Manufactured Gold

[Filter81]

I do not have the ability at work to post the link because I cant see the URL but I have seen this book. The front cover was brittle and tattered and the back cover looked like a 9.8 modern. While it did not say it in the auction description, it was obvious that there was something amiss with the back cover. Are you trying to say you thought that back cover was original?

 

Wow again man... for somebody so hellbent on discussing the facts and just the facts, you sure do seem to make up an aweful lot of untrue things whenever it is convenient for you. Is it really so much to ask that you hold yourself to even half of the same standard you hold everyone else to?

 

The front cover was not brittle. A few of the interior pages were slightly brittle. The back cover does not look like a 9.8 modern. It has creases, a few small tears, smudges, and stains.

 

Did it look a lot better than the front cover? Yes. But if you call that back cover a 9.8, I've got great news bullet. I have TONS raw 9.8s that I can sell you. I'll even do you a favor and sell them to you at 8.0 prices. Interested? Thought not...

 

There is no reason why looking at this book it would be impossible to think that somehow something damaged the front cover but did not damage the back. (maybe someone ripping pieces off the front cover as a kid or something.) It is also possible to assume that maybe at some point this copy was missing a back cover, and it had a back cover married from another copy that perhaps had some pages missing from the interior. (again explaining the difference between the front and back cover without automatically assuming the back cover was a photocopy)

 

Also, back when I was spending that much money in every Heritage auction, I would often look at 50 to 100 lots in an hour. In this case, I think I may have even thrown in a bid during the live eBay auction because when it came up it was sitting so cheap. I certainly didn't have the time to spend five minutes on every Heritage auction spefically to check and see whether or not each comic book had its back cover or not. In some cases I had as little as 20 or 30 seconds to decide whether or not I wanted to place a bid.

 

And in this case, it says right in the auction that some of the center wraps have some rice paper reinforcement. Stupid me for thinking that if a company was going to note some reinforcement on the centerfold that they'd also bother to mention the back cover was a xerox copy.

 

Anyway, if I understand your post here bullet, you feel that

 

1) That back cover would be a graded a 9.8

 

and

 

2) its ok to sell books missing pages or back covers without informing the buyers.

 

 

If you feel it is ok to overgrade books when it is convenient for you, and if you feel it is ok to sell books with undisclosed restoration, and you feel it is ok for someone to bid on their own auctions (on eBay this would be called shill bidding) is it safe to assume that you routinely participate in these practices when selling your own comics?

 

If so, may I please have your eBay ID so I know who's items not to bid on in the future?

[Bullet123]

Will one of our Photoshop specialists please put this book up with the front and back cover side by side so we can discuss it like rational adults.

[Filter81]

No Need. I am done with this particular discussion.

 

Clearly you have no interest in discussing this like a rational adult.

 

Rational adults don't spend days complaining about how people should not be allowed to voice their opinions on the off chance that someone might consider one of those opinions to be fact, and then the next morning start making claims that are entirely false.

 

I've got some questions for you bullet.

 

1) What makes you say the front cover is brittle. Its certainly not listed in the auction.

 

2) How do you justify giving that back cover a grade of 9.8? Do you routinely sell comics as 9.8s with creases, smudges, and stains?

 

3) Why is it so impossible to think that maybe at some point that back cover was married to the book from some other incomplete copy?

 

4) Are you saying you feel that what Heritage did was acceptable in this situation? (That because the restoration was apparently obvious to YOU there's no need to disclose it?)

 

5) Can we follow your line of thinking to say that the next time someone sells a restored book on eBay, the restoration doesn't need to be disclosed as long as some people are able to notice it in the scans?

 

In fact, when people go to conventions to buy comics, should dealers even have an obligation to mention when a book is incomplete? I mean if the book is missing pages, it should feel thinner, and therefore should be up to the buyer to figure it out for himself right?

 

I can see that going over real well on eBay. "Yeah, I know I didn't disclose the restoration when I sold it to you, but I thought it was obvious enough in the scan, so, tough luck."

 

But then again, in this case we're talking about Heritage. They should just be allowed to get away with more things than everyone else, right Bullet?

