When you receive a different CGC book than was pictured

[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."

 

The really interesting part of your trivia is the highlighted bold statement.

 

I'm not the only one who's pointed out where Branget is wrong. You share his same philosophy, so of course you're going to say he's not wrong.

 

"Modern 9.8's all look the same. That's what branget is saying."

 

If that's not speaking for him, then I don't know what Is.

 

 

 

 

 

The model didn't last because the market evolved. That doesn't change the fact that it was a market-wide acceptance of the idea of buying coins sight-unseen, at least for a while.

 

I granted you that, and you still made an issue of it....?

 

Even still, if I'm buying a 2010 Proof Silver Eagle in NGC MS69, I don't need a photo. I know exactly what it's going to look like. Same with nearly all buyers of these coins. You're not going to find any difference in a picture between any of them, and if you do, that's an extremely rare exception that will be noted (because it will be a selling plus, rather than a detractor.)

 

If I'm buying an MS65 1879-S Morgan Dollar, on the other hand...well, I'll definitely need a picture of that.

 

Same thing applies with comics.

 

No, I'm just speaking for me. He can speak just fine for himself, as can I for myself. If our opinions intersect on this subject, it is not because I am speaking for anyone...I am voicing my opinion. Because I A. understand the point he's making, and B. agree with it, therefore means I am speaking for him...?

 

Interestingly, you used the word "we" in a previous post, indicating that you WERE speaking for others. I would recommend avoiding using that word. Everyone here is an individual, and mostly capable of speaking for themselves. Using the word "we" almost always indicates an attempt to project a stronger consensus than actually exists. It's bad form, even on the rare occasion when it is correct.

 

 

 

Again, the interesting part is the section I highlighted in bold.

 

I'm not quite sure you know what the word "granted" means...

 

 

I made an issue of It because you insist on using the exact same philosophy that is being debated, even after you acknowledged the collapse of the failed system.

 

Clearly, you don't understand what "granted" means. And you're given to altering the sense of what's been stated to suit your argument, along with inventing things that weren't stated at all.

 

 

I was only accusing youmechoose, and moloney414 for speaking for Branget, but If you want to be included in that group, then by all means.

 

You're going to accuse me of speaking for others because I used the word "we", yet you flat out deny that anyone is speaking for Branget when someone says, "I think you guys missunderstand Branget." Now that's REALLY bad form!

 

Oh boy.

 

 

The fault lies not with what was said, but with what was read.

[N/A]

[Darkowl]

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."

 

The really interesting part of your trivia is the highlighted bold statement.

 

I'm not the only one who's pointed out where Branget is wrong. You share his same philosophy, so of course you're going to say he's not wrong.

 

"Modern 9.8's all look the same. That's what branget is saying."

 

If that's not speaking for him, then I don't know what Is.

 

 

 

 

 

The model didn't last because the market evolved. That doesn't change the fact that it was a market-wide acceptance of the idea of buying coins sight-unseen, at least for a while.

 

I granted you that, and you still made an issue of it....?

 

Even still, if I'm buying a 2010 Proof Silver Eagle in NGC MS69, I don't need a photo. I know exactly what it's going to look like. Same with nearly all buyers of these coins. You're not going to find any difference in a picture between any of them, and if you do, that's an extremely rare exception that will be noted (because it will be a selling plus, rather than a detractor.)

 

If I'm buying an MS65 1879-S Morgan Dollar, on the other hand...well, I'll definitely need a picture of that.

 

Same thing applies with comics.

 

No, I'm just speaking for me. He can speak just fine for himself, as can I for myself. If our opinions intersect on this subject, it is not because I am speaking for anyone...I am voicing my opinion. Because I A. understand the point he's making, and B. agree with it, therefore means I am speaking for him...?

 

Interestingly, you used the word "we" in a previous post, indicating that you WERE speaking for others. I would recommend avoiding using that word. Everyone here is an individual, and mostly capable of speaking for themselves. Using the word "we" almost always indicates an attempt to project a stronger consensus than actually exists. It's bad form, even on the rare occasion when it is correct.

 

 

 

Again, the interesting part is the section I highlighted in bold.

 

I'm not quite sure you know what the word "granted" means...

 

 

I made an issue of It because you insist on using the exact same philosophy that is being debated, even after you acknowledged the collapse of the failed system.

 

Clearly, you don't understand what "granted" means. And you're given to altering the sense of what's been stated to suit your argument, along with inventing things that weren't stated at all.

 

 

I was only accusing youmechoose, and moloney414 for speaking for Branget, but If you want to be included in that group, then by all means.

 

You're going to accuse me of speaking for others because I used the word "we", yet you flat out deny that anyone is speaking for Branget when someone says, "I think you guys missunderstand Branget." Now that's REALLY bad form!

 

Oh boy.

 

 

The fault lies not with what was said, but with what was read.

 

Out of the history of lame comebacks. This truly wins the gold.

[N/A]

[RockMyAmadeus]

Take a nap and miss the fun.

 

For the "shady" comment I offer no hassle returns. Nothing shady when a buyer is completely covered long before eBay had their returns policy.

