When you receive a different CGC book than was pictured

[RockMyAmadeus]

I wouldn't quite go that far. I think what this thread illustrates is that even honest sellers and buyers don't always agree on what constitutes a flaw that needs to be disclosed. That's why photos matter. Your seller may not have been trying to pull a fast one. He may just not think that the flaws in question are a big deal.

 

This thread doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

No one...not a single person...said it was ok to not disclose a flaw. All the flaws you brought up, everyone agreed it was important to disclose.

 

This thread was never about not disclosing flaws. It was about using (or not using) stock photos for *typical, usual, no flaws involved* books and slabs.

[ttfitz]

There is a courtesy extended in informal (as opposed to formal) debate, which is called "the exception that makes the rule." It is understood (that is, it is taken for granted), that, in informal debate, when someone makes a claim, it is not taken to mean "every single possible permutation of the circumstances of that claim, forever and ever", but, rather, that it is a general rule for which exceptions necessarily exist, but which is nevertheless generally true even when exceptions are taken into account.

 

It does not need to be stated, except to the compulsively literal, in each and every instance. It is taken for granted that "all" = "all (with those exceptions that make the rule.)"

 

Obviously, a situation (these are the key words here) outside the norm would need to be noted. A cracked case is not normal. It would need to be noted and/or shown.

 

No one has said "all modern 9.8s are identical" and meant each and every single modern 9.8 that has ever existed, does exist, and will ever exist.

 

The fact is, however, that the vast, vast majority of modern 9.8s are, in fact, identical for the purpose of showing in a picture.

 

The rest of this is just mental flossing.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I wouldn't be caught dead buying a slabbed modern 9.8 book, and can't afford to buy a 9.8 book of anything I would possibly buy a slabbed book of, but I just wanted to be sure I was reading this right - your (informal) argument is that modern 9.8 books are all alike, unless they aren't?

[Darkowl]

I wouldn't quite go that far. I think what this thread illustrates is that even honest sellers and buyers don't always agree on what constitutes a flaw that needs to be disclosed. That's why photos matter. Your seller may not have been trying to pull a fast one. He may just not think that the flaws in question are a big deal.

 

This thread doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

No one...not a single person...said it was ok to not disclose a flaw. All the flaws you brought up, everyone agreed it was important to disclose.

 

This thread was never about not disclosing flaws. It was about using (or not using) stock photos for *typical, usual, no flaws involved* books and slabs.

 

Actually, this entire thread was started because the seller didn't disclose the flaws associated with Heavy3Po's purchase (re-read the OP). Had the seller disclosed the flaws with the book, then Heavy3PO probably wouldn't have purchased the book, and therefore, would never have started this thread.

 

This thread ended up venturing off into the argument as to whether or not there is something wrong with using stock, or there is nothing wrong with using stock for all 9.8 moderns. This was only one part of the debate as a whole.

 

You're right, no one here said that It was ok to not disclose a flaw, but we aren't discussing selling practices exclusive to the members of this forum. The point remains...a seller's definition of a flaw may be totally different than the buyer's definition, which can lead to the seller not disclosing said flaw (another reason why it's a bad idea to use stock). I don't think any of the sellers here would be so oblivious to the flaws that occurred with Heavy3PO's book, but I'm convinced that some ebay sellers would be. As cousin itt already pointed out, some sellers who do not disclose certain flaws may not be dishonest, but they may be under the belief that certain flaws are too insignificant to mention.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I wouldn't quite go that far. I think what this thread illustrates is that even honest sellers and buyers don't always agree on what constitutes a flaw that needs to be disclosed. That's why photos matter. Your seller may not have been trying to pull a fast one. He may just not think that the flaws in question are a big deal.

 

This thread doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

No one...not a single person...said it was ok to not disclose a flaw. All the flaws you brought up, everyone agreed it was important to disclose.

 

This thread was never about not disclosing flaws. It was about using (or not using) stock photos for *typical, usual, no flaws involved* books and slabs.

 

Actually, this entire thread was started because the seller didn't disclose the flaws associated with Heavy3Po's purchase (re-read the OP). Had the seller disclosed the flaws with the book, then Heavy3PO probably wouldn't have purchased the book, and therefore, would never have started this thread.

 

This thread ended up venturing off into the argument as to whether or not there is something wrong with using stock, or there is nothing wrong with using stock for all 9.8 moderns. This was only one part of the debate as a whole.

