PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[robocard]

This is the first time for a while I can remember that a problem was raised, discussed sensibly by all and worked out to both the buyer's and the seller's satisfaction, all within 24 hours - and nobody got put on the probation list or the HOS, or given a strike.

 

Excellent stuff!

Hey, good point! Way to go guys!

 

We should just lock this thread right now and end on a high note.

 

 

Sorry to have potentially rekindled the flames, but there seems to be a pattern of sorts and wanted other members to at least have the information prior to conducting future business.

Edited August 15, 2013 by robocard

[miraclemet]

Speaking in general terms (not in judgement of the details of the above Robocard/GAMBIT topics), backing out of a deal when there is a handshake (even an internet handshake) agreement is not a kosher move.

 

• 
  Its impact is exacerbated in smaller communities (word gets around so fast).
  
• It is also exacerbated when there is a finite amount of available product (especially in collectibles)
  
• In general I think people forget details (around why something happened) and just remember the faux pas that occured
  
• 
  

Wonder if that's why the GA sub-forum is more congenial (in general)? With so few books, and so many wanting to own them you cant afford to burn bridges cause the guy you break a deal with might have "that one book" next year, and he can just refuse to deal with you.

 

 

[EC ed]

He committed to buying in early June my ASM 300-9.8 and 121-9.0.

 

He says sorry but someone offered him an Iron Man 1-9.0 for a great price so he will have to pass on my books.

This scenario sounds like it might qualify for PL nomination proceedings...am I right?

[miraclemet]

He committed to buying in early June my ASM 300-9.8 and 121-9.0.

 

He says sorry but someone offered him an Iron Man 1-9.0 for a great price so he will have to pass on my books.

This scenario sounds like it might qualify for PL nomination proceedings...am I right?

 

Depends on how definitive both parties were in the transaction.

 

When this stuff goes to PMs it gets a lot greyer than marketplace listings of

 

Seller: Here's book X for $500

Buyer "I'll take it"

 

In PMs wording gets far vauger "great book" "would love to have it" "let me see what I can do" blah blah blah...

 

We'd need ROBOCard to post specifics of their PM thread to see if its a definitive deal.

[robocard]

Speaking in general terms (not in judgement of the details of the above Robocard/GAMBIT topics), backing out of a deal when there is a handshake (even an internet handshake) agreement is not a kosher move.

 

• 
  Its impact is exacerbated in smaller communities (word gets around so fast).
  
• It is also exacerbated when there is a finite amount of available product (especially in collectibles)
  
• In general I think people forget details (around why something happened) and just remember the faux pas that occured
  
• 
  

Wonder if that's why the GA sub-forum is more congenial (in general)? With so few books, and so many wanting to own them you cant afford to burn bridges cause the guy you break a deal with might have "that one book" next year, and he can just refuse to deal with you.

 

 

I would guess you are pretty accurate. I might add that the GA buyers tend to be a little more seasoned (and yes, older) and came from a generation when your word and commitment were and still are synonymous. An over generalization to some degree but based on my encounters at Cons, etc. fairly true.

[robocard]

He committed to buying in early June my ASM 300-9.8 and 121-9.0.

 

He says sorry but someone offered him an Iron Man 1-9.0 for a great price so he will have to pass on my books.

This scenario sounds like it might qualify for PL nomination proceedings...am I right?

 

Depends on how definitive both parties were in the transaction.

 

When this stuff goes to PMs it gets a lot greyer than marketplace listings of

 

Seller: Here's book X for $500

Buyer "I'll take it"

 

In PMs wording gets far vauger "great book" "would love to have it" "let me see what I can do" blah blah blah...

 

We'd need ROBOCard to post specifics of their PM thread to see if its a definitive deal.

 

Our first transaction was face-to-face. The rest of the dialogue was via text. He inquired about specific books he had seen to see if they were still available and at what price. I gave him prices on several books and his text reply on June 11th was "I would like to buy it (ASM 300-9.8) and the 121 (9.0). Would it be via paypal or check/mo?"

 

I replied MO or check and supplied my address. On June 11th, I texted that I would be leaving for Ohio on the 18th and that if the check came by the 17th, I would mail the books; otherwise, I would mail them when I returned on July 2nd.