 

"posse" - Using this as a way of dismissing other opinions is just silly. It falls into the same logic as someone talking negative about a title must not have any or someone talking positive must be sitting on 100 copies.

 

Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this.

 

Darkstar - you will use stock photo for a raw but not a CGC. That seems very silly to me and you only stated it to get a rise. With a raw you have the opportunity to show very detailed scans that you can't with a CGC. A CGC comic has their opinion of the grade and likely your opinion leading to the submission. The raw comic has only your opinion. Strange.

 

 

 

 

I sell almost exclusively brand new moderns. I sell Rachel Rising #1 and some 9.8 copies have a rub on the side which warrants a separate picture. 99% of all other books the multiples are essentially the exact same quality.

 

If you were to look up, "posse" in the dictionary, It wouldn't say, "a way of dismissing other opinions". I loosely used that word in the correct context.Keep in mind that I even put quotation marks around It to emphasize the slight sarcasm. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?

 

"Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this."

 

Usually? Why am I not surprised? You've already received negative feedback from good-standing board members just within the last hour or so. You ever stop to wonder why some buyers seem to think there might be a big difference between the book they're getting and the display picture? Apparently some people do need to receive sufficient feedback to reconsider their methods.

 

 

 

You are not debating cleanly. I would highly suggest you divorce your emotions from the debate, and stop taking subtle shots at people, resorting to hyperbole and outright invention of other people's positions to make your points. Most of the folks around here will be fooled, but not everyone.

 

It's not going to achieve anything positive.

 

Take care.

 

[comicdonna]

[N/A]

It increases his post count.

[RockMyAmadeus]

It increases his post count.

 

There are other ways to increase your post count.

 

Nothing derails an interesting debate faster than purposeful misrepresentation of the other party's comments. It's dirty pool.

 

 

[N/A]

It increases his post count.

 

There are other ways to increase your post count.

 

Nothing derails an interesting debate faster than purposeful misrepresentation of the other party's comments. It's dirty pool.

 

 

I think you're being nice. I prefer to call it being not_in_tune_with_social_norms crazy. (thumbs u

[cousin itt]

Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this.

 

So, obviously I don't understand what is meant here, so help me out... you are saying that if the buyer knows that the item pictured is not the item for sale, he might not buy it. Is that what you are saying?

[RockMyAmadeus]

It increases his post count.

 

There are other ways to increase your post count.

 

Nothing derails an interesting debate faster than purposeful misrepresentation of the other party's comments. It's dirty pool.

 

 

I think you're being nice. I prefer to call it being not_in_tune_with_social_norms crazy. (thumbs u

 

Well....not in tune with social norms, I might agree with....

[Darkowl]

Take a nap and miss the fun.

 

For the "shady" comment I offer no hassle returns. Nothing shady when a buyer is completely covered long before eBay had their returns policy.

 

"posse" - Using this as a way of dismissing other opinions is just silly. It falls into the same logic as someone talking negative about a title must not have any or someone talking positive must be sitting on 100 copies.

 

Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this.

 

Darkstar - you will use stock photo for a raw but not a CGC. That seems very silly to me and you only stated it to get a rise. With a raw you have the opportunity to show very detailed scans that you can't with a CGC. A CGC comic has their opinion of the grade and likely your opinion leading to the submission. The raw comic has only your opinion. Strange.

 

 

 

 

I sell almost exclusively brand new moderns. I sell Rachel Rising #1 and some 9.8 copies have a rub on the side which warrants a separate picture. 99% of all other books the multiples are essentially the exact same quality.

 

If you were to look up, "posse" in the dictionary, It wouldn't say, "a way of dismissing other opinions". I loosely used that word in the correct context.Keep in mind that I even put quotation marks around It to emphasize the slight sarcasm. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?

 

"Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this."

 

Usually? Why am I not surprised? You've already received negative feedback from good-standing board members just within the last hour or so. You ever stop to wonder why some buyers seem to think there might be a big difference between the book they're getting and the display picture? Apparently some people do need to receive sufficient feedback to reconsider their methods.

 

 

 

You are not debating cleanly. I would highly suggest you divorce your emotions from the debate, and stop taking subtle shots at people, resorting to hyperbole and outright invention of other people's positions to make your points. Most of the folks around here will be fooled, but not everyone.

 

It's not going to achieve anything positive.

 

Take care.

 

I'm debating just as "cleanly" as anyone else, and I would suggest that you actually recognize that I haven't invested any of my emotions into this debate. Honestly, would you be worth It?

 

Btw, does asking someone if they know what "granted' means in a condescending manner achieve anything positive? Don't even begin to act like your don't stink.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Take a nap and miss the fun.

 

For the "shady" comment I offer no hassle returns. Nothing shady when a buyer is completely covered long before eBay had their returns policy.

 

"posse" - Using this as a way of dismissing other opinions is just silly. It falls into the same logic as someone talking negative about a title must not have any or someone talking positive must be sitting on 100 copies.

 

Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this.