 

Lastly, Stephen Fishler came on to discuss the Batman 1 a little while ago. He said in his opinion, if he were looking at those two scans he would have assumed that the back cover had been married from another Batman 1. Not that it was a photocopy. So if I'm one of the only people on the planet too stupid to realize that Heritage would go out of their way to mention some rice paper reinforcement, but completely skip the fact that the back cover is a xerox... then at least I'm in good company.

[Aman619]

I looked again at the Heritage lot. I'll just add that IMO, after looking at that horrible front cover-- if one were STILL considering buying it, does it really matter aboiut th eback cover? In terms of scrutinizing it? Id read the description to see what kind of resto it had and be done.

 

So, for the record, I agree with Filter that NOT mentioning the Xerox back cover was a huge oversight by Heritage. If it were "so obvious" as others have mentioned here, then it was obvious to Heritage. And in my experience a wxerox back cover IS somtehing that needs to be listed in descriptions. Its not all that common, and its not part of the book! Its a replaced page... usually noted as "pieces added". Here is was a whopper of a piece!

[Ze-man]

Will one of our Photoshop specialists please put this book up with the front and back cover side by side so we can discuss it like rational adults.

 

I aint no steenking specialist, but I can host a photo!

 

 

Batman #1 (DC, 1940) Condition: FR. This is one of the most significant comics of all time thanks to the first appearances of Joker and Catwoman, the famous Dynamic Duo cover by Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson, and a host of other reasons; no wonder it's the sixth most valuable comic book of all according to Overstreet. The issue has a retelling of Batman's origin as well. This copy's pages are slightly brittle. The three centermost wraps have rice paper reinforcement. The interior pages have multiple staple holes through the spine (from additional staples added by the owner). We won't pretend there aren't nicer copies in existence, but the catch is that you have to be Bruce Wayne to afford most of 'em. This is a great chance to snag an affordable copy of this legendary book. Overstreet 2005 GD 2.0 value = $7,179.

 

 

[Point Five]

Man, I can't believe this discussion came up again. Of course Heritage should have described that the back cover was a xerox, and of course it is their responsibility! Boggles my mind that anyone would suggest otherwise.

[esquirecomics]

I, for one, would not have perceived that Batman back cover to be a photocopy. I can think of numerous ways in which the front cover could reach the condition it is yet still the back cover remain much nicer. And it definitely could have been a married cover. I freely admit that I have, on occasion, purchased books without even looking at the scans closely. I definitely don't do that anymore for obvious reasons.

 

I don't understand why Filter was unable to get his money refunded. It was irresponsible and objectionable that Heritage failed to properly list the book with an accurate description and equally so that Filter was not provided a full refund without question. In the past I have been able to easily persuade Heritage to refund my money when the only error they made was listing the wrong Overstreet guide value, which I relied upon as part of my decision making process. Scans are not enough to ensure accuracy.

 

Filter, you would not have had to sue. I am confident I could have resolved the matter with one phone call or e-mail. Anyone who ever finds themselves in a similar situation should feel free to contact me.

[shadroch]

Man, I can't believe this discussion came up again. Of course Heritage should have described that the back cover was a xerox, and of course it is their responsibility! Boggles my mind that anyone would suggest otherwise.

 

Wasn't aware of any prior discussions but it is ridiculous that anyone is trying to defend Heritage on this.

[esquirecomics]

While I do not think the examples you have shown are anywhere the whole iceberg, you make a statement that sounds like 1 out of 10 books out there have had this done to them. Hreitage alone has had over 150,000 auctions for books and you have come up with less than 10 concrete examples. Even if I give you the benefit and say that you have found 50 and just have not had time to post them, that still represents less than 3 one thousandths of 1 percent. So how can you make this statement?

 

You cannot properly rely on such a statistical assertion. It is entirely an inaccurate assessment. I have no idea what the true number might be but you have to assess numerous other factors in arriving at a statistical figure, i.e., value of book, grade of book, # of times the same book was auctioned, whether the book was owned or consigned, etc. Each of these factors alone will impact the number of books actually in play.

