PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[PovertyRow]

As the PL/HOS Rules stand now there is one time-frame specified:

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. Over some period of time these may be modified or expanded.

 

We don't change the PL rules on the fly. That is NOT how they are changed. We had the opportunity to go over the PL rules not so long ago and nothing came of it. So for now they remain as is. And as before, any PL/HOS Rules changes are not grandfathered in but take effect by a determined date, as the last set did.

 

As far as Rupp's request for restitution, I think it is more than fair. Apparently the book was badly misrepresented: married cover and replaced staples. Yes, this could slip by many people who lack restoration experience. Folks who are not up on restoration techniques (buyers and sellers) should start trying to better understand them and what they look like rather than muck with the PL rules.

 

With that said, I really am not convinced by the argument that the seller has not been here for a long time. They may return. I have an issue with NOT putting someone on the PL because they have not been here for a long time.

We have people on the PL and HOS who have been banned. Why are they kept there? For the times they may return, even under a different guise, as Symbiotic did.

 

I feel this is a valid PL nomination.

 

[CAHokie]

 

As the PL/HOS Rules stand now there is one time-frame specified:

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. Over some period of time these may be modified or expanded.

 

Now a while back we had a push to alter the PL/HOS Rules. Nothing came of it. So they must remain as is.

 

Now as far as Rupp's request for restitution, I think it is more than fair. Apparently the book was badly misrepresented: married cover and replaced staples. Yes, this could slip by many people who lacked restoration experience, as it seemed to do here. Rather than trying to change the PL rules to cover time frames, which we had the opportunity to do but didn't, folks who are not up on restoration techniques should start trying to better understand them and what they look like.

 

With that said, I really am not convinced by the argument that the seller has not been here for a long time. They may return. I have an issue with NOT putting someone on the PL because they have not been here for a long time.

We have people on the PL and HOS who have been banned. Why are they kept there? For the times they may return, even under a different guise, as Symbiotic did.

 

I feel this is a valid PL nomination.

 

 

I dont think people are defending the second year that he was not on the boards but the first entire year where the seller was not notified of any problems. So does this mean that there is in fact a lifetime guarantee on the boards on restoration even when the grading companies themselves miss resto at times?

[PovertyRow]

 

As the PL/HOS Rules stand now there is one time-frame specified:

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. Over some period of time these may be modified or expanded.

 

Now a while back we had a push to alter the PL/HOS Rules. Nothing came of it. So they must remain as is.

 

Now as far as Rupp's request for restitution, I think it is more than fair. Apparently the book was badly misrepresented: married cover and replaced staples. Yes, this could slip by many people who lacked restoration experience, as it seemed to do here. Rather than trying to change the PL rules to cover time frames, which we had the opportunity to do but didn't, folks who are not up on restoration techniques should start trying to better understand them and what they look like.

 

With that said, I really am not convinced by the argument that the seller has not been here for a long time. They may return. I have an issue with NOT putting someone on the PL because they have not been here for a long time.

We have people on the PL and HOS who have been banned. Why are they kept there? For the times they may return, even under a different guise, as Symbiotic did.

 

I feel this is a valid PL nomination.

 

 

I dont think people are defending the second year that he was not on the boards but the first entire year where the seller was not notified of any problems. So does this mean that there is in fact a lifetime guarantee on the boards on restoration even when the grading companies themselves miss resto at times?

 

Hi Hokie!

 

Well I saw a comment about the fact the seller was not on the boards a long time and questioning the validity of a PL nomination based on this. I responded to that.

 

I also responded re: the only mention of a timeframe in the PL/HOS Rules was the start date of those rules. And I also responded that not that long ago a push was made to re-examine and modify the rules and nothing came of it.

 

So let me ask you, if you sold (unknowingly) a book with replaced staples and a married cover to another boardie, how long would you give them to discover it? Would you require them to submit to a TPG within a certain time frame to verify a lack of restoration? If so, would you put those conditions in your sales thread?

