Ebay - ok. I'm shocked. What do I do?

[Dr. Balls]

 

When I see a number grade assigned to a book I do make the assumption that it is a third party graded book. WHY? Because the advent of the numeric grading really caught on with the grading companies. Yes we did have the point (100) system previously but really it was not used to the extent that we currently use the 10 point system. And yes I know that we have charts (and now OS includes it in his book) that tell you what the letters equates to in numbers but the problem is there are no published standards on what CGC or PGX use as their standards so there really is not equivalence. So when someone makes the leap of faith that the numeric grade you assign is the same as CGC or PGX grade there is no way to validate this assertion or defend your grade.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. As a show dealer from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, well before CGC, I can tell you that people were using the 100 point system, especially on better books where fractions matter far more a good 10 years before CGC.

 

I specifically remember a run of Showcases I attained out of an original owner collection that I sold as 9.6's and 9.8's in the early 90's.

 

I don't think your personal experience is in line with what everyone may have experienced.

 

I think the other side of that stance is the qualifications of the grader to be able to properly utilize the 100 point system AND if the buyer understands the 100 point system enough to tell the difference between a 9.2 and a 9.4. If those two things are not congruent - it leaves room open for debate.

 

There is less room for debate when you say NM or VF.

[rjpb]

On a side note - does anyone else recall back in the 90s when the letter pages in CBM had a running debate as to whether split grades ( like VG/F, etc) were "legitimate' grades or not? This was at least 20 years after people had started using them.

[Steeler Nick]

tomorrowstreasures

 

Here we go. I'll just hang up and listen.

Not an endorsement of the individual just used as an example of a process. better??

tomorrowstreasures

 

Here we go. I'll just hang up and listen.

Not an endorsement of the individual just used as an example of a process. better??

 

What process is this an example of? Borderline fraud that is masked by the appearance of disclosure?

 

Honestly, the good points that you argued for are overshadowed by basically the poorest possible example.

[goldust40]

So is that karl122344 the buyer's eBay username so we can all block him?

 

This story is one reason I am reluctant to use the numerical grades when grading a raw book on eBay. You wouldn't want to give someone ammunition to become a problem, and some buyers now look for any loophole (or even just make mess up) to get a refund or outright steal an item through extortion like this.

 

There are buyers who are new to the hobby out there who are unfamiliar with the old-school grades, so you may have to use both.

 

True. Or you could just go the route that so many eBay sellers take, the "I don't know how to grade books so I'll just give you a blurry photo and you can grade it yourself" option. Those auctions always seem to generate unreasonably good prices (though many are probably shilled), much better than my large clear photos, meticulous descriptions, and return policy can typically match.

 

That's the reason why Nick (FT) stopped selling on ebay. And yes, there've been more and more auctions like those on ebay recently....

[goldust40]

On a side note - does anyone else recall back in the 90s when the letter pages in CBM had a running debate as to whether split grades ( like VG/F, etc) were "legitimate' grades or not? This was at least 20 years after people had started using them.

 

I never used split grades until CGC came along, as I saw it as a way to fudge grades.

[ComicDoc]

 

When I see a number grade assigned to a book I do make the assumption that it is a third party graded book. WHY? Because the advent of the numeric grading really caught on with the grading companies. Yes we did have the point (100) system previously but really it was not used to the extent that we currently use the 10 point system. And yes I know that we have charts (and now OS includes it in his book) that tell you what the letters equates to in numbers but the problem is there are no published standards on what CGC or PGX use as their standards so there really is not equivalence. So when someone makes the leap of faith that the numeric grade you assign is the same as CGC or PGX grade there is no way to validate this assertion or defend your grade.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. As a show dealer from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, well before CGC, I can tell you that people were using the 100 point system, especially on better books where fractions matter far more a good 10 years before CGC.

 

I specifically remember a run of Showcases I attained out of an original owner collection that I sold as 9.6's and 9.8's in the early 90's.

 

I don't think your personal experience is in line with what everyone may have experienced.

 

I agree that the 100 point system was being used but not to the extent that the current 10 point system is today. Now the more ubiquitous use of the 10 point system could be because of the internet and other venues that required the use of a simpler although not necessarily a better system. The shows that I attended in the late 70's and early 80's did not have the numerical system being used widely.

 

Yes, I agree this was my personal experience or more of a selection bias but back then ( 70 - 80s) the world was a lot smaller and your local experience was your world view.

