Help! Is this seller for real?

[murph0]

Maybe he's completing a NM run? Want to ask me why I have 3 copies of the book? People can LIKE a book and that is the reason for the .2 difference.

Btw, Essoilman is a pretty nice guy. He has a solid ASM run. You want to wait until he puts stuff up for auction though. He had a 9.4 run of ASM 40-49 and a 9.2 50, that he quoted me pretty high prices on then..then later sold below his quotes on eBay. Anyways, he's always been a solid person to buy from for me.

 

Brian

[delekkerste]

I find it very shady that the stamp on the back cover wasn't mentioned in the listing and neither was the history of the book (according to Notch_Top, it was reholdered to get a "new" CGC label without grader's notes). And then he provides a front cover scan that can be supersized, but the back cover scan cannot. Yeah, he sent the full-sized scans on request, but unless you took the initiative to get them, you would have no way of knowing about the stamp.

 

It is clear from the 3 above actions that he was trying to cover up the date stamp and was not just agnostic about its significance, and that speaks volumes about the seller's character to me. I know Supa has met the guy and says he's on the up-and-up, but take it from a cynical New Yorker - if there's one thing that causes people, even rich people, to do stupid things, it's money. It doesn't even have to be a large amount - just look at Martha Stewart, who has cost her company hundreds of millions of dollars over an insider trading scandal that saved her like $40K.

 

That doesn't mean he's using a shill bidder, but the lack of disclosure in his posting leads me to believe that he shouldn't be given any slack just because of his supposed character.

 

Gene

[COI]

I will not speculate on this alleged schill bidder, but I know this guy is a very hard core collector. I've heard second hand what fantastic-four confirmed above. It's my opinion that someone on the level he's playing would probably not risk his reputation on something so insignificant as the schilling is in this case.

 

I understand your dissapointment with this hobby. But the fact is, where ever there is money, there will obviously be corruption. Whatever you went through in the past, do not let the vultures scam you out of something you obviously love enough to invest time and money in.

[murph0]

Some people consider a CGC grade to be sufficient information. You don't see him talking about any spine stress or anything in the details..sure some people don't like date stamps (I don't) and those people take the necessary precautions to find out about one.

 

Brian

[delekkerste]

It's my opinion that someone on the level he's playing would probably not risk his reputation on something so insignificant as the schilling is in this case.

 

This may be the case, but I would not assume it to be so. Martha Stewart has become a textbook example of a person who risked her vast fortune and reputation just to save a tiny sum of money. Or Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco with his tax evasion on art purchases. In fact, I have a friend who made the business headlines in 1999 when he was indicted (later plead guilty) in an insider trading scandal. This guy was one of the nicest guys you've ever met, not your typical Wall Street a-hole. He threw away a promising investment banking career for a paltry sum of money (of which, incidentally, he never spent a dime - it was more an ego/power thing for him).

 

Not saying this is the case here (and how are we really going to know - I sure as hell wouldn't believe a denial from the seller; I mean, what else is he going to say?), but I could envision a number of psychological flaws which would cause someone to risk humiliation just to make a tiny bit more:

 

1. Feels invulnerable and "above the law"

2. Ego won't let him sell out at a loss or the minimum bid level

3. Knows he's a fraud and secretly wants to be caught/exposed

4. He really is a lowlife scumbag and we just don't know it

 

Normally, I wouldn't even speculate on such things, but anyone who goes out of their way to hide a back cover date stamp deserves all this abuse and a whole lot more. There is a special place in Hell reserved for these people. To me, that's almost as bad a practice as shilling.

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

Yeah, but Murph - he went OUT OF HIS WAY to hide the date stamp:

 

1. No mention of it in the post

2. Cannot supersize the back cover image

3. Book was reholdered to have the date stamp comment removed

 

It's one thing if he was agnostic about the stamp, but he has gone out of his way to conceal it and that is simply deceptive.

