HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm getting screwed!!!!

[thecomicsheet]

So far I just offer a blanket return privilege. And so far this hasn't been a problem with only 1 return. If I suddenly started getting back say 3 or 4 out of a hundred for no good reason I might toughen up some. I'm curious for some feedback from the people who don't offer returns. Did they experience a sudden run of unreasonable returns? A pattern that I need to watch out for? Or did they just get burned on 1 or 2 bad attitude trades that kind of soured them on the process. Could be educational to hear this out.

[scottish]

I also offer a 'no questions asked' return policy for 7 days from the receipt of the book. Like rickdogg, my philosophy is, "The customer is always right." I've had two returns in all the sales I've done on ebay and either one wasn't a comic. I did have one cracked case in the last bunch and offered the buyer a full refund including shipping or re-holder fees + shipping to FL from his location. He chose re-holdering which was fine. about money isn't worth the amount of time it takes. Now if you're bidding on a 300+ dollar book then I would expect questions to be asked and scans sent and/or requested.

 

I believe we need to trust in CGC's grading or their usefulness is well...useless. That doesn't mean I'm going to stick a fellow collector with a book they dislike. I don't care if it's because there's a dried booger on the darn thing or Darth thinks they all smell like my cigars.

 

I'm no saint either...had two NPB's in the last group and slammed 'em hard. If you pay me there is an expection of excellent service. If you don't pay me then all bets are off.

[Darthdiesel]

Also.. I suspect Darth was joking, or not thinking clearly this time... but of course reveal the Date Stamp to anyone you may sell to if you don't get satisfaction. Not doing so would make you a hypocrite.

 

Just joking BB! I was just playfully suggesting that David spread the injustice of nondisclosure he was subjected to, thus creating a vicious cycle of predation and misery, culminating in an all out war in the Middle East....oh...we're headed that way already, aren't we

 

[Darthdiesel]

That doesn't mean I'm going to stick a fellow collector with a book they dislike. I don't care if it's because there's a dried booger on the darn thing or Darth thinks they all smell like my cigars.

 

I take your books, roll 'em up, dip in a brandy snifter, light and puff away...just like a Macanudo, it's like your comics were printed on tobacco leaves and inked with nicotene!

[scottish]

Yeah, you're funny there D! Laugh a minute! You can say most anything you want so long as the What If? set keeps risin'!

[BronzeBruce13]

Gotcha... but see what happens if you bring up the argument about accepting returns if you disagree with the CGC grade? The opposing side of the argument tends to respond by wanting to combine defects from mishandling and general wear WITH after production DRA's which are a completely different animal. Attitudes vary depending on the Comic era, but for some of us... it matters in our decision making!!!

 

When buying raw books, most sellers will report to concerned buyers... both defects from wear AND Distribution Related Additions. CGC used to tell us everything relevant and an opinion of the overall grade... with DRA's basically excluded from the grading equation (but reported on the label) as they recognized it as a neutral event that had to be decided upon by the particular "eye appeal" tastes of the individual. Now that they don't, there is a gap of disclosure in the wake of the policy change.

 

Those that agree with the notes being removed because it does not conflict with their own feelings, that's fine... I accept that. I wouldn't want to change your view in relation to how you collect... BUT understand and appreciate that it DOES matter to some of us... a big enough subsection of the market. Our views, which are obviously very passionate and serious should be respected by those that don't share the same view... and efforts should be made to accommodate that nuance of collecting. After all, CGC in all its pre-service launch research and discussions with experts in the field deemed it important enough to report on... until there was some confusion about it and sellers lobbied for the removal. I think they could have explored other options or made sure the collecting community was informed and prepared for the policy change. Now sellers and buyers will have conflicts over this issue.

[FlyingDonut]

I don't take returns on CGC books for several reasons, not the least of which is, no matter what everybody's bleating to the contrary is, you are buying the number.

 

My grading is stricter than CGC's and always has been. I had several ornery buyers at the beginning of CGC who returned books, saying the grade was off. Well, and I'm being blunt, that's not my problem. If you have a problem with a CGC graded book, your problem is with CGC, not with me. I'll refund for a "raw" book without question - and believe me, some books have come back to me in much worse shape than they went out. I will, if the case arrives cracked, pay for the reslabbing, because that's my fault. But I will not refund a CGC book, because the system accepts a 3rd party grader.

 

Further, to the point above, if you accept a return for a date stamp (lets just use that as an example), you open the door for a whole bunch of things. I personally despise "spider creases" on a cover, but have seen a few 9.2s with them. CGCs grading is what it is.

[BronzeBruce13]

We spoke about this before Dan... I may be mistaken, but I thought you agreed that you would follow Blazingbob's lead and disclose date stamps and writing in your auction descriptions. If memory serves, you made a hilarious gimmick auction to lighten the mood.

 

If a seller discloses the presence of the DRA's... then I can see the argument of not accepting the return because the seller did his part and disclosed the info and the buyer did not take the time to read it... as long as it was fairly prominent and not hidden way down somewhere.