 

I did not mean to offend nor was I doing a comparison of the 100 point to the 10 point or which is better. Just that the 100 point did not seem to me to be used as much as the letter grades previously and the ten point system today.

 

 

[rjpb]

On a side note - does anyone else recall back in the 90s when the letter pages in CBM had a running debate as to whether split grades ( like VG/F, etc) were "legitimate' grades or not? This was at least 20 years after people had started using them.

 

I never used split grades until CGC came along, as I saw it as a way to fudge grades.

 

I remember when CGC first indicated that it would assign 9.0 to VF/NM books, a lot of collectors were upset as the 9 would seem to elevate such books into NM realm, whereas the letter grade seemed to put more emphasis on the VF part of the grade. So in a way, one could argue that the number grades fudge things even more.

 

I won't even ask what you thought of the "double plus" grades - VG++ apparently a dealer favorite back in the day.

[comix4fun]

 

When I see a number grade assigned to a book I do make the assumption that it is a third party graded book. WHY? Because the advent of the numeric grading really caught on with the grading companies. Yes we did have the point (100) system previously but really it was not used to the extent that we currently use the 10 point system. And yes I know that we have charts (and now OS includes it in his book) that tell you what the letters equates to in numbers but the problem is there are no published standards on what CGC or PGX use as their standards so there really is not equivalence. So when someone makes the leap of faith that the numeric grade you assign is the same as CGC or PGX grade there is no way to validate this assertion or defend your grade.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. As a show dealer from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, well before CGC, I can tell you that people were using the 100 point system, especially on better books where fractions matter far more a good 10 years before CGC.

 

I specifically remember a run of Showcases I attained out of an original owner collection that I sold as 9.6's and 9.8's in the early 90's.

 

I don't think your personal experience is in line with what everyone may have experienced.

 

I agree that the 100 point system was being used but not to the extent that the current 10 point system is today. Now the more ubiquitous use of the 10 point system could be because of the internet and other venues that required the use of a simpler although not necessarily a better system. The shows that I attended in the late 70's and early 80's did not have the numerical system being used widely.

 

Yes, I agree this was my personal experience or more of a selection bias but back then ( 70 - 80s) the world was a lot smaller and your local experience was your world view.

 

I did not mean to offend nor was I doing a comparison of the 100 point to the 10 point or which is better. Just that the 100 point did not seem to me to be used as much as the letter grades previously and the ten point system today.

 

 

 

Oh you didn't offend. I think it's mostly a split between the high and low grade books. On higher grade books...between 9.2 and 9.8 those numbers were out there and being used a lot back then. I was at shows all over the country and most of the bigger dealers were using it pretty heavily on the high grades, mostly because a 9.6 was a going to get them a lot more than a 9.2 so the more clear the distinction the better.

 

Most of those same dealers still used G, VG, FN and VF too...so that confuses things even more.

[bane]

On a side note - does anyone else recall back in the 90s when the letter pages in CBM had a running debate as to whether split grades ( like VG/F, etc) were "legitimate' grades or not? This was at least 20 years after people had started using them.

 

I never used split grades until CGC came along, as I saw it as a way to fudge grades.

 

I remember when CGC first indicated that it would assign 9.0 to VF/NM books, a lot of collectors were upset as the 9 would seem to elevate such books into NM realm, whereas the letter grade seemed to put more emphasis on the VF part of the grade. So in a way, one could argue that the number grades fudge things even more.

 

I won't even ask what you thought of the "double plus" grades - VG++ apparently a dealer favorite back in the day.

 

I've seen books on Metropolis graded as VF++

[ComicDoc]

tomorrowstreasures

 

Here we go. I'll just hang up and listen.

Not an endorsement of the individual just used as an example of a process. better??

tomorrowstreasures

 

Here we go. I'll just hang up and listen.

Not an endorsement of the individual just used as an example of a process. better??

 

What process is this an example of?

 

The process I was referring to is use of the step by step description which of course needs to be backed by the pictures. (BTW I have the book in hand and I am happy with my purchase but I bought it for my Christmas decoration) and the only point I was trying to make was that delineation of the flaws may avoid unhappy buyers. Of course the underlying assumption / implication is that the seller is honest and not intentionally lying or misleading the buyer.

 

 

Honestly, the good points that you argued for are overshadowed by basically the poorest possible example.