 

You're right, no one here said that It was ok to not disclose a flaw, but we aren't discussing selling practices exclusive to the members of this forum. The point remains...a seller's definition of a flaw may be totally different than the buyer's definition, which can lead to the seller not disclosing said flaw (another reason why it's a bad idea to use stock). I don't think any of the sellers here would be so oblivious to the flaws that occurred with Heavy3PO's book, but I'm convinced that some ebay sellers would be. As cousin itt already pointed out, some sellers who do not disclose certain flaws may not be dishonest, but they may be under the belief that certain flaws are too insignificant to mention.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is a courtesy extended in informal (as opposed to formal) debate, which is called "the exception that makes the rule." It is understood (that is, it is taken for granted), that, in informal debate, when someone makes a claim, it is not taken to mean "every single possible permutation of the circumstances of that claim, forever and ever", but, rather, that it is a general rule for which exceptions necessarily exist, but which is nevertheless generally true even when exceptions are taken into account.

 

It does not need to be stated, except to the compulsively literal, in each and every instance. It is taken for granted that "all" = "all (with those exceptions that make the rule.)"

 

Obviously, a situation (these are the key words here) outside the norm would need to be noted. A cracked case is not normal. It would need to be noted and/or shown.

 

No one has said "all modern 9.8s are identical" and meant each and every single modern 9.8 that has ever existed, does exist, and will ever exist.

 

The fact is, however, that the vast, vast majority of modern 9.8s are, in fact, identical for the purpose of showing in a picture.

 

The rest of this is just mental flossing.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I wouldn't be caught dead buying a slabbed modern 9.8 book, and can't afford to buy a 9.8 book of anything I would possibly buy a slabbed book of, but I just wanted to be sure I was reading this right - your (informal) argument is that modern 9.8 books are all alike, unless they aren't?

 

Go to Macy*s. Go to the clothing department. Look at the racks of clothes. Pick a size. The odds are pretty good that you'll have 5-10-15, say, shirts, that are all identical. Same color, same design, same size, same everything.

 

One of those shirts, though, has a small stain on it from when someone with peanut butter fingers tried it on. That one now has a flaw that renders the shirt not like the others. The other shirts, however, remain unaffected.

 

Those shirts are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Same concept.

 

Go to a comic book shop on "new comics day." Pull a brand new stack of Superior Spiderman off the rack. 30 copies, maybe.

 

Now drop one. There is now a large dent in its corner. That one now has a flaw that renders that comic not like the others. The other comics, however, remain unaffected.

 

Those comics are all alike, unless they aren't.

[N/A]

Wow, people drink before noon?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Wow, people drink before noon?

 

I have faith that patience and explanation will persevere.

 

Now where's Sancho with my sword....

[bababooey]

[N/A]

 

You have way more faith than I.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You have way more faith than I.

 

It's one of the positive aspects of being a pedant. That, and being a *really* good comic book grader.

 

[ttfitz]

There is a courtesy extended in informal (as opposed to formal) debate, which is called "the exception that makes the rule." It is understood (that is, it is taken for granted), that, in informal debate, when someone makes a claim, it is not taken to mean "every single possible permutation of the circumstances of that claim, forever and ever", but, rather, that it is a general rule for which exceptions necessarily exist, but which is nevertheless generally true even when exceptions are taken into account.

 

It does not need to be stated, except to the compulsively literal, in each and every instance. It is taken for granted that "all" = "all (with those exceptions that make the rule.)"

 

Obviously, a situation (these are the key words here) outside the norm would need to be noted. A cracked case is not normal. It would need to be noted and/or shown.

 

No one has said "all modern 9.8s are identical" and meant each and every single modern 9.8 that has ever existed, does exist, and will ever exist.

 

The fact is, however, that the vast, vast majority of modern 9.8s are, in fact, identical for the purpose of showing in a picture.

 

The rest of this is just mental flossing.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I wouldn't be caught dead buying a slabbed modern 9.8 book, and can't afford to buy a 9.8 book of anything I would possibly buy a slabbed book of, but I just wanted to be sure I was reading this right - your (informal) argument is that modern 9.8 books are all alike, unless they aren't?

 

Go to Macy*s. Go to the clothing department. Look at the racks of clothes. Pick a size. The odds are pretty good that you'll have 5-10-15, say, shirts, that are all identical. Same color, same design, same size, same everything.

 

One of those shirts, though, has a small stain on it from when someone with peanut butter fingers tried it on. That one now has a flaw that renders the shirt not like the others. The other shirts, however, remain unaffected.