 

Gene

[Joanna]

Spider,

 

I know it looks suspicious in some ways (the private feedback, extremely low number) but in other ways it doesn't look suspicious at all. For example, he placed one bid, and it was very high -- $900 above the min. If this was the seller, that's a really risky thing to do, since you could have easily just bid the min. or a bit above. A typical shill ratchets up the price by increments, trying to get close, but not over the proxy. He also bid a mere 8 seconds after you. A shill might have bid earlier so that you would have had to fight to get the high bid instead of doing it almost simultaneously. He's bidding on all sorts of auctions, from different sellers -- the last thing a shill does because why should he drive up the prices on his competition? Or worse yet, accidently win something he doesn't want? Got keep those shill accounts free from negs.

 

I've had a number of 0 and low feedback bidders on my auctions. I attract them like flies. I'm sure most sellers do, because there are always new people signing up. I've had auctions that look extremely suspicious, with five 0 sunglass bidders all fighting it out, driving a price far higher than it should ever go. Yet I had nothing to do with any of it (other than watching with my mouth open wondering if the world had gone nuts, and then thanking the world for doing so on my auction).

 

Not every 0 sunglass bidder is a shill. The majority of them aren't.

 

Want to know my theory on this guy? I think he wanted to buy on ebay, but did his research. He read a book or asked his friends how to do it. He learned about sniping, he learned about low-bidding to bookmark an auction, he heard some horror story about public feedback and decided to go private. In short, he got a bunch of advice and tried to implement it all at once and will eventually 'find himself' and realize how to do ebay his own way. The private feedback will probably go, the sniping will stay, etc. We all start somewhere.

 

Oh, and just so you know -- I have no idea who the seller is, so this is based not on any knowledge of him, but on my own experiences as a seller with hundreds of auctions that had newbie bidders, and no experience of shilling my stuff. (I'd never heard of shilling until I came to these boards, in fact).

 

-- Joanna

[supapimp]

date stamp or no date stamp, it doesn't matter, it's all irrelavant. you didn't win the book, spidermanbeyond did. and he disclosed that he knew about the date stamp through a HI RES scan of the back cover, and he wasn't bothered by it. what's the problem here? can we not kick a dead horse or continue person_without_enough_empathying about a book or auction that is not yours to begin with. are you that much of a drama/gossip queen? i mentioned that this book was a relisting, someone made a comment that essoilman had doubles of HG spidey's. if you check his completed auctions, the BIN trigger was pulled by a bidder with zero feedback. im sure if spidermanbeyond wants to back out, it'll be fine. he's just worried about the thrill/legit bidder driving the price up, which we know nothing about. the ASM 7 and 17 is a relisting too, case is closed, discussion is over. http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewListedItems&userid=essoilman&include=0&since=30&sort=3&rows=25

[WernerVonDoom]

Try to hide it? The stamp is pretty clear to me. Most sellers don't even post a back cover scan.

 

The book is 9.4. Quite likely it's a 9.6 without the stamp. Ooooh..big conspiracy.

 

I'd love to have that book.

[murph0]

Take a look at his other auctions, his scans are ALWAYS that size. Notice that his other auctions have NO scan of the back of the book, this one does. If he truly wanted to hide a date stamp, why even post the back cover? Maybe it was reholdered but I'm sure a lot of people have done that, why harp on this guy? This is one of the reasons I don't like CGC removing grader's comments, it allows for situations like this where some people think it may be an attempt to hide (sometimes it will be). But I guess it all comes down to the grade..whether some of us like date stamps or not..the book is still a 9.4

 

Brian

[delekkerste]

The book is 9.4. Quite likely it's a 9.6 without the stamp. Ooooh..big conspiracy.

 

The stamp was not clear to me since you couldn't magnify the back cover scan and if Notch_Top hadn't revealed the relabeling, I certainly wouldn't have known about it. Quit being an apologist for this guy. If it doesn't bother you, that's great. But we have established that there are a lot of people who do care about the issue and it is clear from the seller's pattern of actions that this was no oversight.

