• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay
33 33

Started by fastballspecial,

18,816 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
So true. It's not a VF copy. It's higher. But it's not the 9.6 claimed in the listing. For proof of that, just look at the back cover.

 

Am I looking at the right listing, as when I go to the link provided it shows 'NM' in the header and the description area?

 

SANDMAN #4 Apr 1989 DC NM 1st App LUCIFER MORNINGSTAR Neil GAIMAN HOT

 

SANDMAN #4 Apr 1989 DC NM 1st App LUCIFER MORNINGSTAR Neil GAIMAN HOT!

 

I didn't see a back cover scan. But from the front cover, that appears to be a 9.4 candidate.

Are you looking at the one from ranxerox9254? That's not divad.

 

doh!

 

That's what was happening when I went to the listing. Ebay was marketing another listing at the top of the page.

 

 

 

$_57.JPG

 

$_57.JPG

 

 

 

Still not a 7.5-8.0 candidate.

 

Even with the back cover defects I wouldn't be surprised if this landed a CGC 9.4 grade. I recently sent in a Predator (1989) #3 that had more back cover spine stress than this Sandman, which has a black back cover. CGC gave it a 9.4, which surprised me.

 

9FPWvDqh.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
PGX SS.

 

 

Or maybe the other guys . . . :baiting:

 

btw, when was the census last updated? last week? last month? before San Diego? hm

 

I received a batch of comics on Monday to my house. I've only checked like 5 of them, but they were all on the census.

 

:cool:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
So true. It's not a VF copy. It's higher. But it's not the 9.6 claimed in the listing. For proof of that, just look at the back cover.

 

Am I looking at the right listing, as when I go to the link provided it shows 'NM' in the header and the description area?

 

SANDMAN #4 Apr 1989 DC NM 1st App LUCIFER MORNINGSTAR Neil GAIMAN HOT

 

SANDMAN #4 Apr 1989 DC NM 1st App LUCIFER MORNINGSTAR Neil GAIMAN HOT!

 

I didn't see a back cover scan. But from the front cover, that appears to be a 9.4 candidate.

Are you looking at the one from ranxerox9254? That's not divad.

 

doh!

 

That's what was happening when I went to the listing. Ebay was marketing another listing at the top of the page.

 

 

 

$_57.JPG

 

$_57.JPG

 

 

 

Still not a 7.5-8.0 candidate.

 

Even with the back cover defects I wouldn't be surprised if this landed a CGC 9.4 grade. I recently sent in a Predator (1989) #3 that had more back cover spine stress than this Sandman, which has a black back cover. CGC gave it a 9.4, which surprised me.

 

9FPWvDqh.jpg

 

 

Unless that predator has a back cover like that sandman I don't think you've got apples next to apples. That's a tear at the top back edge and that bottom staple's got some serious issues. I'd be surprised if it came back a 9.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cujobyte

cujobyte

Posted
Posted (edited)
Books of divad's I've had issues with before. Overgrading and lying to people in descriptions. I can't be believe people still support him or give his raw auctions any credence whatsoever.

 

Man Who Laughs

 

Sandman 4

 

Divad overgrades and intentionally misleads buyer by claiming SSM #90 is the First Black Costume

 

Divad claims VOB book is a 9.9 in listing but doesn't get it slabbed.

 

 

 

Funny, how every single one of those buyers left stellar feedback for the books they bought. Except you, who have never bought a single item from me, ever. The buyer of the 9.9 VOB is a Board Member who doesn't leave feedback due to confidentiality, and he laughed all the way to the bank on that one. SWEET copy. Now in an SS 9.9 slab. And he's come back for more "overgraded" books. The joke's on you Transplant, and every time you look in a mirror. :grin:

 

 

(shrug)(shrug)

 

 

Bane%20no%2099_zpsizchepwl.jpg

 

Chris,

 

I brought this point up to Divad yesterday, but I see a whole slew of posts were removed, so maybe my question was part of that mix. Divad, I'd like to know who hit the 9.9SS based on your 9.9 raw book.

 

Edit: my post is still there: 8815670

Edited by cujobyte
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimik

kimik

Posted
Posted (edited)
Unless that predator has a back cover like that sandman I don't think you've got apples next to apples. That's a tear at the top back edge and that bottom staple's got some serious issues. I'd be surprised if it came back a 9.2.