 

I think although it was unintentional my example did bring out the point that no matter what the grading system is or the listing looks like the bottom line is: caveat emptor. But providing more information about the item is going to better than just a letter grade which are think is better than a number. There are dishonest buyers out there as well as sellers everywhere!

[Badlands]

you cant eye a comic and give it your own personal grade.

 

An example of how much the hobby has changed in the last ten years.

 

Politely tell him to send the book back, and don't bother with explanations. Then, as has already been said, block him and move on. Life's too short to agonize over this sort of thing.

 

+100!

[Benjamin Grimm]

The more I sell stuff on eBay, the less I want to do it again. I'm currently in the middle of an almost $180 unpaid auction case. I waited over three weeks and sent several messages.

 

As for grading raw books for sale, we all know grading is subjective. I do on occasion use the "split grades". I almost never assign a number grade (9.4, 9.8, etc) to a raw eBay auction unless I think it's a 9.6 or 9.8; but if I do, I intentionally describe it as a grade or two lower than what I think it is. And I always include the "I'm not a professional grader so please view the photos/scans to decide for yourself" line. Not that it's full-proof, but in the case of something like this, hopefully it would allow room to avoid a negative.

 

It sucks that it's easier to just pander to the complainer (as in offer a refund), especially when you have a 100% feedback and it's obviously just the buyer being difficult. Been there, done that. In my case, I offered a refund and expressed my desire for both of us to maintain our 100% feedback. Never heard from the guy again...

[mysterio]

eBay is a constant reminder that nothing is fool-proof anymore when it comes to internet selling. You can CYA as much as you want, and the buyer can still cry foul and eBay will back them up whether they are right or not. If you want to sell on eBay you need to be prepared to bend over backwards and then bend over forwards.

[DeliBebek]

 

When I see a number grade assigned to a book I do make the assumption that it is a third party graded book. WHY? Because the advent of the numeric grading really caught on with the grading companies. Yes we did have the point (100) system previously but really it was not used to the extent that we currently use the 10 point system. And yes I know that we have charts (and now OS includes it in his book) that tell you what the letters equates to in numbers but the problem is there are no published standards on what CGC or PGX use as their standards so there really is not equivalence. So when someone makes the leap of faith that the numeric grade you assign is the same as CGC or PGX grade there is no way to validate this assertion or defend your grade.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. As a show dealer from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, well before CGC, I can tell you that people were using the 100 point system, especially on better books where fractions matter far more a good 10 years before CGC.

 

I specifically remember a run of Showcases I attained out of an original owner collection that I sold as 9.6's and 9.8's in the early 90's.

 

I don't think your personal experience is in line with what everyone may have experienced.

 

I agree that the 100 point system was being used but not to the extent that the current 10 point system is today. Now the more ubiquitous use of the 10 point system could be because of the internet and other venues that required the use of a simpler although not necessarily a better system. The shows that I attended in the late 70's and early 80's did not have the numerical system being used widely.

 

Yes, I agree this was my personal experience or more of a selection bias but back then ( 70 - 80s) the world was a lot smaller and your local experience was your world view.

 

I did not mean to offend nor was I doing a comparison of the 100 point to the 10 point or which is better. Just that the 100 point did not seem to me to be used as much as the letter grades previously and the ten point system today.

 

 

This isn't meant to sound nitpicky, but truly curious. Is there really a difference between the 100 point and the 10 point? Given that CGC and most everyone else uses a decimal place beyond it, there are theoretically 100 possible values available as grades. I realize only 25 of these get used, but it would probably be confusing to refer to a 9.8 on a 25-point scale.

 

Were graders truly using every increment of the 100 point scale? I was collecting at the time, but apparently missed the use of it.

 

The whole thing reminds of Rate-A-Record on American Bandstand, which supposedly used a 100-point scale, but didn't allow ratings lower than 37 or higher than 98.

 

Back to the thread…

[BeachBum]

I just received a postive feedback indicating "Fast shipping, but should have scanned the back of the comic (dirty)"

 

It was an original art sketch on a blank sketch cover CGC 9.4, not 9.8. Should I have posted a scan of the back? (dirty from artist handling while sketching)

 

I figured CGC 9.4 indicated enough, plus buy the art, not the grade right?

[Dr. Balls]

I just received a postive feedback indicating "Fast shipping, but should have scanned the back of the comic (dirty)"

 

It was an original art sketch on a blank sketch cover CGC 9.4, not 9.8. Should I have posted a scan of the back? (dirty from artist handling while sketching)

 

I figured CGC 9.4 indicated enough, plus buy the art, not the grade right?