[CAHokie]

Hi POV

 

Personally, I would make it right but as always it is impossible to make rules that will cover every occurrence. That means each unique case will have to be looked at on it's individual merits. If a seller is responsible for undiscovered (assuming there are no intentional deceits on either side) restoration forever that would crazy to me. For example, someone sells a high dollar key to finance a car, college or whatever and does not know it has resto. At what point is it ok or rediculous to demand money back? Who wants to get a $10,000 bill out of the blue a year later or five years later on a comic that was sold but never submitted for grading?

[Dr Chaos]

In most cases, after a year goes by I would say that the buyer is simply out of luck. They have had more than enough time to look the book over. If the buyer said the book was in near mint condition and is only a very fine condition, the buyer has had the book in hand for enough time to see that there are spine ticks, bent corners, etc. If the difference is less noticeable and CGC says that the book is a 9.2 or even a 9.0 I think we can all agree that this OK as buying raw books is not an exact science and the buyer is taking an implied risk that the grade will not be exact, especially if they needed CGC to tell them the grade was off.

 

Restoration (married cover, color touch, trimming, etc.) is not something that is always easy to detect and not something that a buyer will necessarily notice even if they took extreme care and devoted a lot of time to each book purchased. When you throw in a history of past dealings that turned out well, the buyer had even more reason to trust the seller and assume that the books were as described.

 

Whether the seller knows about the restoration or not they have advertised something that is clearly not even close in value to what they represented to the buyer. If the restoration was subtle enough that it was necessary for a third party to evaluate the book I do not see how a 60 day return window is acceptable in such cases (does a buyer have to fast track all books in case one of them happens to be restored?). Throw in the fact that this is a buyer who they had past dealing with I find it hard to accept that they can simply say sorry Charlie instead of attempting to do something to make it right.

 

Reading and not responding to the PMs until called out sound very shady as well,

 

Knowingly advertising restored books without disclosing the restoration is not something that could or would be tolerated on these boards or anywhere else. If the seller did not know about the restoration the expectation should be for them to apologize to the buyer and take a return of the book for a refund (unless a partial refund can be agreed upon). Hiding behind a return policy (one week, one month, 60 days, etc.) in such cases is not something I find acceptable.

 

Perhaps five years or even two years of time gets the seller off the hook but in this case I think the seller goes on the list.

[jimjum12]

As a collector first, if I sold it, I'd take it back.

 

It wasn't the book that I claimed that I was selling.

 

A year is awhile but it's not a lifetime.

 

I'd rather my reputation lasted a lifetime -- and not a deal gone sour through no one's fault.

 

 

Hard to argue with that.

 

However, the issue on the table here in this thread is whether this is PL worthy.

 

No stated restoration guarantee or return/refund policy in that sales thread. What, precisely, is the grounds for PL nomination? That the transaction was not completed as agreed?

 

I'm with Rodan on what I would do as the seller in this situation.

 

I'm on the fence about the PLworthiness. I have to disagree with Ed, though, about the relevance of whether there is a stated restoration guarantee or return/refund policy.

 

Don't we assume that books are unrestored unless the seller states that they are? And don't we assume that the seller will refund the buyer's money if there is undisclosed resto? If the purchase had been made last week and Rupp had recognized right away that the cover was married, then the seller's refusal to take the book back would be PL worthy, wouldn't it?

 

I agree completely. The issue seems to be the time lapse.

 

The time lapse is an issue with me as well. I realize this had been a while. This is the main reason I don't feel a FULL refund is warranted and only the small amount that I proposed. The fact is I did not get what I paid for. I was sold a book that had no noted repair and no noted restoration. I received a book with a married cover and replaced staples which is not what I agreed to buy.

 

Let's say the million dollar buyer of that Action #1 a few years back decided to reslab his copy today and it came back with restoration this time that was missed (and since this happened with a certain Thor key a year or so ago, we all know this is a VERY possible outcome). Would that guy deserve anything? Or is he just out his cool million?

