetime Color Touch Guarantees!

 

 

Was color touch at the center of this particular kerfuffle?

 

I thought there was a list of issues with that book.

 

True, I think there was something about the staple as well, but not to beat a dead donkey but how many years does a buyer have to notice or discover these issues? I truly have yet to see an answer and that is why I keep asking. Is it truly case by case no matter how many years pass?

 

 

 

I think everyone would have been in agreement that it's Way WAY WAYYYYY too long if the buyer asked for a full refund, but when he came to the table with a very reasonable request for grading and shipping costs. It was hard to deny that the seller should stand behind his claim of "no resto" when the buyer sold the book at a loss and what he's asking for as compensation leaves him still at a loss on the book.

 

Honestly, the request for less than 20% of the sales price as compensation for a book with MAJOR restoration issues, was so reasonable that it's hard to simply slam the door because it was discovered a year later. The buyer's taken a ton of the blame and financial burden on himself as he should have.

 

Given how equitable the request is and how blanket the original no resto claim was it's hard to answer an equitable request with inequity.

 

This is the same as not listening to a PL nomination for anything less than $x for me. The amount, however reasonable, is not the point. At some point the transaction is complete.

 

Rupp's request is VERY reasonable but it is way overdue.

Lord help us all, but I agree with this Donkey. The amount of money isn't at issue.

[N/A]

People often state they take up to year to find 4 books to sub under the coupon tier, granted that is now gone. I still don't think giving a buyer only 2 months to get the books moving to CCS/CGC enough time to fill a sub of a few books just to ensure they are covered under the marketplace rules.

 

 

I don't know what to say to this. I do not think it is fair to sellers to go beyond the year. If someone holds books for months and needs the assurance of a 3rd party for restoration then I would suggest they confirm this with the seller. I have to think that the vast majority submit books they intend to grade in a timely manner. At some point a buyer needs to assume risk. The timeline you described is a buyer trying to make their submissions the cheapest possible. At some point you get what you pay for.

 

Oh I agree need some responsibility on both parts. I recently bought a book from a great dealer and hope to buy more from. First thing I asked about was resto and he said would cover all costs if it was. It wasn't, but wanted to make sure I had my basis covered. Mind you the book was a lot more money than Rupp's book so it was sent directly from the dealer to CGC. On the lesser value books it only makes sense to have a grouping of smaller books to keep costs as low as possible.

Cheap or not, a Value/Econ sub (unless its a hot book) should not be sent fast track. With a max value of $150 on value...paying $35 + return shipping is killing any resale value (if planning to sell it) and if not why spend the extra $10 when you can grade an extra book for every 3 you planned to fast track allowing you to build up a bigger slab collection.

 

I am all for cutting costs as I stare at my CGC submission page hoping the slow tracks will show graded. That being said then slow tracking is my choice and finding out something is restored eventually becomes the cost of doing business.

 

I can't believe anyone here would agree that a buyer should have the right to demand a refund for micro trimming discovered by CGC or threaten the PL 2 years after a sale.

 

I work with my buyers under a myriad of challenging circumstances but if any buyer comes to me 2 years later thinking they have the right to a refund, well..... Pounding sand would be my response on a good day.

 

Asking if there is anything I can do is a totally different circumstance. After a year I leave it to the buyer and seller. I would never give the buyer the right to limit a seller for a transaction over a year. I would have to shake my head for transactions much less than a year.

 

This is what we're saying now? The buyers are backed by the power of the PL and are entitled to refunds for years after purchase? Really?

[N/A]

A board exclusive... Lifetime Color Touch Guarantees!

 

 

Was color touch at the center of this particular kerfuffle?

 

I thought there was a list of issues with that book.

 

True, I think there was something about the staple as well, but not to beat a dead donkey but how many years does a buyer have to notice or discover these issues? I truly have yet to see an answer and that is why I keep asking. Is it truly case by case no matter how many years pass?

 

 

 

I think everyone would have been in agreement that it's Way WAY WAYYYYY too long if the buyer asked for a full refund, but when he came to the table with a very reasonable request for grading and shipping costs. It was hard to deny that the seller should stand behind his claim of "no resto" when the buyer sold the book at a loss and what he's asking for as compensation leaves him still at a loss on the book.

 

Honestly, the request for less than 20% of the sales price as compensation for a book with MAJOR restoration issues, was so reasonable that it's hard to simply slam the door because it was discovered a year later. The buyer's taken a ton of the blame and financial burden on himself as he should have.