 

For me, as buyer or seller - the price/grade of the book might depend on whether I scan or want a scan of the back.

 

A $10 book? Who cares? A $100 book? Yeah, I'd like to have a front and a back - just so that there's no surprises, regardless of grade.

[BeachBum]

I just received a postive feedback indicating "Fast shipping, but should have scanned the back of the comic (dirty)"

 

It was an original art sketch on a blank sketch cover CGC 9.4, not 9.8. Should I have posted a scan of the back? (dirty from artist handling while sketching)

 

I figured CGC 9.4 indicated enough, plus buy the art, not the grade right?

 

For me, as buyer or seller - the price/grade of the book might depend on whether I scan or want a scan of the back.

 

A $10 book? Who cares? A $100 book? Yeah, I'd like to have a front and a back - just so that there's no surprises, regardless of grade.

 

My point is that when getting sketch covers done sometimes there is no way of the artist not dirtying up the back, as hard as you try to avoid, and even let them know it's getting graded.

[miraclemet]

I just received a postive feedback indicating "Fast shipping, but should have scanned the back of the comic (dirty)"

 

It was an original art sketch on a blank sketch cover CGC 9.4, not 9.8. Should I have posted a scan of the back? (dirty from artist handling while sketching)

 

I figured CGC 9.4 indicated enough, plus buy the art, not the grade right?

 

If it was raw yes he'd have a legit beef, but it was already slabbed so its not like they bought a raw book based on a front scan hoping for a raw 9.8 then got the book and saw that the back was dirty and were stuck with a 9.4

 

Im sure he got it at a lower price cause it was a 9.4, so he wins cause the real "value" to the book is in the sketch, which has nothing to do with the grade (though the slabbing is a nice way to keep it safe and sound)...

 

or did CGC give it a 9.4 cause they didnt like the sketch subject matter?

 

(over heard at the CCGC graders office)

" SS book up next with a sketch"

"oooh, who's the sketch of?"

"ugh another wolverine"

"9.4! moving on..."

 

 

 

 

[Park]

I just received a postive feedback indicating "Fast shipping, but should have scanned the back of the comic (dirty)"

 

It was an original art sketch on a blank sketch cover CGC 9.4, not 9.8. Should I have posted a scan of the back? (dirty from artist handling while sketching)

 

I figured CGC 9.4 indicated enough, plus buy the art, not the grade right?

 

For me, as buyer or seller - the price/grade of the book might depend on whether I scan or want a scan of the back.

 

A $10 book? Who cares? A $100 book? Yeah, I'd like to have a front and a back - just so that there's no surprises, regardless of grade.

 

My point is that when getting sketch covers done sometimes there is no way of the artist not dirtying up the back, as hard as you try to avoid, and even let them know it's getting graded.

 

I would put a back scan going forward or at least something to the effect of "back scan available by request". If it has bugged one person, it may bug another so you might want to head it off at the pass.

 

The buyer obviously knows how to use a computer so they could ask questions beforehand but it's so much more fun to whine after the fact.

[Dr. Balls]

I just received a postive feedback indicating "Fast shipping, but should have scanned the back of the comic (dirty)"

 

It was an original art sketch on a blank sketch cover CGC 9.4, not 9.8. Should I have posted a scan of the back? (dirty from artist handling while sketching)

 

I figured CGC 9.4 indicated enough, plus buy the art, not the grade right?

 

For me, as buyer or seller - the price/grade of the book might depend on whether I scan or want a scan of the back.

 

A $10 book? Who cares? A $100 book? Yeah, I'd like to have a front and a back - just so that there's no surprises, regardless of grade.

 

My point is that when getting sketch covers done sometimes there is no way of the artist not dirtying up the back, as hard as you try to avoid, and even let them know it's getting graded.

 

That may be true - but a person, like myself, who has never owned a sketch cover, nor been at a convention where they were offered, might not know that. Hell, I never even thought of it until you just brought it up.

 

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a sketch cover to be messed up on the back (from drawing), but if I were buying one, and it had significant marks, I would be much more comfortable actually seeing it.

 

I understand the 9.4 grade factors that in, but it's good to have it disclosed, IMHO. I have left similar feedback (usually for packing issues) where I had a good transaction, but felt it could be improved by being more careful with packaging.