 

Apples to oranges aside... it would be the same thing, that person did not get what he paid for and it would be within his rights to ask for compensation. I realize that's an extreme scenario, but its in the same vein.

 

The main thing that bothers me is the refusal to answer a YEAR'S worth of PM's that had been read and avoided. That's the sting right there. ONE YEAR of time given to address this issue. Also note it would have been less time involved had the seller just answered the PMs from a year ago

 

 

 

.... the amount of compensation you asked for was very fair and reasonable. Personally, I would have agreed to your terms immediately and issued the partial refund. To me, this is an excellent example of you accepting your part in the gamble of submitting a raw book for grading. People spell out terms for returns in their listings..... if they are acceptable, then proceed..... if not, walk away. The terms are there for a reason. If the terms cannot be met to the buyer's satisfaction, then don't enter in to the transaction. Most boardies are not professional dealers and sell books for the money. The money will likely not be available a year later. As a buyer, I accept my responsibility to determine whether I have received my just due within the time frame of the agreements I have made with each seller. At some point, according to the agreements in place, a sale should be final. As for the Action 1 scenario.... or any slab for that matter..... if a buyer deslabs and it comes back with a different result, that's an issue to pursue with the slabbing company. If someone was seeking a refund from me in that scenario, they're out of luck..... for credit or funds. That's just me..... but I'm not going to seek a full refund from anyone after a year, and neither did Rupp. Hats off to Rupp. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[EC ed]

I second Jimbo's emotions. The amount of Rupp's claim clearly shows his acceptance of his "responsibility," and I would understand if he never deals with the seller again. My only issue has been whether this particular situation is (or should be) PL enforceable.

 

If so, then perhaps the next time the PL rules discussion gets queued up, we should throw a statute of limitations component into the mix...

Edited June 7, 2015 by edowens71

[jimjum12]

....I don't know all the ins and outs..... but if Rupp's refund request fell outside of a specified return period then I would say, technically, no. The lack of communication could be an issue..... but again, only if it was unresponsive during the terms of the transaction. We can't alter rules and terms to support our semantics. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

 

[skypinkblu]

I agree that the amount of the refund requested is fair. I'm not happy about the buyer reading messages and not responding.

 

I agree with POV about the fact that in this incident the buyer should go on the probation list because of the way the rules are stated, however...I'm thinking that rule should be tweaked.

 

The buyer needs to have some responsibility in examining the items in a reasonable amount of time. I have a dear friend who opens boxes of books he purchases maybe 6 months after he gets them. He's busy and he buys a lot, but he finds missing pages (something rather easy to spot) many months after the books are sold.

 

In cases where someone is or was a comic book dealer (and I think that applies to Rupp, but I'm not certain) they should have some knowledge of restoration. If he couldn't detect the married cover and replaced staples, does the seller (who does not seem to be a dealer) have to hold on to the money for a refund for years?

 

Now in this instance $60 is not so much...but there might be people on here who sell a $1500 book and a year or 3 later, they've spent that money and the refund is not so easy to come up with. Some people have small children and mortgage payments and not so much extra cash. They might have even sold the book to pay a bill. While I think everyone needs to hold on to the payment for a reasonable amount of time...what is reasonable?

 

Michael made a reasonable request as far as what he wanted, but what if someone else wanted the entire amount?

 

CGC is pretty slow to return books now, but we are talking no more than 5 months at the worst? Is 6 or 7 months to open a book and look at it, and if you want a 3rd party to look to send it in?

 

Another issue is pressing, sometimes people send off their books to be pressed (or do it themselves. If an unpressed book has been pressed, does that relieve the seller of their obligation to refund?

 

Does anyone else think we might need some small addendums to the rules?

[skypinkblu]

BTW, changing the rules here, does not mean that some of us might not CHOOSE to be personally responsible 2 years later.

