When you receive a different CGC book than was pictured

[Darkowl]

I am not defending Branget here, just telling how I interpret this:

 

Branget's books all look the same because they all look the same. We all know a 9.8 can look different from another 9.8, but Branget is saying that his actually do all look the same, that's how he picks them out. If he has five copies of Manifest Destiny #1, one is not going to have a small NCB dog-ear, one won't have slight rippling, and one is not going to be off-center while the others aren't. He picks the ones that all actually look the same.

 

That being said, I would not use a "stock photo" of any CGC book personally. But that is me, and I am (luckily for you) not everybody else.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

They may indeed all look the same...to Branget, but they could also look different to someone else, even If Branget does selectively hand pick them.

 

Even if they truly do look all the same, the main concept still applies, and I'm assuming it's this main concept (why using stock photos can be a bad idea) that prevents you, Slym, from using stock photos. If not, I would really like to hear why you personally would never use a stock photo for a CGC book.

[mschmidt]

Those are just ebay's policy's. Most online comic book stores usually do not post stock images. Why? Because unlike Branget's approach, these reputable companies want their customers to know exactly what they are getting, even If it's a CGC 9.9 or 10 for that matter.

 

That's about as incorrect as you can get. Most online comic book stores utilize stock images heavily.

 

If someone has a multiple quantity listing with 10 copies of a freshly-slabbed CGC 9.8 modern book on eBay, do you honestly think they're going to provide individual scans for each copy? Of course not.

[MatterEaterLad]

I am not defending Branget here, just telling how I interpret this:

 

Branget's books all look the same because they all look the same. We all know a 9.8 can look different from another 9.8, but Branget is saying that his actually do all look the same, that's how he picks them out. If he has five copies of Manifest Destiny #1, one is not going to have a small NCB dog-ear, one won't have slight rippling, and one is not going to be off-center while the others aren't. He picks the ones that all actually look the same.

 

That being said, I would not use a "stock photo" of any CGC book personally. But that is me, and I am (luckily for you) not everybody else.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

I get the gist of what Branget is saying, that for moderns it really doesn't matter. I wonder if he'd consider not posting a photo at all then? A 9.8 is a 9.8 is a 9.8...

[Darkowl]

Those are just ebay's policy's. Most online comic book stores usually do not post stock images. Why? Because unlike Branget's approach, these reputable companies want their customers to know exactly what they are getting, even If it's a CGC 9.9 or 10 for that matter.

 

That's about as incorrect as you can get. Most online comic book stores utilize stock images heavily.

 

If someone has a multiple quantity listing with 10 copies of a freshly-slabbed CGC 9.8 modern book on eBay, do you honestly think they're going to provide individual scans for each copy? Of course not.

 

You may be correct about this. I only use a few online shops, so I should have said, "most online comic book shops that I use do not usually post stock images", which would be HA, Comic Connect, etc.

 

I cant speak for every seller who may have a multiple quantity listing with 10 copies of a freshly-slabbed CGC 9.8 modern book on ebay. Even If they did, I'm still against It for reasons that Ive already pointed out, especially If it's a value book.

[RockMyAmadeus]

A different cert number means nothing to me as a buyer or a seller.

 

If you are selling a copy different from the one pictured, I hope you clearly list that it's a stock photo, as many folks "buy the book" not the grade.

 

The books I sell all look the same.

 

Now THAT is hilarious!

 

Happy to entertain. Doesn't make my statement any less true. (thumbs u

 

Well hey, at least you shamelessly admit to it.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. All my WD 109 9.8's look the same. I would like to understand how anyone would see a difference. If someone wants to cry over a cert number then they may want to reevaluate their priorities.

 

You keep telling yourself that, chum, but right now you have people telling you that there actually is something wrong with it. Ironically, there's a current thread that discusses the complications of buying the grade, and not the book (I suggest you do yourself a favor and read it). C'mon man, that's day one stuff.