 

It is as if saying that sickle cell anemia is barely represented in the overall population so it poses little threat without noting that it is significantly represented within the African American population. From a statistical standpoint these are apples and oranges.

[Red Hook]

Man, I can't believe this discussion came up again. Of course Heritage should have described that the back cover was a xerox, and of course it is their responsibility! Boggles my mind that anyone would suggest otherwise.

 

Agreed. Jeeeeeeeeeez!

[Ze-man]

Man, I can't believe this discussion came up again. Of course Heritage should have described that the back cover was a xerox, and of course it is their responsibility! Boggles my mind that anyone would suggest otherwise.

 

Agreed. Jeeeeeeeeeez!

 

What bothers me the most is that the back cover actually is TELLING the kids to cut apart the back cover and frame it.

 

 

Oh the agony!!

 

Ze-

[Flaming_Telepath]

Man, I can't believe this discussion came up again. Of course Heritage should have described that the back cover was a xerox, and of course it is their responsibility! Boggles my mind that anyone would suggest otherwise.

 

As does much of what we're being told to do...

 

(1) Do not speculate without firm evidence (like you can speculate with firm evidence? )

 

(2) Do not make claims unless you have a signed statement from Halperin, Allen and Jaster, the signing of which was videotaped and determined by a master criminologist to be 'the real deal'.

 

(3) Do not suggest impropriety of any sort, despite the dozens and dozens of casefiles on offer in the public domain, for fear of 'threatening Halperin's livelihood'.

 

(4) Do not...ferchrisakes, do not EVER...rock the boat and question possible rum dealings within the world's largest comic auction house, as some of it might be true and then where would we all be?

 

Oh, and almost forgot...

 

(5) Do not ever pull your head out of your arse, 'cause the real world can be quite scary.

 

[FFB]

Take a look at the big scan of the back cover (not the small one you see on the main item page) and then tell me what you think. Compare it to a large scan of any other Batman #1 they have sold in the past. I think it is 100% obvious that it is a color copy. Heritage still should have mentioned it and probably should have refunded him too, but there is no doubt when looking at the graininess of the back cover (especially at the black borders) that it is a color laser copy of the back cover. It's not a question of condition. It's a question of print quality and it jumps out at you as soon as you look at the big scan.

 

I, for one, would not have perceived that Batman back cover to be a photocopy. I can think of numerous ways in which the front cover could reach the condition it is yet still the back cover remain much nicer. And it definitely could have been a married cover. I freely admit that I have, on occasion, purchased books without even looking at the scans closely. I definitely don't do that anymore for obvious reasons.

 

I don't understand why Filter was unable to get his money refunded. It was irresponsible and objectionable that Heritage failed to properly list the book with an accurate description and equally so that Filter was not provided a full refund without question. In the past I have been able to easily persuade Heritage to refund my money when the only error they made was listing the wrong Overstreet guide value, which I relied upon as part of my decision making process. Scans are not enough to ensure accuracy.

 

Filter, you would not have had to sue. I am confident I could have resolved the matter with one phone call or e-mail. Anyone who ever finds themselves in a similar situation should feel free to contact me.

[esquirecomics]

Take a look at the big scan of the back cover (not the small one you see on the main item page) and then tell me what you think. Compare it to a large scan of any other Batman #1 they have sold in the past. I think it is 100% obvious that it is a color copy. Heritage still should have mentioned it and probably should have refunded him too, but there is no doubt when looking at the graininess of the back cover (especially at the black borders) that it is a color laser copy of the back cover. It's not a question of condition. It's a question of print quality and it jumps out at you as soon as you look at the big scan.

 

I, for one, would not have perceived that Batman back cover to be a photocopy. I can think of numerous ways in which the front cover could reach the condition it is yet still the back cover remain much nicer. And it definitely could have been a married cover. I freely admit that I have, on occasion, purchased books without even looking at the scans closely. I definitely don't do that anymore for obvious reasons.