[CAHokie]

So people should hold the money for comics they sell on the boards for at least 5 years because there is not a rule saying otherwise? Heck, might as well make it life. Im sure most people would love to get a bill when they are 50 for a comic they sold at 20. If the rules or lack of rules are not used in the spirit in which they are intended and must go by the letter despite common sense then I am happy I am a buyer only here.

 

I think some people are confusing the argument of should the seller make things right (yes he should) and whether it is Probation List worthy (debatable) after 1 year of not being notified, not the next year of unreturned pms.

 

I am not defending this seller, but defending what I think could set a horrible precedent.

[Ghost Town]

I understand the idea that there should be a reasonable amount of time for returns and refunds. I understand the idea that sellers could have already spent the money on a car or a house or whatever.

 

But unless it's a Matchbox car or dollhouse, that's not the case here. And given that this thread is over 3000 pages long, PL worthiness is open to discussion and not always a bright-line rule.

 

Rupp's request was more than reasonable. And the seller's response or lack of response was shameful.

 

The seller in this case is absolutely deserving of being on the probation list.

[wombat]

I definitely think some kind of time frame should be added to the rules. Of course a seller can always give a refund for longer periods of time if they want to.

[Bio-Rupp]

So people should hold the money for comics they sell on the boards for at least 5 years because there is not a rule saying otherwise? Heck, might as well make it life. Im sure most people would love to get a bill when they are 50 for a comic they sold at 20. If the rules or lack of rules are not used in the spirit in which they are intended and must go by the letter despite common sense then I am happy I am a buyer only here.

 

I think some people are confusing the argument of should the seller make things right (yes he should) and whether it is Probation List worthy (debatable) after 1 year of not being notified, not the next year of unreturned pms.

 

I am not defending this seller, but defending what I think could set a horrible precedent.

 

I understand your side of it Hokie... and I see exactly what you're saying.

 

I just don't see the "horrible precedent" in backing up what you sell... be that a refund, a partial refund, or just even a sincere, immediate "sorry buddy"... with terms of whichever selected agreed upon by both parties.

 

Accidents happen like this happen. It's happened to me last year when I sold Hector a early JLA book with unnoticed color touch that he sent in to be graded. How did I handle it when he contacted me? Well I handled the way I feel anyone should handle it...

 

- I immediately apologized first and foremost as soon as I read his PM.

- I asked what he wanted to do first since he was the buyer who didn't receive what he paid for.

 

Short story short...I refunded him his initial purchase plus the shipping he paid, his CGC grading fees and the shipping he incurred for that loss, plus his shipping charges to get the book back to me. I apologized then again for his lost time.

 

One could argue that I wasn't responsible for his slabbing fees etc. But you know what? I personally feel that I was. I had no idea what his intentions were with the book... all I do know is he incurred expenses that he wouldn't have incurred had I caught the color touch in the first place.

 

Given there wasn't the year long time frame to contend with here... but that wouldn't have mattered to me. Hector and I have been buying and selling to each other for years here. There is no way I would jeopardize my relationship with him whether it be 2 months... or 48 months... or whenever.

 

But that's how I would handle it.

 

I always wanted to feel that the term "caveat emptor" would not apply to the CGC Boards... no matter what the time frame

[PovertyRow]

Hi POV

 

Personally, I would make it right but as always it is impossible to make rules that will cover every occurrence. That means each unique case will have to be looked at on it's individual merits. If a seller is responsible for undiscovered (assuming there are no intentional deceits on either side) restoration forever that would crazy to me. For example, someone sells a high dollar key to finance a car, college or whatever and does not know it has resto. At what point is it ok or rediculous to demand money back? Who wants to get a $10,000 bill out of the blue a year later or five years later on a comic that was sold but never submitted for grading?

 

Hey Again Hokie!

 

I actually do agree with you. Look at the flack PayPal got here when they went from a 90 day to a 180 day return policy.

 

In thinking about it more I am wondering if some sort of time limit on returns should be part of the PL/HOS Rules or are better in the Usage Guidelines in this forum: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472#Post1460472

[skypinkblu]

I understand the idea that there should be a reasonable amount of time for returns and refunds. I understand the idea that sellers could have already spent the money on a car or a house or whatever.