 

Darkstar - you will use stock photo for a raw but not a CGC. That seems very silly to me and you only stated it to get a rise. With a raw you have the opportunity to show very detailed scans that you can't with a CGC. A CGC comic has their opinion of the grade and likely your opinion leading to the submission. The raw comic has only your opinion. Strange.

 

 

 

 

I sell almost exclusively brand new moderns. I sell Rachel Rising #1 and some 9.8 copies have a rub on the side which warrants a separate picture. 99% of all other books the multiples are essentially the exact same quality.

 

If you were to look up, "posse" in the dictionary, It wouldn't say, "a way of dismissing other opinions". I loosely used that word in the correct context.Keep in mind that I even put quotation marks around It to emphasize the slight sarcasm. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?

 

"Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this."

 

Usually? Why am I not surprised? You've already received negative feedback from good-standing board members just within the last hour or so. You ever stop to wonder why some buyers seem to think there might be a big difference between the book they're getting and the display picture? Apparently some people do need to receive sufficient feedback to reconsider their methods.

 

 

 

You are not debating cleanly. I would highly suggest you divorce your emotions from the debate, and stop taking subtle shots at people, resorting to hyperbole and outright invention of other people's positions to make your points. Most of the folks around here will be fooled, but not everyone.

 

It's not going to achieve anything positive.

 

Take care.

 

I'm debating just as "cleanly" as anyone else, and I would suggest that you actually recognize that I haven't invested any of my emotions into this debate. Honestly, would you be worth It?

 

Btw, does asking someone if they know what "granted' means in a condescending manner achieve anything positive? Don't even begin to act like your don't stink.

 

When you're interested in having a debate/discussion without this type of emotional response, I'm quite sure it will be very welcome. I genuinely mean that.

 

Until then...

 

[Darkowl]

Take a nap and miss the fun.

 

For the "shady" comment I offer no hassle returns. Nothing shady when a buyer is completely covered long before eBay had their returns policy.

 

"posse" - Using this as a way of dismissing other opinions is just silly. It falls into the same logic as someone talking negative about a title must not have any or someone talking positive must be sitting on 100 copies.

 

Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this.

 

Darkstar - you will use stock photo for a raw but not a CGC. That seems very silly to me and you only stated it to get a rise. With a raw you have the opportunity to show very detailed scans that you can't with a CGC. A CGC comic has their opinion of the grade and likely your opinion leading to the submission. The raw comic has only your opinion. Strange.

 

 

 

 

I sell almost exclusively brand new moderns. I sell Rachel Rising #1 and some 9.8 copies have a rub on the side which warrants a separate picture. 99% of all other books the multiples are essentially the exact same quality.

 

If you were to look up, "posse" in the dictionary, It wouldn't say, "a way of dismissing other opinions". I loosely used that word in the correct context.Keep in mind that I even put quotation marks around It to emphasize the slight sarcasm. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?

 

"Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this."

 

Usually? Why am I not surprised? You've already received negative feedback from good-standing board members just within the last hour or so. You ever stop to wonder why some buyers seem to think there might be a big difference between the book they're getting and the display picture? Apparently some people do need to receive sufficient feedback to reconsider their methods.

 

 

 

You are not debating cleanly. I would highly suggest you divorce your emotions from the debate, and stop taking subtle shots at people, resorting to hyperbole and outright invention of other people's positions to make your points. Most of the folks around here will be fooled, but not everyone.

 

It's not going to achieve anything positive.

 

Take care.

 

I'm debating just as "cleanly" as anyone else, and I would suggest that you actually recognize that I haven't invested any of my emotions into this debate. Honestly, would you be worth It?

 

Btw, does asking someone if they know what "granted' means in a condescending manner achieve anything positive? Don't even begin to act like your don't stink.

 

When you're interested in having a debate/discussion without this type of emotional response, I'm quite sure it will be very welcome.

 

Until then...

 

 

Here we go with the "emotion" comments again

[N/A]

Disclosure - I am usually a big fan of this but at the same time it is too open to interpretation. Some buyers seem to think there is a big difference between the book they're getting and the picture when I state this. I suppose if I received sufficient feedback I may revisit this.

 

So, obviously I don't understand what is meant here, so help me out... you are saying that if the buyer knows that the item pictured is not the item for sale, he might not buy it. Is that what you are saying?

 

No.

 

In bold. Buyers make assumptions. The books are essentially the same, I offer a complete refund policy and making the statement only tends to confuse. It is not in any way meant to be shady.

[kav]

It increases his post count.

I hate it when people just wildly increase their post count.

[incoflip]

Not that it matters much, but my humble opinion is that whether I am buying a Raw silver or bronze age gem or a freshly printed Walking dead 9.8....If I'm considering making the purchase and there is a photo that appears it may be stock, I simply ask the seller if this is a stock photo and if so does he have any pics of the book I intend to bid on. Most have provided a scan with no other questions asked...for those that would not, I just saved my bid for a seller that would.

[N/A]

It increases his post count.

I hate it when people just wildly increase their post count.

 

[slym2none]

 

 

 

-slym

[kav]

Are we in the eye of the hurricane or has this blowed over?