 

His text reply on June 17th was in paraphase- No worries- sorry I have been busy and will send the check this week-end. You can send the books when you return.

 

July 5th- I text :no check ; still buying?" He replies that he had to spend money on a car purchase but is still interested in both books; however, he can probably only afford the ASM 121 at this time.

 

I reply with a price for the ASM 121 only. He mentions he is interested in a few other books including HFH 1. I reply that I have one for $60 with a revised total.

 

July 7th- I ask if he wants both or just the ASM 121.

 

July 9th- he replies that "someone offered him an Iron Man #1 graded 9.0 for $825. I am sorry but the offer is too good to pass up so I am going to pass on the ASM."

 

I reply "Not Cool. I hold two books for a month and you back out and buy from someone else. Works great for you but not for me. Hope he has lots of nice books like I do cause I do not do business this way with anyone."

 

Never heard another word from him but stumbled on to his calling me a jerk (not by name but location) in another thread. I reviewed his posts to see what else he was saying and found this thread. I debated posting but there are enough similarities in the deals that I thought it was warranted.

 

I am not sure what the criteria is for the PL but those are the facts.

 

Ed

 

[VintageComics]

Hey guys, Ed (robocard) is about as transparent and honest as you're going to get in this hobby. I'd trust him implicitly on his version of the story, although for the sake of discussion and for PL consideration I can understand why the details are needed.

[robocard]

Hey guys, Ed (robocard) is about as transparent and honest as you're going to get in this hobby. I'd trust him implicitly on his version of the story, although for the sake of discussion and for PL consideration I can understand why the details are needed.

 

Thanks Roy! Hope the Conventions are treating you well.

 

 

[VintageComics]

If a seller misses something then they did not sell me what they claimed. I don't believe in a no return policy. It shouldn't justify lazy sellers.

 

You don't have to accept a no return policy. You can just walk away from that seller and ignore it.

 

on the other hand, if you pull the trigger on a book that has no returns stated ahead of time though, then it's all on you because you agreed with those terms before pulling the trigger.

 

The only defense would be if the "no returns" was not clearly stated in this case.

 

Otherwise, it's just another case of people not taking accountability for their actions and wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

 

For what it's worth though, I agree with you in keeping customers happy.

 

 

So if a seller sells a book with undisclosed CT and doesn't accept returns, the buyer should take "accountability for their actions" and just eat the loss?

 

Stating "no returns accepted" in a listing doesn't magically absolve the seller from his responsibility to ensure that the buyer gets what they paid for.

 

I feel like we've had this discussion before.

 

In our world resto is a big no-no, so in our culture we'd expect a return.

 

Tape is a big no-no among some people but it's one of those things where if you really don't like it, you should remember to ask about it. Sellers do make mistakes and miss things.

 

Out in the real world, if someone states "no returns" I'd expect that to be legally binding if the buyer bought knowing those terms ahead of time.

 

Again, as a seller I'd offer the return to keep the customer happy but as a buyer if I bought from a seller who stated "no return" then I'd have to accept that as the final verdict.

 

 

So now tape is like pressing? You have to ask? Really?

 

Why not just be as straight forward as you can with the defects. If you miss one, and people do...offer and give a refund.?

 

You know, sometimes I genuinely have trouble understanding the conclusions you come to based on what I write. I have no idea why that is but the only think I can think of is that you don't give me any benefit of the doubt so you see my posts differently than I had intended them to be.

 

You took my tape comment out of the context of the discussion. I didn't imply that tape is the same as pressing. I also didn't say that tape shouldn't be disclosed.

 

The gist of what I said was that some people don't realize tape is a big deal because we're not mind readers, so if something really bothers you it's probably best to ask about it.

 

This is what I said just a post later, for context:

 

Brangent, I agree with your varying degrees of tolerance. I personally don't care about tape much on my mid grade and lower books so if I hadn't joined this forum and learned how much some people dislike it I wouldn't have thought to mention it 10 years ago. That's why if a buyer has a peeve they should ask about it. If there is something small about the book that I don't like but it's a reasonably described item (not fraudulent) and I forgot to ask and purchased it under a "no returns" agreement, I say I own the item.