 

Those shirts are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Same concept.

 

Go to a comic book shop on "new comics day." Pull a brand new stack of Superior Spiderman off the rack. 30 copies, maybe.

 

Now drop one. There is now a large dent in its corner. That one now has a flaw that renders that comic not like the others. The other comics, however, remain unaffected.

 

Those comics are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Okay, so your argument IS that they are all alike, unless they aren't. Thanks.

 

Oh, and I'm sure you are aware there are people - perhaps including you - who go to the comic shop on "new comics day", and look carefully through those brand new stacks of Superior Spider-Man in order to pick out the very best of all those identical books.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is a courtesy extended in informal (as opposed to formal) debate, which is called "the exception that makes the rule." It is understood (that is, it is taken for granted), that, in informal debate, when someone makes a claim, it is not taken to mean "every single possible permutation of the circumstances of that claim, forever and ever", but, rather, that it is a general rule for which exceptions necessarily exist, but which is nevertheless generally true even when exceptions are taken into account.

 

It does not need to be stated, except to the compulsively literal, in each and every instance. It is taken for granted that "all" = "all (with those exceptions that make the rule.)"

 

Obviously, a situation (these are the key words here) outside the norm would need to be noted. A cracked case is not normal. It would need to be noted and/or shown.

 

No one has said "all modern 9.8s are identical" and meant each and every single modern 9.8 that has ever existed, does exist, and will ever exist.

 

The fact is, however, that the vast, vast majority of modern 9.8s are, in fact, identical for the purpose of showing in a picture.

 

The rest of this is just mental flossing.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I wouldn't be caught dead buying a slabbed modern 9.8 book, and can't afford to buy a 9.8 book of anything I would possibly buy a slabbed book of, but I just wanted to be sure I was reading this right - your (informal) argument is that modern 9.8 books are all alike, unless they aren't?

 

Go to Macy*s. Go to the clothing department. Look at the racks of clothes. Pick a size. The odds are pretty good that you'll have 5-10-15, say, shirts, that are all identical. Same color, same design, same size, same everything.

 

One of those shirts, though, has a small stain on it from when someone with peanut butter fingers tried it on. That one now has a flaw that renders the shirt not like the others. The other shirts, however, remain unaffected.

 

Those shirts are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Same concept.

 

Go to a comic book shop on "new comics day." Pull a brand new stack of Superior Spiderman off the rack. 30 copies, maybe.

 

Now drop one. There is now a large dent in its corner. That one now has a flaw that renders that comic not like the others. The other comics, however, remain unaffected.

 

Those comics are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Okay, so your argument IS that they are all alike, unless they aren't. Thanks.

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

Oh, and I'm sure you are aware there are people - perhaps including you - who go to the comic shop on "new comics day", and look carefully through those brand new stacks of Superior Spider-Man in order to pick out the very best of all those identical books.

 

...which is rendered moot in a picture.

 

And now we come full circle.

[RockMyAmadeus]

PS....as an unrelated aside, my days of religiously grabbing stacks and pulling out the best ones were the early 90's. Comics got too expensive for me after that.

[ttfitz]

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

Thanks for that, I meant to come back to that one. The actual expression is "The exception proves the rule", and doesn't mean what most folks think it does. "No parking on Sunday" implies that on days other than Sunday, parking IS allowed, thus is an exception that proves the rule. (An alternate viewpoint is that "prove" doesn't mean the usual "shows that it is so", but the lesser used "test", and that the expression means that exceptions will test how true the rule actually is.)

 

In this case, "Comics with flaws are not Mint" would be the essence of "the exception that proves the rule." I fear that your "They are all alike, unless they aren't" is more akin to "People are all male, unless they're female."

[Darkowl]

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

Thanks for that, I meant to come back to that one. The actual expression is "The exception proves the rule", and doesn't mean what most folks think it does. "No parking on Sunday" implies that on days other than Sunday, parking IS allowed, thus is an exception that proves the rule. (An alternate viewpoint is that "prove" doesn't mean the usual "shows that it is so", but the lesser used "test", and that the expression means that exceptions will test how true the rule actually is.)

 

In this case, "Comics with flaws are not Mint" would be the essence of "the exception that proves the rule." I fear that your "They are all alike, unless they aren't" is more akin to "People are all male, unless they're female."

 

Looks like RockMyAmadeus just got...

 

 

Must be one of those positive aspects of being a "pedant".

