many cheap "Key undercopies mostly Bronze-DC+Cheap Action 36, Crime does not pay 1 1

[GermanFan]

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=110121&Lot_No=11017

Action 36. Thats the copy, isnt it?

Edited April 16, 2011 by GermanFan

[Yannis]

 

Adding 1 or two more (that I have pics on my phone)

X-men 282 first Bishop 9.8 white pages asking $65

[Yannis]

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=110121&Lot_No=11017

Action 36. Thats the copy, isnt it?

 

 

Oh cool. Had no idea it was on a heritage auction not too long ago. I wonder what the grade would be now. I guess let's keep it safe and say the range is between 3.5 and 4.5. (Between heritage and the dealer I got it from)

 

[skypinkblu]

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=110121&Lot_No=11017

Action 36. Thats the copy, isnt it?

 

 

Oh cool. Had no idea it was on a heritage auction not too long ago. I wonder what the grade would be now. I guess let's keep it safe and say the range is between 3.5 and 4.5. (Between heritage and the dealer I got it from)

 

I guess I'd be kind of upset with that dealer, since he bought it knowing it had several tear seals, was clearly labeled restored and didn't tell you...but the good news, is, you can use that picture:) It might help!

[Yannis]

Well I'm not angry since I had a pressumption from when I bought it. No big deal buti wonder where the other tear seal(s) is(are) ill check it out again when I get home and see if I can locate anything

[skypinkblu]

Well I'm not angry since I had a pressumption from when I bought it. No big deal buti wonder where the other tear seal(s) is(are) ill check it out again when I get home and see if I can locate anything

 

I don't want to thread , John, so I won't take it further, I'll let you figure out what you want to say, but I saw the listings on eBay where you clearly said there was NO resto, twice...and a 4.5, as a matter of fact, people can still view them. One time it shows as sold.

 

 

So before you keep going, maybe you want to rethink your statement.

Edited April 16, 2011 by skypinkblu

[cloudofwit]

:think:

[catrick339]

Is this the thread? Looked at that one myself

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&rt=nc&nma=true&item=320671137789&si=2rgweQmEUFGpu0p8ogzS8084w7c%253D&viewitem=

[Yannis]

Well I'm not angry since I had a pressumption from when I bought it. No big deal buti wonder where the other tear seal(s) is(are) ill check it out again when I get home and see if I can locate anything

 

I don't want to thread , John, so I won't take it further, I'll let you figure out what you want to say, but I saw the listings on eBay where you clearly said there was NO resto, twice...and a 4.5, as a matter of fact, people can still view them. One time it shows as sold.

 

 

So before you keep going, maybe you want to rethink your statement.

Actually Sharon, you are starting something. And I'm surprised at you for attacking me like this. Fact is the book didn't sell since I spoke to the buyer and we did clarify with each other that it possibly did have tear seals. And before you go further, I had no idea that it was on heritage till now. And since the book was listed onheritage with a quite a few tear seals then we can say that it does rather say that it doesn't. So please if you ever have issues again pm me first

[Yannis]

And btw the original backboard cover had it as a 4.5 so I went by that but since I was pointed out to the heritage site I am playing it safe and saying the range is between 3.5 and 4.5 which is very fair I think

[skypinkblu]

Well I'm not angry since I had a pressumption from when I bought it. No big deal buti wonder where the other tear seal(s) is(are) ill check it out again when I get home and see if I can locate anything

 

I don't want to thread , John, so I won't take it further, I'll let you figure out what you want to say, but I saw the listings on eBay where you clearly said there was NO resto, twice...and a 4.5, as a matter of fact, people can still view them. One time it shows as sold.

 

 

So before you keep going, maybe you want to rethink your statement.

Actually Sharon, you are starting something. And I'm surprised at you for attacking me like this. Fact is the book didn't sell since I spoke to the buyer and we did clarify with each other that it possibly did have tear seals. And before you go further, I had no idea that it was on heritage till now. And since the book was listed onheritage with a quite a few tear seals then we can say that it does rather say that it doesn't. So please if you ever have issues again pm me first

 

 

 

Well I'm not angry since I had a pressumption from when I bought it. No big deal buti wonder where the other tear seal(s) is(are) ill check it out again when I get home and see if I can locate anything

[whomerjay]

Well I'm not angry since I had a pressumption from when I bought it. No big deal buti wonder where the other tear seal(s) is(are) ill check it out again when I get home and see if I can locate anything

 

I don't want to thread , John, so I won't take it further, I'll let you figure out what you want to say, but I saw the listings on eBay where you clearly said there was NO resto, twice...and a 4.5, as a matter of fact, people can still view them. One time it shows as sold.

 

 

So before you keep going, maybe you want to rethink your statement.

Actually Sharon, you are starting something. And I'm surprised at you for attacking me like this. Fact is the book didn't sell since I spoke to the buyer and we did clarify with each other that it possibly did have tear seals. And before you go further, I had no idea that it was on heritage till now. And since the book was listed onheritage with a quite a few tear seals then we can say that it does rather say that it doesn't. So please if you ever have issues again pm me first

 

Am I reading this wrong? You stated you presumed there was resto when you bought it. The you turned around and offered it on ebay as unrestored. This is almost certainly going to elicit a request for clarification in thread.

[whomerjay]

And btw the original backboard cover had it as a 4.5 so I went by that but since I was pointed out to the heritage site I am playing it safe and saying the range is between 3.5 and 4.5 which is very fair I think

 

Sorry this statement is bizarre and not right on so many levels.

 

 

 

 

 

[catrick339]

Umm, maybe the BACKING BOARD was a 4.5?

[Yannis]

You see you are an instigator. This is my sales thread so please if you have issues with me take it to the discussion thread. And that's all the gratitude for even helping you out getting books from local dealers. Thanks!

I don't need to brake down every little explanation to the dot for you but to clear this up. I bought it as unrestored. The book had a piece of tape on the interior where the tear seal is. And I wasn't sure if it had resto or not but I sold it as I bought I bought it on ebay. After discussing it with the buyer I thought that it might have had tear seal resto. And now that I put it here I mentioned it from the start. And after a boardie pointed me out to the heritage I have no problem with adding those notes. That's about it.

[Yannis]

Is that good enough for YOU

[Yannis]

From the time on ebay till now I did find out that it could have a tear seal, so I mentioned it from the sttart now I will be in contact with the moderators on this

[whomerjay]

Is that good enough for YOU

 

 

 

no

[Yannis]

Is that good enough for YOU

 

 

 

no

 

Well what can I say, I listed it here and mentioned the tea seal so if you think there is something going on, bring it on then. I'm not scrared for the least bit. I didn't lie about the listing and I didn't know about the heritage listing so go for it.....

 

It was only after the ebay listing I felt that there was a stronger possibilty that the book had tear seals.

[Foolkiller]

This is another example (as with Roy) of presuming the worst v. presuming the best. If you presume the worst, you sold a book you knew or suspected of being restored as unequivocally (at least in your description) as unrestored.

 

If we presume the best, you probably made a mis step in the description and should have made more of a full disclosure in your description even if you "suspected" resto, but that there was no "intention to deceive". Much like with Roy's situation, it all depends on how you want to read it.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Foolkiller