 

So, to be clear:

 

I personally never had a problem with tape on low grade books as a buyer because it's considered by Overstreet to be an acceptable repair on lower to mid grade books.

 

Because I have learned that some people dislike tape greatly, I personally disclose tape every time I see it on a book I'm selling. I have done so for probably 10 years now (the entire time I've been selling comics). I didn't sell comics before 10 years ago.

 

I do agree that if a book was misrepresented a refund should be issued even if a 'no return' clause was part of the agreement.

 

Misrepresenting a book and differing on opinion are not the same thing.

 

I can understand the confusion in the recent discussion though, because there is more than factor at play - it's not just about the tape. It wasn't black and white.

 

SKPB is 1000 times more diplomatic than I.

 

I don't understand why anyone would NOT be diplomatic unless they were making assumptions about someone and were getting riled up about something. Am I missing something here? Did I say something that's not worth replying to with diplomacy?

[miraclemet]

 

Our [robocard & jsilverjanet] first transaction was face-to-face. The rest of the dialogue was via text. He [jsilverjanet] inquired about specific books he had seen to see if they were still available and at what price. I gave him prices on several books and his text reply on June 11th was "I would like to buy it (ASM 300-9.8) and the 121 (9.0). Would it be via paypal or check/mo?"

 

I replied MO or check and supplied my address. On June 11th, I texted that I would be leaving for Ohio on the 18th and that if the check came by the 17th, I would mail the books; otherwise, I would mail them when I returned on July 2nd.

 

His text reply on June 17th was in paraphase- No worries- sorry I have been busy and will send the check this week-end. You can send the books when you return.

 

July 5th- I text :no check ; still buying?" He replies that he had to spend money on a car purchase but is still interested in both books; however, he can probably only afford the ASM 121 at this time.

 

I reply with a price for the ASM 121 only. He mentions he is interested in a few other books including HFH 1. I reply that I have one for $60 with a revised total.

 

July 7th- I ask if he wants both or just the ASM 121.

 

July 9th- he replies that "someone offered him an Iron Man #1 graded 9.0 for $825. I am sorry but the offer is too good to pass up so I am going to pass on the ASM."

 

I reply "Not Cool. I hold two books for a month and you back out and buy from someone else. Works great for you but not for me. Hope he has lots of nice books like I do cause I do not do business this way with anyone."

 

Never heard another word from him but stumbled on to his calling me a jerk (not by name but location) in another thread. I reviewed his posts to see what else he was saying and found this thread. I debated posting but there are enough similarities in the deals that I thought it was warranted.

 

I am not sure what the criteria is for the PL but those are the facts.

 

Ed

 

 

Hey Ed, thanks for providing the detail around the aborted transaction. Hope you didn't take my request as any sort of doubt/criticism, just a desire for details, which always help in these cases.

 

Facts:

June 11: You two agreed to a deal for an ASM 121 & ASM300

Jun 17: Second confirmation of payment being enroute.

July 5: You graciously reduced the deal to just the ASM121

July 5: In the same conversation he asks about adding some other books to the order and you give him an updated price total on those books (including the ASM 121).

July 9: He back out of the whole transaction.

 

So he basically takes your ASM 121 & ASM 300 out of circulation for a month (Jun 11-July 9) when you could have sold it, listed it, or had it at shows.

 

I think you can totally nominate him since the 30 days have passed both for the Initial agreement (June 11) and even your reduced deal for just the ASM 121. I think the subsequent books (H4H and others) were never agreed to (he expressed interest, you gave him the price, he declined), but the earlier deals should stand the scrutiny of PL worthiness.

 

PM him that he's been nominated for the PL, and point him to this thread. He has 72 hrs to respond in kind and state his side of things.

 

One question is: What does jsilverjanet need to do to "make things right" with you? (And that's between you and jsilver) It's just that the PL nominee needs a path to get off the list, even if that's simply "complete the transaction that you agreed to"... until he does that he shouldn't be buying anyone else's books on here, thus the purpose of the PL.

[EC ed]

...his text reply on June 11th was "I would like to buy it (ASM 300-9.8) and the 121 (9.0). Would it be via paypal or check/mo?"