 

But unless it's a Matchbox car or dollhouse, that's not the case here. And given that this thread is over 3000 pages long, PL worthiness is open to discussion and not always a bright-line rule.

 

Rupp's request was more than reasonable. And the seller's response or lack of response was shameful.

 

The seller in this case is absolutely deserving of being on the probation list.

 

I agree in this instance, but I think it brings to light a problem that could happen with the rules as currently stated.

[CAHokie]

So people should hold the money for comics they sell on the boards for at least 5 years because there is not a rule saying otherwise? Heck, might as well make it life. Im sure most people would love to get a bill when they are 50 for a comic they sold at 20. If the rules or lack of rules are not used in the spirit in which they are intended and must go by the letter despite common sense then I am happy I am a buyer only here.

 

I think some people are confusing the argument of should the seller make things right (yes he should) and whether it is Probation List worthy (debatable) after 1 year of not being notified, not the next year of unreturned pms.

 

I am not defending this seller, but defending what I think could set a horrible precedent.

 

I understand your side of it Hokie... and I see exactly what you're saying.

 

I just don't see the "horrible precedent" in backing up what you sell... be that a refund, a partial refund, or just even a sincere, immediate "sorry buddy"... with terms of whichever selected agreed upon by both parties.

 

Accidents happen like this happen. It's happened to me last year when I sold Hector a early JLA book with unnoticed color touch that he sent in to be graded. How did I handle it when he contacted me? Well I handled the way I feel anyone should handle it...

 

- I immediately apologized first and foremost as soon as I read his PM.

- I asked what he wanted to do first since he was the buyer who didn't receive what he paid for.

 

Short story short...I refunded him his initial purchase plus the shipping he paid, his CGC grading fees and the shipping he incurred for that loss, plus his shipping charges to get the book back to me. I apologized then again for his lost time.

 

One could argue that I wasn't responsible for his slabbing fees etc. But you know what? I personally feel that I was. I had no idea what his intentions were with the book... all I do know is he incurred expenses that he wouldn't have incurred had I caught the color touch in the first place.

 

Given there wasn't the year long time frame to contend with here... but that wouldn't have mattered to me. Hector and I have been buying and selling to each other for years here. There is no way I would jeopardize my relationship with him whether it be 2 months... or 48 months... or whenever.

 

But that's how I would handle it.

 

I always wanted to feel that the term "caveat emptor" would not apply to the CGC Boards... no matter what the time frame

 

Yes, but you are combining two completely separate issues into one. The question of should the seller take care of you would be an overwhelming yes by a majority of the boards I would imagine. I know I would take care of the issue if it were me. That doesn't mean it is PL worthy though. If something is discovered wrong with a comic one, two or five years later it is either PL worthy or it is not whether the comic is $50 or $5,000.

 

My worry is people claiming color touch years after the fact. I would hate to think anyone would do this but imagine if someone bought a super hot movie first appearance right now and the market plummets 2 years from now. They could easily do a little color touch themselves and submit it so they could recoup their $3-4,000 dollar loss in value.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I agree that the amount of the refund requested is fair.

 

Michael made a reasonable request as far as what he wanted, but what if someone else wanted the entire amount?

Does anyone else think we might need some small addendums to the rules?

 

Count me in with the rest who think that Rupp's request of less than 20% of the sale price was within reason, even 13 months after the sale.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

My worry is people claiming color touch years after the fact. I would hate to think anyone would do this but imagine if someone bought a super hot movie first appearance right now and the market plummets 2 years from now. They could easily do a little color touch themselves and submit it so they could recoup their $3-4,000 dollar loss in value.

 

But this is also my concern for 1+ year returns claiming hidden restoration.

[NP_Gresham]

On the list

Off the list

Quickly run a few sales threads, make some deals.

When something goes wrong, take no responsibility and disappear.

There may not be a list for that, but I won't do business with him.