 

I am all for more transparency on the part of CGC and sellers. This is a blatant abuse of a terrible change in CGC's policy.

 

If I had bought the book, I feel I would have every right to be indignant about the stamp. It should be incumbent upon the seller to reveal these important details in the listing.

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

it's all irrelavant. you didn't win the book, spidermanbeyond did. and he disclosed that he knew about the date stamp through a HI RES scan of the back cover, and he wasn't bothered by it. what's the problem here? can we not kick a dead horse or continue person_without_enough_empathying about a book or auction that is not yours to begin with. are you that much of a drama/gossip queen?

 

Supa, don't me off. So the book was won by another buyer and the details were disclosed after he made further inquiry. But I'm making this point as a matter of principle: SELLERS NEED TO DISCLOSE IMPORTANT DETAILS LIKE DATE STAMPS. What if somebody who cared about the date stamp had won the auction and didn't contact the seller beforehand (or maybe did and didn't get a response in time?) I'm sorry, this is just a flagrant foul here, abusing this new loophole in the CGC system to get a little extra filthy lucre. If that doesn't bother you, regardless of your like or dislike of date stamps, then perhaps you too should not be held in such high esteem.

 

Gene

 

 

[murph0]

IMO, if you're like me, and dislike date stamps..you've gotten so weary of them that you email first, bid later. It's sort of like making an uninformed purchase, noone wants to do that, so just take the extra day or so and ask the questions relevant to your likes or dislikes. If it has something you dislike on it, you can pass up the auction without any harm done.

 

Brian

[delekkerste]

If he truly wanted to hide a date stamp, why even post the back cover?

 

PLAUSIBLE DENIAL. "Hey, it's not my problem you didn't notice the stamp - I posted a back cover scan". Maybe Werner Von Doom has eagle eye vision or a 56" projection monitor, but on my 19" screen, I see something that could be a stamp on the tiny scan, but it really isn't all that clear to me.

 

 

Maybe it was reholdered but I'm sure a lot of people have done that, why harp on this guy?

 

If you do it for your personal collection, fine. But if it's done with the intent to deceive in a resale, which all signs indicate, then I think it's just wrong. It is certainly your right and Supa's right to disagree. But there are many others who will agree with me that it is simply unethical. I'm not talking about a CGC crash or a date stamp preference or what have you here - it is a simply a matter of right and wrong. I feel the seller is in the WRONG. You may feel he is not and that is your opinion.

 

Personally, though, I would prefer dealing with sellers who are up-front and honest. I may not agree with Blazing Bob's manners or market views, but at least he discloses everything in his listings. I would much rather do business with guys like him than with people who deceive.

 

 

IMO, if you're like me, and dislike date stamps..you've gotten so weary of them that you email first, bid later.

 

Unfortunately, only people who are aware of the change in CGC's policy towards listing grader's comments would even think to do so.

 

Gene

[WernerVonDoom]

Ok, take two books, A and B.

 

Book A has a little bit of wear, and is graded a 9.4.

 

Book B is nicer than A, but has a date stamp dropping it to a 9.4.

 

If CGC still put those comments on the label, book A's label would just say 9.4; and book B's would say 9.4 w/ date stamp.

 

Based on the label, most people would think that Book B is a 9.4 with additional defects. CGC did the right thing taking those notes off of the label.

 

Of course, this all assumes that CGC downgrades for date stamps. I have no reason to think that they don't.