 

I don't understand why Filter was unable to get his money refunded. It was irresponsible and objectionable that Heritage failed to properly list the book with an accurate description and equally so that Filter was not provided a full refund without question. In the past I have been able to easily persuade Heritage to refund my money when the only error they made was listing the wrong Overstreet guide value, which I relied upon as part of my decision making process. Scans are not enough to ensure accuracy.

 

Filter, you would not have had to sue. I am confident I could have resolved the matter with one phone call or e-mail. Anyone who ever finds themselves in a similar situation should feel free to contact me.

 

You may be correct but you are presuming that someone would examine the larger scan and then even compare it to another image of a Batman back cover. In fact, I have little doubt that if someone compared two back covers it likely would jump out of you, but that is besides the point.

 

When I became engaged to my wife I had not yet purchased the engagement ring. As a joke I purchased a $25 fake 2 caret ring. Numerous people at first glance thought it was real. If you didn't examine it closely it did look real. But when you put it next to a real diamond - night and day! Indeed, it was embarrassing to have even held the thought that the fake could be real when compared to a real one, but that was only when you had the benefit of the comparison.

 

Any auction house has to properly describe its items. Failure to do so, especially if the item is restored or has some hidden defect, is grounds for a refund.

 

The debate here is not whether Filter should have known it was a color copy, or even whether any other reasonable person should have known. That is irrelevant. The issue is whether Heritage was in the wrong, and it was. Why it didn't refund Filter's money is another story and I do not particular understand Heritage's decision.

[Ze-man]

Even if you did not even look at the BC. The fact that the BC is wrapped around the book and the FC is actually attached to it as seen through the gaping holes in the FC. This would raise a HUGE red flag that something was not right with the book.

 

But I take alot more time looking at books I want to buy then Filter did when he was in full blown "buy mode". He may be guilty of bidding and buying on a book he did not really take time to investigate. But that does not mean Heritage should also not have made mention of it in their auction description. OR not refunded his money when he, as a long time customer complained abuot the fact it was NOT listed in their auction description ,coupled with the fact he was not happy about it.

 

It is all in the details I suppose. Was it discussed already in detail about how he attempted to return the book? Only to be met with a slammed door in his face.

 

Ze-

[FFB]

Take a look at the big scan of the back cover (not the small one you see on the main item page) and then tell me what you think. Compare it to a large scan of any other Batman #1 they have sold in the past. I think it is 100% obvious that it is a color copy. Heritage still should have mentioned it and probably should have refunded him too, but there is no doubt when looking at the graininess of the back cover (especially at the black borders) that it is a color laser copy of the back cover. It's not a question of condition. It's a question of print quality and it jumps out at you as soon as you look at the big scan.

 

I, for one, would not have perceived that Batman back cover to be a photocopy. I can think of numerous ways in which the front cover could reach the condition it is yet still the back cover remain much nicer. And it definitely could have been a married cover. I freely admit that I have, on occasion, purchased books without even looking at the scans closely. I definitely don't do that anymore for obvious reasons.

 

I don't understand why Filter was unable to get his money refunded. It was irresponsible and objectionable that Heritage failed to properly list the book with an accurate description and equally so that Filter was not provided a full refund without question. In the past I have been able to easily persuade Heritage to refund my money when the only error they made was listing the wrong Overstreet guide value, which I relied upon as part of my decision making process. Scans are not enough to ensure accuracy.

 

Filter, you would not have had to sue. I am confident I could have resolved the matter with one phone call or e-mail. Anyone who ever finds themselves in a similar situation should feel free to contact me.

 

You may be correct but you are presuming that someone would examine the larger scan and then even compare it to another image of a Batman back cover. In fact, I have little doubt that if someone compared two back covers it likely would jump out of you, but that is besides the point.

 

When I became engaged to my wife I had not yet purchased the engagement ring. As a joke I purchased a $25 fake 2 caret ring. Numerous people at first glance thought it was real. If you didn't examine it closely it did look real. But when you put it next to a real diamond - night and day! Indeed, it was embarrassing to have even held the thought that the fake could be real when compared to a real one, but that was only when you had the benefit of the comparison.