 

I understand what you are saying about opening the floodgates... BUT I think its possible for a seller to make a clear and limited CGC return policy that CLEARLY states a return will ONLY be allowed for 1 condition and 1 condition only... if the seller fails to report either a date stamp, particularly one that is hard to see or on the back cover OR arrival dates and the like.. that's it! It seems to be working for Bob and I respect the hell out of him and other sellers that do this and as such I would try and buy from them before sellers that did not respond to the legitimate concerns of their customers. I agree that you may have some A-hole buyers try to push the envelope and ask about returns for other reasons (and get denied of course), but I feel that trade off... of making a full disclosure effort would be well worth it in good customer relations and repeat business. I think it may be easier than you think though to establish a clear line between return options concerning defects caused by mishandling, poor storage, wear etc, and those for undisclosed Distribution Related Additions (DRA's) only.

 

When we discussed this previously... I believe a made one point to which you gave pause and agreed with. That point was... CGC reported the DRA's to us for nearly 2 years, buyers were conditioned to expect these notations if the DRA's were present, CGC changed the policy and made little effort to inform the end users of it, many buyers STILL have no idea about the policy change (dam60) after all this time, but saw one or more slabs that had them and assumed that these notations would still be listed on all labels... when they find out the hard way that this is not true... how is this their fault? and don't they deserve a benefit of the doubt?

 

If CGC never put any DRA's on the label.. this argument is not happening and every collector would have to ask a series of questions of sellers on each CGC item they were interested in (or accept the DRA's). Considering the incredible amount of additional time the seller would then have to put out answering all the inquiries, and the business lost if he did not answer quickly enough or completely... I think there is a great chance many sellers would be disclosing these things on their own to save themselves time, if nothing else...

 

I wonder if it would have went down like that? What do you think?

 

 

 

 

[Darthdiesel]

If a seller discloses the presence of the DRA's

 

No, but I disclose the presence of DNAs...I like to "Darth" stamp all my CGC sales with my genetic material before sending out. I like to "caulk" the annoying gaps in the CGC holder seams and pretend that it is now airtight!

[FlyingDonut]

You're rght - this discussion came up before, and I course list anything on the book (date stamps, writing, whatever). That's part of being up front and honest with the buyer. Also, if the buyer asks, I will give a much more detailed description, because my scanner is for [!@#%^&^] when it comes to CGC books, like this one, and I strive to be accurate with the buyer. There definitely is some give and take to customer service, and I want to be up front with the buyer on all defects. I'll list as much as I can see, and you're right on the money that the change in taking things off by CGC has made everything worse.

 

BTW, thanks for the pointer to BronzeComics.com. Bought some nice books from Vince. Any chance I could pry away that 9.6 White Warlord I sold you, using his 9.6 OWW one?

[FlyingDonut]

and he puts it on his skin...

[greggy]

Damn you guys! You must be obsessed with Buffalo Bob. I had to bloody ask Darth WTF his sig meant!

[Darthdiesel]

Donut is the Hannibal to my Buffalo Bob

[Darthdiesel]

now PUT THE F#$%!N LOTION IN THE BASKET! size>

[greggy]

So...who's the Senator's daughter?

[FlyingDonut]

and of course, you need the last line. First two checks (half) for the Conan in the mail!

 

he does this when he is told or he gets the hose again!

[BronzeBruce13]

My Pleasure... I'm a white page freak myself though...but I might be able to find another. I had another and sold it... I'll see if it's attainable.

 

I think there's 1st issue special 9.6W up now BTW

[dam60]

Just a little update - I ended up asking him for a refund for the shipping and insurance that he fraudulently charged me as well as the money for reholdering and shipping. No response yet. Will keep you posted.

 

A thank you to all of you for the great responses.

 

I know that that was a lot of money to pay for the book, but here is my story: the four books that I hold in most regard in my entire comic collection are from my mother's late brother who passed away long before I was born due to heart failure. My favorite of those comics was a Ghosts #9. I have pretty much an entire run of Ghosts in sweet condition and have one of the 5 issues of #1 graded a 9.4. When this came up being top census I had to have it.

 

DAM

 

 

[BronzeBruce13]

If its a book you have that much regard for and its not very available... I don't blame you.

 

It would be nice if the seller got the chance to fully understand the whole DRA controversy so he has a chance to really consider it. That way, if it happens to him again... he'll be more receptive to the idea OR may start to disclose the DRA's in his auction text. Perhaps after you receive the refund you could send him a link to this thread so he can benefit from it.

 

BTW- As much as I dislike DRA's... there have been 1-2 exceptions that I've accepted as well... My Hulk 162 9.6oww double cover has a light, out of the way date stamp in the upper left hand corner of the outside cover. I did notice it though during the auction, even though it was not disclosed. It's presence in that case was not enough to override my desire to have the HTF book in 9.6.

 

At least your DS is on the back cover... not as bad

[dam60]

After he refunds my money I might take some of the better dialogue on there about date stamps and the like and email it to him just so he doesn't screw anybody else. . . .

 

I do have to agree - being on the back is not as bad as it could have been . . .

 

DAM