 

I replied MO or check and supplied my address.

 

His text reply on June 17th was in paraphase- No worries- sorry I have been busy and will send the check this week-end. You can send the books when you return.

Sounds pretty definitive

 

Also, per the PL rules: "1d) A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL."

 

The other unknown is whether robocard is even interested in pursuing the completion of this transaction via the PL mechanism, or just wants to let it go. Either way, thanks for bringing it up here in terms of its "FYI value" (thumbs u

[EC ed]

 

Our [robocard & jsilverjanet] first transaction was face-to-face. The rest of the dialogue was via text. He [jsilverjanet] inquired about specific books he had seen to see if they were still available and at what price. I gave him prices on several books and his text reply on June 11th was "I would like to buy it (ASM 300-9.8) and the 121 (9.0). Would it be via paypal or check/mo?"

 

I replied MO or check and supplied my address. On June 11th, I texted that I would be leaving for Ohio on the 18th and that if the check came by the 17th, I would mail the books; otherwise, I would mail them when I returned on July 2nd.

 

His text reply on June 17th was in paraphase- No worries- sorry I have been busy and will send the check this week-end. You can send the books when you return.

 

July 5th- I text :no check ; still buying?" He replies that he had to spend money on a car purchase but is still interested in both books; however, he can probably only afford the ASM 121 at this time.

 

I reply with a price for the ASM 121 only. He mentions he is interested in a few other books including HFH 1. I reply that I have one for $60 with a revised total.

 

July 7th- I ask if he wants both or just the ASM 121.

 

July 9th- he replies that "someone offered him an Iron Man #1 graded 9.0 for $825. I am sorry but the offer is too good to pass up so I am going to pass on the ASM."

 

I reply "Not Cool. I hold two books for a month and you back out and buy from someone else. Works great for you but not for me. Hope he has lots of nice books like I do cause I do not do business this way with anyone."

 

Never heard another word from him but stumbled on to his calling me a jerk (not by name but location) in another thread. I reviewed his posts to see what else he was saying and found this thread. I debated posting but there are enough similarities in the deals that I thought it was warranted.

 

I am not sure what the criteria is for the PL but those are the facts.

 

Ed

 

 

Hey Ed, thanks for providing the detail around the aborted transaction. Hope you didn't take my request as any sort of doubt/criticism, just a desire for details, which always help in these cases.

 

Facts:

June 11: You two agreed to a deal for an ASM 121 & ASM300

Jun 17: Second confirmation of payment being enroute.

July 5: You graciously reduced the deal to just the ASM121

July 5: In the same conversation he asks about adding some other books to the order and you give him an updated price total on those books (including the ASM 121).

July 9: He back out of the whole transaction.

 

So he basically takes your ASM 121 & ASM 300 out of circulation for a month (Jun 11-July 9) when you could have sold it, listed it, or had it at shows.

 

I think you can totally nominate him since the 30 days have passed both for the Initial agreement (June 11) and even your reduced deal for just the ASM 121. I think the subsequent books (H4H and others) were never agreed to (he expressed interest, you gave him the price, he declined), but the earlier deals should stand the scrutiny of PL worthiness.

 

PM him that he's been nominated for the PL, and point him to this thread. He has 72 hrs to respond in kind and state his side of things.

 

One question is: What does jsilverjanet need to do to "make things right" with you? (And that's between you and jsilver) It's just that the PL nominee needs a path to get off the list, even if that's simply "complete the transaction that you agreed to"... until he does that he shouldn't be buying anyone else's books on here, thus the purpose of the PL.

 

This. (submitted my last post before I saw this)

[Sqeggs]

If a seller misses something then they did not sell me what they claimed. I don't believe in a no return policy. It shouldn't justify lazy sellers.

 

You don't have to accept a no return policy. You can just walk away from that seller and ignore it.

 

on the other hand, if you pull the trigger on a book that has no returns stated ahead of time though, then it's all on you because you agreed with those terms before pulling the trigger.

 

The only defense would be if the "no returns" was not clearly stated in this case.