[cousin itt]

I think what this thread illustrates is that even honest sellers and buyers don't always agree on what constitutes a flaw that needs to be disclosed.

 

This thread doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

Yes it does.

 

All the flaws you brought up, everyone agreed it was important to disclose.

 

Eventually everyone agreed. But not at first. Which is the point.

 

At first, youmechoose didn't even seem to feel that a cracked case violated his rule that all modern 9.8s are the same:

 

I stand by what I said. The plastic case might not look the same, in this case cracked, but that book probably does.

 

Only after I asked him if he would have sold the book with those cracks in it without disclosure did he come around on that one point. But then he still insisted there was nothing else wrong with the book:

 

If there was no damage, you couldn't tell the difference between that slab or the picture you saw in the listing except for the Cgc serial number.

 

So then I pointed out the other flaws in the book, which are plainly obvious to me from the photos, but apparently not to him, and he changed his tune again:

 

If the paper is showing and there is fluff inside the case, completely different story.

 

The point is, he didn't see those flaws, or didn't seem to think they were important until AFTER they were pointed out to him, so he would not have disclosed those flaws if he were the seller of this book, without me there to help him see the flaws. How on earth could he disclose flaws he didn't know were there, or didn't think constituted flaws? Remember, in his opinion, it was impossible to tell the difference between that book and any other 9.8. It's right there in bold. So, clearly, he did NOT agree on what needed to be disclosed about that book.

 

So, yes, this thread most certainly does illustrate that not everyone sees the same flaws, or agrees on what should be disclosed. And that's why photos matter.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

Thanks for that, I meant to come back to that one. The actual expression is "The exception proves the rule", and doesn't mean what most folks think it does. "No parking on Sunday" implies that on days other than Sunday, parking IS allowed, thus is an exception that proves the rule. (An alternate viewpoint is that "prove" doesn't mean the usual "shows that it is so", but the lesser used "test", and that the expression means that exceptions will test how true the rule actually is.)

 

In this case, "Comics with flaws are not Mint" would be the essence of "the exception that proves the rule." I fear that your "They are all alike, unless they aren't" is more akin to "People are all male, unless they're female."

 

As it is used in the vernacular, "the exception that makes the rule" refers to the exceptions that demonstrate a general principle which holds the majority of, but not all, the time. If it doesn't mean what most folks think it does, then the issue may not be with the folks, but rather the saying, provided the meaning isn't obfuscated by the change from the original expression. While I agree with the limited nature of the original expression, it has taken on an expanded meaning in everyday use, and it is that meaning to which I refer.

 

Since it is not technically incorrect to say "the exception that makes the rule", and it doesn't contradict the original meaning (as opposed to, say, "I could care less"), I'll stick to that phraseology. The meaning is clear as it stands.

 

In a scan, all modern 9.8 comic books are identical...unless the package (slab and/or the comic itself) has an atypical flaw. That is by design, on the parts of the manufacturers of the comics, the slabs, and those who put them together.

 

The offered comparison, "people are all male, unless they're female" fails, because there isn't only one possible natural state of gender existence among people, and never has been (which is the heart of this classic logical fallacy.)

 

However, a slab of a modern 9.8 begins its existence as functionally (in this case, in a picture) and ideally identical to its brethren. There is only one designed state of existence for a modern 9.8 slab, and anything that diverges from that is, by definition, flawed.

 

(Some may bring up Sig Series, Restored, and Qualified. Those are, of course, completely different beasts. Some may bring up "well, what if one of the books was signed on the first page, and it's mentioned on the label?" I will respond with "and that book, by definition, is not identical, by virtue of its notation.")

[N/A]

 

The rye is flowing today.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

Thanks for that, I meant to come back to that one. The actual expression is "The exception proves the rule", and doesn't mean what most folks think it does. "No parking on Sunday" implies that on days other than Sunday, parking IS allowed, thus is an exception that proves the rule. (An alternate viewpoint is that "prove" doesn't mean the usual "shows that it is so", but the lesser used "test", and that the expression means that exceptions will test how true the rule actually is.)

 

In this case, "Comics with flaws are not Mint" would be the essence of "the exception that proves the rule." I fear that your "They are all alike, unless they aren't" is more akin to "People are all male, unless they're female."

 

Looks like RockMyAmadeus just got...

 

Must be one of those positive aspects of being a "pedant".

 

Bitterness, exhibited as triumph over one you perceive has wronged you, is poison.

 

And you really believe you're not emotionally entangled in this discussion...?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

More on this when I get back. I have lunch with friends.