 

 

[supapimp]

don't you off? your being a drama/gossip queen, im not going to get into it with you. i don't know you and have never dealt with you personally. your coming off like your a saint who has a place reserved for you in heaven. when did you become god and started judging people by making a statement like he has a place reserved for him to burn in hell? last time i checked, nobody is perfect, im not the only poster on this thread saying he is a legit seller. your the only one posting/saying that sellers like him is going to burn in hell, so get over it and quit trolling. im done

[murph0]

I don't like the idea of you coming to the conclusion that it was done to deceive. There's so many factors that could be at work that none of us know about. Maybe he never assumed he could afford a 9.6, maybe the price was just right and he decided to get a 9.6...it's feasible this was something he had planned for his own collection and then sold once he was able to purchase a 9.6. There's people all over the place getting these comments removed, there's varying reasons for it, but really you are buying the grade first and the book second (or so that seems to be the standard thought perception of CGC auctions). So really it's not like he's not buying a 9.4, it's a 9.4 with a date stamp.

As far as people not knowing about the change, it's just another aspect of being an informed buyer. If you are plopping down 10k for a book, you'd want to inspect it (if possible) or ask questions. Sort of like if you were buying a car..you want to ask questions about it before buying..you don't just say "well the sticker says it's new, so it must be solid".

As a sidebar, are there really that many people out there who don't like date stamps out there? I know I'm one, but when the topic was brought up a while ago not many people responded negatively regarding date stamps.

 

Brian

[delekkerste]

Based on the label, most people would think that Book B is a 9.4 with additional defects. CGC did the right thing taking those notes off of the label.

 

You make assumptions that may or may not be true. Even if CGC does downgrade, is it always by 0.2? Can it be more? Can an unobtrusive date stamp on the rear not change the grade at all in their eyes (but would be regarded as a pox by many collectors?) Personally, I subscribe to the theory that a 9.4 with a date stamp comment is NOT a 9.6 downgraded to a 9.4 because of the date stamp.

 

In the absence of an explanation from CGC (heck, even with an explanation), I think any extraordinary defects like a date stamp, writing, etc. (i.e., not normal wear, stress, etc.) should be noted on the label. Both eBay and CGC have helped increase liquidity and transparency in the marketplace. CGC's repeal of this grader's notes policy only makes the market less transparent, allowing unscrupulous sellers to reholder their books and not mention the defects, and less liquid, as people no longer can tell exactly what they are getting with a CGC graded book. That hurts the hobby as a whole.

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

your coming off like your a saint who has a place reserved for you in heaven. when did you become god and started judging people by making a statement like he has a place reserved for him to burn in hell?

 

Never said I was a saint, but if you've seen any of my sales listings (I've sold probably 2 or 3 dozen books on eBay, not a ton to be sure), I always disclose EVERYTHING about the book. When I sold my first ASM #121 CGC 9.4 there was an ink spot that CGC did not note on the label. I not only provided full-size scans, but I mentioned it in the body of my listing. When I listed my ASM #122 CGC 9.4, I specifically noted that there were some superficial scratches on the case even though this was not disclosed to me by Josh at ComicLink when I bought the book.

 

So don't get snippy with me. If I come off as high and mighty at least I've earned that right by adhering to these high standards. Other sellers do too. Your boy does not. And THAT'S the bottom line.

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

Well, I know me and RickDogg share a pathological hatred of date stamps. 'Dogg blasted a seller on a thread recently for selling him that MTU annual with a rear cover date stamp that was not disclosed. I remember BronzeBruce13 also expressed his disdain for them at that point as well. I think many collectors who do not focus obsessively on GA and SA hate them.

 

As for Caveat Emptor, that is well within your right to believe it is incumbent on the buyer to do his due diligence. I see, though, that there are sellers out there who do disclose more and by doing so promote greater liquidity and buyer satisfaction for the market/hobby as a whole. One of the supposed benefits of CGC grading was that third-party grading would facilitate buying and selling over the Internet. Before this ridiculous removal of grader's notes, I would often bid/buy based on the label. Now, though, one has to perform extra due diligence. That simply wastes time and energy and leads to fewer bids and less interest in the market and hobby.

 

Personally, I find that to be disturbing.

 

Gene