 

Given how equitable the request is and how blanket the original no resto claim was it's hard to answer an equitable request with inequity.

 

This is the same as not listening to a PL nomination for anything less than $x for me. The amount, however reasonable, is not the point. At some point the transaction is complete.

 

Rupp's request is VERY reasonable but it is way overdue.

Lord help us all, but I agree with this Donkey. The amount of money isn't at issue.

 

Mark it on the calendar!

[Iceman399]

I am all for cutting costs as I stare at my CGC submission page hoping the slow tracks will show graded. That being said then slow tracking is my choice and finding out something is restored eventually becomes the cost of doing business.

 

This is what we're saying now? The buyers are backed by the power of the PL and are entitled to refunds for years after purchase? Really?

 

I like when it goes from verified to SFG then I know what passed and how many pennies to count out. Guess after 2 months of still received my f5 button starts to get a work out.

 

No I don't think that at all. I just think 12 months is a little bit too shy. 14 months basically gives the buyer a few months to sub the book without having to shell out more just to have books delivered in a timely manner.

[N/A]

I like the idea of having a poll and we could make that one of the options.

[EC ed]

This is what we're saying now? The buyers are backed by the power of the PL and are entitled to refunds for years after purchase? Really?

 

I'm confused again. Please tell me that we are limiting our debate to situations where the seller didn't explicitly specify a return policy...it is only in that case where we have to debate what is "reasonable," right?

 

In other words, do we agree that if (1) a seller states a return policy, (2) a buyer buys a book under those stated terms, (3) seller delivers the agreed upon book to the buyer, and (4) the buyer, for whatever reason, does not return the book for a refund within that stated return window, then there is no entitlement to a refund, and no basis for a PL nomination. Right?

[HarveySwick]

This is what we're saying now? The buyers are backed by the power of the PL and are entitled to refunds for years after purchase? Really?

 

I'm confused again. Please tell me that we are limiting our debate to situations where the seller didn't explicitly specify a return policy...it is only in that case where we have to debate what is "reasonable," right?

 

In other words, do we agree that if (1) a seller states a return policy, (2) a buyer buys a book under those stated terms, (3) seller delivers the agreed upon book to the buyer, and (4) the buyer, for whatever reason, does not return the book for a refund within that stated return window, then there is no entitlement to a refund, and no basis for a PL nomination. Right?

 

I would think so. If a seller has a book listed with a 30 day return policy, maybe people should avoid buying unless they are prepared to assume the risk.

[wombat]

So what if someone says I guarantee no resto and I have a 30 day return policy?

[N/A]

This is what we're saying now? The buyers are backed by the power of the PL and are entitled to refunds for years after purchase? Really?

 

I'm confused again. Please tell me that we are limiting our debate to situations where the seller didn't explicitly specify a return policy...it is only in that case where we have to debate what is "reasonable," right?

 

In other words, do we agree that if (1) a seller states a return policy, (2) a buyer buys a book under those stated terms, (3) seller delivers the agreed upon book to the buyer, and (4) the buyer, for whatever reason, does not return the book for a refund within that stated return window, then there is no entitlement to a refund, and no basis for a PL nomination. Right?

 

I would think so. If a seller has a book listed with a 30 day return policy, maybe people should avoid buying unless they are prepared to assume the risk.

 

I would like to think so but there is also the debate that #3 is assumed to be an unrestored book if not stated as restored. Then technically #3 was not satisfied and a nomination may happen.

 

I am more concerned with the time limit discussion right now.

[HarveySwick]

You don't buy unless you're comfortable with those terms.

[Transplant]

Man, that pendulum is swinging wildly in both directions.

[N/A]

So what if someone says I guarantee no resto and I have a 30 day return policy?

 

Then you got 30 days to figure it out.

[N/A]

Man, that pendulum is swinging wildly in both directions.

 

[HarveySwick]

Veterans/old-timers/sage members ONLY buy from trusted sellers, right? That's because trusted sellers stand behind their books: you can trust them and they're not going to rip you off.

 

Maybe if there is a newer seller here with a short return policy - Don't buy their books!

 

I don't think we should be setting rules to hold the hands of people from making unwise decisions. At some point, buyers need to assume responsibility for their purchases.

 

And a seller SHOULD stand behind their books and accept returns. But if a seller sets a shorter time for returns, no one is forcing buyers to buy their books and nothing is preventing the buyer from blasting their name here or in the General Discussion thread so people can update their personal lists accordingly.