 

Man, it's so hard to take you seriously. The more you try to prove your point, the more I

Modern 9.8's all look the same. That's what branget is saying. Books from copper and earlier can look different so it's best to use individual scans. Branget is correct though, no difference between modern 9.8's so a stock photo for a walking dead 115 9.8 is good if you have 5 9.8 slabs of it.

 

I was waiting to see if someone would say this, so I wouldn't have to.

 

If the book is, from, say....1991-up, the odds are very good that, especially in the ultra high grades that are the only ones that really matter from this era and the quality of production markedly improved, the books will be functionally identical to one another, at least from a scan's perspective.

 

If I'm selling a 9.8 Spawn #1, and I have 7 copies ending in 001 to 007, they're all going to look pretty much identical. Yes, yes, we can all find micro flaws that are different, but that's not the point. From the perspective of the scan, they are all identical.

 

I sold a 9.8 X-O Manowar #1 to someone, and this book is essentially identical to all other copies, and I grabbed the 027 instead of the 028 copy. During shipping, the chamber paper slipped out. Not a big deal. But this guy not only complained, he used the different cert numbers...on functionally identical books...to return the book (which, of course, anyone can do with my sales, regardless of why.)

 

It was super lame. He's blocked.

 

If it's a book from, say, 1983, then yes, unless your two copies are identical (tough to find from this era in newsprint books, common in "Baxter" books), don't use stock photos. If they are...knock yourself out.

[divad]

"Who needs to see another redwood?" R.R.

[RockMyAmadeus]

We didn't misunderstand Branget. If Branget meant to say something else, he clearly didn't. Instead, we have his "posse" swooping in and speaking for him, because he lacks the ability to verbally express what he "truly means".

 

 

Here's an interesting bit of trivia....

 

Did you know that grading companies (for coins) were started specifically FOR the ability of people to buy coins sight-unseen?

 

Granted, the model didn't survive, as even for coins there are QP differences in the same grades, along with other factors, but the fact remains: the original point of the grading companies was so that people could buy without having to see the coin first, and member dealers guaranteed they would buy those coins at the grades given by the grading companies (PCGS and NGC, CGC's sister company.)

 

So, Branget may have been coy, but he certainly isn't wrong, and no one is "speaking for him."

[slym2none]

Even if they truly do look all the same, the main concept still applies, and I'm assuming it's this main concept (why using stock photos can be a bad idea) that prevents you, Slym, from using stock photos. If not, I would really like to hear why you personally would never use a stock photo for a CGC book.

 

I wouldn't use one because it isn't the item I am selling. Raw or slabbed. Slabs especially, because someone might complain that the serial number doesn't match the one in the auction.

 

 

 

-slym

[RockMyAmadeus]

I am not defending Branget here, just telling how I interpret this:

 

Branget's books all look the same because they all look the same. We all know a 9.8 can look different from another 9.8, but Branget is saying that his actually do all look the same, that's how he picks them out. If he has five copies of Manifest Destiny #1, one is not going to have a small NCB dog-ear, one won't have slight rippling, and one is not going to be off-center while the others aren't. He picks the ones that all actually look the same.

 

That being said, I would not use a "stock photo" of any CGC book personally. But that is me, and I am (luckily for you) not everybody else.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

I get the gist of what Branget is saying, that for moderns it really doesn't matter. I wonder if he'd consider not posting a photo at all then? A 9.8 is a 9.8 is a 9.8...

 

I have sold many graded books to people who didn't require a picture beforehand. A 9.8 Killing Joke is a 9.8 Killing Joke is a 9.8 Killing Joke.

 

Exceptions would be an extreme rarity, and worth noting.

[RockMyAmadeus]

For those who insist on no stock photos....how does one sell multiple copies of anything on eBay, for which eBay has a "multiple item listing" function...?

 

You only show one copy, but you have 10 available for sale...how do you suppose that works...?

 

It happens every day, even in comics.

[Lazyboy]

You may be correct about this. I only use a few online shops, so I should have said, "most online comic book shops that I use do not usually post stock images", which would be HA, Comic Connect, etc.

 

[Loki]

I guess I'll go through the returns process. Has anyone else run into this though? Where the book received is clearly not the one pictured?