 

Otherwise, it's just another case of people not taking accountability for their actions and wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

 

For what it's worth though, I agree with you in keeping customers happy.

 

 

So if a seller sells a book with undisclosed CT and doesn't accept returns, the buyer should take "accountability for their actions" and just eat the loss?

 

Stating "no returns accepted" in a listing doesn't magically absolve the seller from his responsibility to ensure that the buyer gets what they paid for.

 

I feel like we've had this discussion before.

 

In our world resto is a big no-no, so in our culture we'd expect a return.

 

Tape is a big no-no among some people but it's one of those things where if you really don't like it, you should remember to ask about it. Sellers do make mistakes and miss things.

 

Out in the real world, if someone states "no returns" I'd expect that to be legally binding if the buyer bought knowing those terms ahead of time.

 

Again, as a seller I'd offer the return to keep the customer happy but as a buyer if I bought from a seller who stated "no return" then I'd have to accept that as the final verdict.

 

 

So now tape is like pressing? You have to ask? Really?

 

Why not just be as straight forward as you can with the defects. If you miss one, and people do...offer and give a refund.?

 

You know, sometimes I genuinely have trouble understanding the conclusions you come to based on what I write. I have no idea why that is but the only think I can think of is that you don't give me any benefit of the doubt so you see my posts differently than I had intended them to be.

 

You took my tape comment out of the context of the discussion. I didn't imply that tape is the same as pressing. I also didn't say that tape shouldn't be disclosed.

 

The gist of what I said was that some people don't realize tape is a big deal because we're not mind readers, so if something really bothers you it's probably best to ask about it.

 

This is what I said just a post later, for context:

 

Brangent, I agree with your varying degrees of tolerance. I personally don't care about tape much on my mid grade and lower books so if I hadn't joined this forum and learned how much some people dislike it I wouldn't have thought to mention it 10 years ago. That's why if a buyer has a peeve they should ask about it. If there is something small about the book that I don't like but it's a reasonably described item (not fraudulent) and I forgot to ask and purchased it under a "no returns" agreement, I say I own the item.

 

So, to be clear:

 

I personally never had a problem with tape on low grade books as a buyer because it's considered by Overstreet to be an acceptable repair on lower to mid grade books.

 

Because I have learned that some people dislike tape greatly, I personally disclose tape every time I see it on a book I'm selling. I have done so for probably 10 years now (the entire time I've been selling comics). I didn't sell comics before 10 years ago.

 

I do agree that if a book was misrepresented a refund should be issued even if a 'no return' clause was part of the agreement.

 

Misrepresenting a book and differing on opinion are not the same thing.

 

I can understand the confusion in the recent discussion though, because there is more than factor at play - it's not just about the tape. It wasn't black and white.

 

SKPB is 1000 times more diplomatic than I.

 

I don't understand why anyone would NOT be diplomatic unless they were making assumptions about someone and were getting riled up about something. Am I missing something here? Did I say something that's not worth replying to with diplomacy?

 

I would say that tape, popped staples, writing inside the book, and other flaws not visible on a scan should be mentioned even if acceptable in that grade. I know that Mile High and other big volume dealers don't do this but I consider it a poor business practice.

 

Refusing to accept returns is another poor business practice. As I understand it, when you are paid with PayPal it's pretty much not allowed.

[skypinkblu]

If a seller misses something then they did not sell me what they claimed. I don't believe in a no return policy. It shouldn't justify lazy sellers.

 

You don't have to accept a no return policy. You can just walk away from that seller and ignore it.

 

on the other hand, if you pull the trigger on a book that has no returns stated ahead of time though, then it's all on you because you agreed with those terms before pulling the trigger.

 

The only defense would be if the "no returns" was not clearly stated in this case.

 

Otherwise, it's just another case of people not taking accountability for their actions and wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

 

For what it's worth though, I agree with you in keeping customers happy.

 

 

So if a seller sells a book with undisclosed CT and doesn't accept returns, the buyer should take "accountability for their actions" and just eat the loss?

 

Stating "no returns accepted" in a listing doesn't magically absolve the seller from his responsibility to ensure that the buyer gets what they paid for.

 

I feel like we've had this discussion before.

 

In our world resto is a big no-no, so in our culture we'd expect a return.