 

Any auction house has to properly describe its items. Failure to do so, especially if the item is restored or has some hidden defect, is grounds for a refund.

 

The debate here is not whether Filter should have known it was a color copy, or even whether any other reasonable person should have known. That is irrelevant. The issue is whether Heritage was in the wrong, and it was. Why it didn't refund Filter's money is another story and I do not particular understand Heritage's decision.

 

Actually, I presume that anyone who bids on a book for more than $1000 on Heritage looks at and studies both scans in detail ahead of time. Maybe that's unreasonably presumptuous of me, but I don't think so.

 

It wasn't necessary to me to look at a large scan of the back cover of another copy to know it was a color photocopy. I suggested that on the off chance that someone might look at the large scan of the book in question and STILL not see what I was talking about. Have you looked at the mega-scan of the book in question yet? If not, take a look and tell me what you think.

 

And yes, I still think Heritage blew it on this one and probably should have refunded Filter's money. Pretty stupid to lose a good customer over this, but hey, it isn't my company.

[Red Hook]

In this case I feel the responsiblity should land squarely 100% with the seller. Heritage promotes it's expert staff as part of the attraction of dealing with them. And they should have given Adam a refund. Period.

 

 

Heritage Auction Galleries is the world's largest collectibles auctioneer. Our 263,955 members are a testament to our reputation for professional business practices and unprecedented knowledge in the field of collectibles. Our mission is to provide the Internet's most indispensable trading platform and source of information for serious collectors, investors and dealers.

 

Heritage, established in 1976, offers a wide range of Americana, Books & Manuscripts, Art, Coins, Comics & Comic Art, Currency, Entertainment Memorabilia, Jewelry & Timepieces, Movie posters, and Sports Collectibles. We acquire the most unique items of the highest quality by searching and networking throughout the world. Our goal is to provide our customers with the largest selection of high-quality collectibles. We give our customers unprecedented access to our services using the latest advancements in technology and by maintaining a strong presence in the collectibles community. Our knowledgeable staff and our suite of services help our customers develop the best collections possible.

[esquirecomics]

Actually, I presume that anyone who bids on a book for more than $1000 on Heritage looks at and studies both scans in detail ahead of time. Maybe that's unreasonably presumptuous of me, but I don't think so.

 

It wasn't necessary to me to look at a large scan of the back cover of another copy to know it was a color photocopy. I suggested that on the off chance that someone might look at the large scan of the book in question and STILL not see what I was talking about. Have you looked at the mega-scan of the book in question yet? If not, take a look and tell me what you think.

 

And yes, I still think Heritage blew it on this one and probably should have refunded Filter's money. Pretty stupid to lose a good customer over this, but hey, it isn't my company.

 

I wouldn't say it is either unreasonable or presumptuous Scott, I would say it is an individual choice. I've seen numerous people drop tens of thousands of dollars on items without so much as a blink of an eye on items I would have scrutinized ten times over. $1,000 might be the threshold for you and many other people, and there is nothing to be argued about that, but for Filter it was not. I can totally understand how the situation transpired from a buying perspective, especially knowing what I know of Filter's buying tendencies.

 

I fully understand what you are saying with respect to examining the back cover, with or without the large scan (and I did look at both). Definite red flags go up as "something" just doesn't make sense. Whether someone would identify the back as a color scan I think will differ from person to person. You are more knowledgable than most. Yet I also know of many experts who buy things only to find out the item is not what they thought.

 

Again, I don't think the debate is about the truth of the back cover as much as it is about how Heritage handled it afterwards.

[langur88]

Man, I can't believe this discussion came up again. Of course Heritage should have described that the back cover was a xerox, and of course it is their responsibility! Boggles my mind that anyone would suggest otherwise.

 

Bottom line.

[mica]

And yes, I still think Heritage blew it on this one and probably should have ......

Twice now you've used the word "probably".

Is there something else that needs to be added before you make the step towards more Certainty?

 

Just curious about the wiggle room this allows.

And I don't want to infer that you are intentionally doing this either just curious if there was something

in the wording of the description which made you uncertain about liability.