 

I've had the exact same thing happen a number of times. Often it doesn't matter if I receive a copy that has the same wrap and centering as the one I thought I was buying.

 

I have also received copies that, although they were the same grade and page quality, have had absolutely horrible miswraps. I've returned those as "item not as described" with no problems.

 

I generally make a point of not purchasing from anyone who I know uses stock photos just to avoid the potential return hassle.

[youmechooz]

Those are just ebay's policy's. Most online comic book stores usually do not post stock images. Why? Because unlike Branget's approach, these reputable companies want their customers to know exactly what they are getting, even If it's a CGC 9.9 or 10 for that matter.

 

That's about as incorrect as you can get. Most online comic book stores utilize stock images heavily.

 

If someone has a multiple quantity listing with 10 copies of a freshly-slabbed CGC 9.8 modern book on eBay, do you honestly think they're going to provide individual scans for each copy? Of course not.

 

You may be correct about this. I only use a few online shops, so I should have said, "most online comic book shops that I use do not usually post stock images", which would be HA, Comic Connect, etc.

 

I cant speak for every seller who may have a multiple quantity listing with 10 copies of a freshly-slabbed CGC 9.8 modern book on ebay. Even If they did, I'm still against It for reasons that Ive already pointed out, especially If it's a value book.

Can't bring up heritage or comic connect though because if they did have multiple copies of new52 batman's at 9.8 or walking dead 121's at 9.8, they would use stock photos because no one would be able to tell the difference. People should only ask for a scan of a duplicate slab if it's a copper or before. If you say pending scans in a modern slab selling thread that happens to have dups and there is only one pic, you suck at collecting.

[cousin itt]

For those who insist on no stock photos....how does one sell multiple copies of anything on eBay, for which eBay has a "multiple item listing" function...?

 

You only show one copy, but you have 10 available for sale...how do you suppose that works...?

 

It happens every day, even in comics.

 

That would be an obvious exception - when you are selling multiple things in one listing and only using one photo, of course it is obvious that the photo is only of one thing and therefore may not be the item you are going to get. But if it's an auction for a single item, and you don't disclose that the item for sale isn't the item pictured, the buyer is reasonable in assuming the photo is of the item for sale. Again - the issue (for me anyway) - is not that stock photos are being used, it's that it's not being DISCLOSED that they are being used. In the case you describe, it's obvious and the obviousness is the disclosure.

[slym2none]

For those who insist on no stock photos....how does one sell multiple copies of anything on eBay, for which eBay has a "multiple item listing" function...?

 

You only show one copy, but you have 10 available for sale...how do you suppose that works...?

 

It happens every day, even in comics.

 

I would never do so for comics, esp. CGC slabs. Had I multiple CGC slabs of the same book, I'd offer them out one at a time, using pics of each slab for each new auction. Raw books... actually, the same thing, I'd start a different auction for each book.

 

If I were selling salad bowls, or iPhones, or plastic lawn chairs, sure, stock photos work.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

-slym

[kav]

I used a stock photo when I sold my Action #1.

[paul747]

For new moderns with multiple listings it does not bother me ! Or raw books as long as book falls in the general grade range stated.

[kav]

I also sell stock photos and I use stock photos for those.

[youmechooz]

For those who insist on no stock photos....how does one sell multiple copies of anything on eBay, for which eBay has a "multiple item listing" function...?

 

You only show one copy, but you have 10 available for sale...how do you suppose that works...?

 

It happens every day, even in comics.

 

I would never do so for comics, esp. CGC slabs.

 

If I were selling salad bowls, or iPhones, or plastic lawn chairs, sure, stock photos work.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

-slym

But then you wouldn't list as much. The reason large sellers on eBay use stock photos is because it saves time, a lot of time. I agree somewhat on slabs. modern $30 slabs, stock pics all day. Anything I know that will go for $80 and above? Scan of actual raw book or slab.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you say pending scans in a modern slab selling thread that happens to have dups and there is only one pic, you suck at collecting.

 

 

(Pending scans. No stock posts!)