 

Tape is a big no-no among some people but it's one of those things where if you really don't like it, you should remember to ask about it. Sellers do make mistakes and miss things.

 

Out in the real world, if someone states "no returns" I'd expect that to be legally binding if the buyer bought knowing those terms ahead of time.

 

Again, as a seller I'd offer the return to keep the customer happy but as a buyer if I bought from a seller who stated "no return" then I'd have to accept that as the final verdict.

 

 

So now tape is like pressing? You have to ask? Really?

 

Why not just be as straight forward as you can with the defects. If you miss one, and people do...offer and give a refund.?

 

You know, sometimes I genuinely have trouble understanding the conclusions you come to based on what I write. I have no idea why that is but the only think I can think of is that you don't give me any benefit of the doubt so you see my posts differently than I had intended them to be.

 

You took my tape comment out of the context of the discussion. I didn't imply that tape is the same as pressing. I also didn't say that tape shouldn't be disclosed.

 

The gist of what I said was that some people don't realize tape is a big deal because we're not mind readers, so if something really bothers you it's probably best to ask about it.

 

This is what I said just a post later, for context:

 

Brangent, I agree with your varying degrees of tolerance. I personally don't care about tape much on my mid grade and lower books so if I hadn't joined this forum and learned how much some people dislike it I wouldn't have thought to mention it 10 years ago. That's why if a buyer has a peeve they should ask about it. If there is something small about the book that I don't like but it's a reasonably described item (not fraudulent) and I forgot to ask and purchased it under a "no returns" agreement, I say I own the item.

 

So, to be clear:

 

I personally never had a problem with tape on low grade books as a buyer because it's considered by Overstreet to be an acceptable repair on lower to mid grade books.

 

Because I have learned that some people dislike tape greatly, I personally disclose tape every time I see it on a book I'm selling. I have done so for probably 10 years now (the entire time I've been selling comics). I didn't sell comics before 10 years ago.

 

I do agree that if a book was misrepresented a refund should be issued even if a 'no return' clause was part of the agreement.

 

Misrepresenting a book and differing on opinion are not the same thing.

 

I can understand the confusion in the recent discussion though, because there is more than factor at play - it's not just about the tape. It wasn't black and white.

 

SKPB is 1000 times more diplomatic than I.

 

I don't understand why anyone would NOT be diplomatic unless they were making assumptions about someone and were getting riled up about something. Am I missing something here? Did I say something that's not worth replying to with diplomacy?

 

I was not riled, and I'm obviously not the only person who read it that way, there were several comments...so perhaps it's your writing :shrug: and your perception of my response that is in error. The discussion was about a book that did not have tape disclosed. .

 

Since you have explained that you do disclose tape, it should end the discussion.

[robocard]

 

Our [robocard & jsilverjanet] first transaction was face-to-face. The rest of the dialogue was via text. He [jsilverjanet] inquired about specific books he had seen to see if they were still available and at what price. I gave him prices on several books and his text reply on June 11th was "I would like to buy it (ASM 300-9.8) and the 121 (9.0). Would it be via paypal or check/mo?"

 

I replied MO or check and supplied my address. On June 11th, I texted that I would be leaving for Ohio on the 18th and that if the check came by the 17th, I would mail the books; otherwise, I would mail them when I returned on July 2nd.

 

His text reply on June 17th was in paraphase- No worries- sorry I have been busy and will send the check this week-end. You can send the books when you return.

 

July 5th- I text :no check ; still buying?" He replies that he had to spend money on a car purchase but is still interested in both books; however, he can probably only afford the ASM 121 at this time.

 

I reply with a price for the ASM 121 only. He mentions he is interested in a few other books including HFH 1. I reply that I have one for $60 with a revised total.

 

July 7th- I ask if he wants both or just the ASM 121.

 

July 9th- he replies that "someone offered him an Iron Man #1 graded 9.0 for $825. I am sorry but the offer is too good to pass up so I am going to pass on the ASM."

 

I reply "Not Cool. I hold two books for a month and you back out and buy from someone else. Works great for you but not for me. Hope he has lots of nice books like I do cause I do not do business this way with anyone."