 

If the rest of the book is perfect it will come back as a 9.0 with the tear. I had a Canadian newsstand variant copy of ST #37 that had a similar top edge tear, no other wear, and it came back as a 9.0.

 

With the bottom staple issues, and a couple of other creases, it would likely grade out in the 8.0 - 8.5 range.

 

That being said, his grading is not really any worse than most of the major dealers out there right now. The only way to hit the stated grade with most of them is to press and dry clean the books before slabbing.

Edited by kimik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
revat

revat

Posted
Posted
Books of divad's I've had issues with before. Overgrading and lying to people in descriptions. I can't be believe people still support him or give his raw auctions any credence whatsoever.

 

Man Who Laughs

 

Sandman 4

 

Divad overgrades and intentionally misleads buyer by claiming SSM #90 is the First Black Costume

 

Divad claims VOB book is a 9.9 in listing but doesn't get it slabbed.

 

 

 

Funny, how every single one of those buyers left stellar feedback for the books they bought. Except you, who have never bought a single item from me, ever. The buyer of the 9.9 VOB is a Board Member who doesn't leave feedback due to confidentiality, and he laughed all the way to the bank on that one. SWEET copy. Now in an SS 9.9 slab. And he's come back for more "overgraded" books. The joke's on you Transplant, and every time you look in a mirror. :grin:

 

 

(shrug)(shrug)

 

 

Bane%20no%2099_zpsizchepwl.jpg

 

Chris,

 

I brought this point up to Divad yesterday, but I see a whole slew of posts were removed, so maybe my question was part of that mix. Divad, I'd like to know who hit the 9.9SS based on your 9.9 raw book.

 

I would not like to know, because its none of my business WHO, and honestly not your place to disclose. But I wouldn't mind a bit of 'IF'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Unless that predator has a back cover like that sandman I don't think you've got apples next to apples. That's a tear at the top back edge and that bottom staple's got some serious issues. I'd be surprised if it came back a 9.2.

 

If the rest of the book is perfect it will come back as a 9.0 with the tear. I had a Canadian newsstand variant copy of ST #37 that had a similar top edge tear, no other wear, and it came back as a 9.0.

 

With the bottom staple issues, and a couple of other creases, it would likely grade out in the 8.0 - 8.5 range.

 

 

 

I agree that the tear alone is a big issue and it's not multiple spine stresses, corner issues, staple issues, rubbing, etc.

 

9.6? Not even Ray Charles would grade it that high.

 

9.4 is wrong for this one too.

 

9.2 would be a lapse in grading judgment. Thus my surprise it would ever even grade that high.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted

Fortunately it wasn't a tear . . . but it does look like one in the scan. :grin:

 

The biggest issue I see now is the light rubbing along the spine on the BC, from the bottom staple down to the corner. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Fortunately it wasn't a tear . . . but it does look like one in the scan. :grin:

 

 

So did you see the 9.9 or did he just tell you it came back 9.9?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Unless that predator has a back cover like that sandman I don't think you've got apples next to apples. That's a tear at the top back edge and that bottom staple's got some serious issues. I'd be surprised if it came back a 9.2.

The back cover was pretty hosed on that Predator #3, which is why I phoned into CGC. It wasn't a book I would have submitted to get graded if it had such defects. But out of 20 (+) books, that was my only surprise. That was a nice order to get back (including 3 x New Mutants 98 in 9.8 and 1 x in 9.6).

 

:cloud9:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
But out of 20 (+) books, that was my only surprise. That was a nice order to get back (including 3 x New Mutants 98 in 9.8 and 1 x in 9.6).

 

:cloud9:

 

How long ago was this? hm

 

Two months ago, and 8 books sales.

 

:whee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Fortunately it wasn't a tear . . . but it does look like one in the scan. :grin:

 

The biggest issue I see now is the light rubbing along the spine on the BC, from the bottom staple down to the corner. ;)

 

 

Do you think that rubbing, along with the indentations that break color at the top and bottom of the spine and along the top edge also front and back as well as the color breaking spine stresses ( I count 6 or 7 of them total) between the front and back cover) make this book a 9.6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
33 33
Go to topic listing