 

Never heard another word from him but stumbled on to his calling me a jerk (not by name but location) in another thread. I reviewed his posts to see what else he was saying and found this thread. I debated posting but there are enough similarities in the deals that I thought it was warranted.

 

I am not sure what the criteria is for the PL but those are the facts.

 

Ed

 

 

Hey Ed, thanks for providing the detail around the aborted transaction. Hope you didn't take my request as any sort of doubt/criticism, just a desire for details, which always help in these cases.

 

Facts:

June 11: You two agreed to a deal for an ASM 121 & ASM300

Jun 17: Second confirmation of payment being enroute.

July 5: You graciously reduced the deal to just the ASM121

July 5: In the same conversation he asks about adding some other books to the order and you give him an updated price total on those books (including the ASM 121).

July 9: He back out of the whole transaction.

 

So he basically takes your ASM 121 & ASM 300 out of circulation for a month (Jun 11-July 9) when you could have sold it, listed it, or had it at shows.

 

I think you can totally nominate him since the 30 days have passed both for the Initial agreement (June 11) and even your reduced deal for just the ASM 121. I think the subsequent books (H4H and others) were never agreed to (he expressed interest, you gave him the price, he declined), but the earlier deals should stand the scrutiny of PL worthiness.

 

PM him that he's been nominated for the PL, and point him to this thread. He has 72 hrs to respond in kind and state his side of things.

 

One question is: What does jsilverjanet need to do to "make things right" with you? (And that's between you and jsilver) It's just that the PL nominee needs a path to get off the list, even if that's simply "complete the transaction that you agreed to"... until he does that he shouldn't be buying anyone else's books on here, thus the purpose of the PL.

 

My intent was to share that I did not consider the type of issue (not the same one) to be isolated, especially when you look at the type of books he pursues via WTB threads and now sales threads. I would have no desire to deal with him again as it goes to longer term credibility and I have plenty of buyers who would buy any of the books he was offered. As such, consider this a strong "heads up" to members (many of whom may be perfectly comfortable dealing with him.

[robocard]

By the way, that was a great summary as well. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

I was not riled, and I'm obviously not the only person who read it that way, there were several comments...so perhaps it's your writing :shrug: and your perception of my response that is in error. The discussion was about a book that did not have tape disclosed. .

 

Since you have explained that you do disclose tape, it should end the discussion.

 

Like I said, I thought it was a "benefit of the doubt' thing. I obviously disclose tape - at least I thought it was obvious - but I'd even explained that I do in parts of the conversation.

 

As I said, the discussion was about tape but there were several other factors involved (as covered by Chris / comix4fun)

 

I would say that tape, popped staples, writing inside the book, and other flaws not visible on a scan should be mentioned even if acceptable in that grade. I know that Mile High and other big volume dealers don't do this but I consider it a poor business practice.

 

Refusing to accept returns is another poor business practice.

 

I agree highly on both accounts.

 

(thumbs u

[Bio-Rupp]

Always good reading in this thread....

 

Ed... its up to you concerning nominating jsilverjanet.

 

You have to send him a separate PM as Miraclemet stated... and he's got three days to come to some sort of amendment to his actions.

 

Unless any of that changed while I was on vacation

 

 

[robocard]

Always good reading in this thread....

 

Ed... its up to you concerning nominating jsilverjanet.

 

You have to send him a separate PM as Miraclemet stated... and he's got three days to come to some sort of amendment to his actions.

 

Unless any of that changed while I was on vacation

 

 

As far as I am concerned, I move on quickly as there are plenty of buyers in the pool who come with minimal baggage so I will not be nominating him. I think posting the details here provides members with enough information to proceed with any future transactions with at least some degree of caution. I guess I am open to differing opinions though.

 

Ed

[Crows]

No word from Robert John Gordon AKA JohnnyG for months now.

 

Has anyone tried to reach out to JohnnyG? He's been solid in the past and a semi-regular at conventions with Jamie Graham.

 

I considered John a friend before he left for Toronto. Hes got a stack of my books and I have not heard from him in a very long time. I tried texting him but got no response. Hes probly changed his number.

Its very disappointing. Hurts almost.