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

[Rickdogg]

I would cancel payment on my credit card and shove a negative up his hairy [!@#%^&^]! I can't stand sellers who do not disclose of date stamps and act like dickheads when they are called out for it. "It's part of the grade." No it's not

 

....but like AK said, time the negatives for the 90 day deadline

 

Observe---> http://cgi2.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=sheaman2000

[greggy]

[Rickdogg]

Bruce needs to repeat what he told me over the phone and put it here on the board so that we can copy and paste it anytime we run into a seller who sends you a date stamped POS

[fantastic_four]

I can't believe you guys would recommend negative feedback over this.

 

1. His auction says nothing about returns.

 

2. We all know these books can have date stamps. If you don't like it, give CGC negative feedback, not this guy.

Is it only CGC's job to disclose information about a comic? Is the seller totally without responsibility?

 

NO ! ! !

 

The main reason people like this deserve negative feedback is because everybody points at everybody else as the reason for it being a problem. "Nobody else takes returns on CGC books!" "CGC doesn't note it on the label, so it's not my fault." Bullcrap! Assuming this seller wasn't aware that some collectors can't stand date stamps--which I find incredibly hard to believe--he sure knows it now that Dam complained. Refusing the return, whether he said he'd give one or not, deserves a negative.

[Rickdogg]

It's a simple policy to use as a seller:

 

The customer is always right. Arguing over a CGC grade is one thing, but flaws such as date stamps, production creases, writing of any sort should be disclosed ot only by cgc, but the seller as well. I would like this type of information and I provide this type of service for my customers. It's just good business practice

 

[BronzeBruce13]

I've heard that's not foolproof. I'll ask for clarification, but I think Sully told me there is a way to leave feedback after the 90 deadline.

[Rickdogg]

I have squaretrade , so I dare him to bring it on

[thecomicsheet]

I allow returns on my CGC books as well as unslabbed books. I've had one CGC book come back - the case cracked during shipment. The buyer was very nice about it and I refunded his money promptly. I did learn something about packing from that experience. I now exclusively use the free USPS priority boxes for CGC shipping.

 

I've noticed several sellers who use a blanket 'no returns' policy on CGC books. Is this common practice for just about all sellers, or is it an exception?

[fantastic_four]

Seems to be rather prevalent. However, enough people will take returns on CGC books for me to get pissed at the people who won't when there's something about the book not visible in a scan or listed in the auction description.

[Rickdogg]

I don't offer refund on my cgc books. I have a full disclosure policy and if I missed something like a date stamp (very unlikely), then sure i'll gladly refund the bid price as well as the shipping costs both ways. If a CGC case is cracked, I would gladly pay for slab costs and throw in a little extra for shipment to CGC. I pack extremely well, so if a case cracks during shipment, the po worker must have ran over it or something

[fantastic_four]

This is something I haven't thought through 100% as to how I feel about it either way, but here's a question: what if somebody gets a CGC book and says "this CGC 9.4 is really an overgraded 8.5, and here's why: (assume a list of VF-type defects follow)"

 

Would you refund in that event?

[Rickdogg]

I have never run into this type of problem since most people understand the fact that CGC is an impartial 3rd party grading company and the "grade" is hardly ever an issue. Most people tend to be unhappy when they receive a book with a date stamp, production crease, etc.

 

However, if my customer takes the time out and emails me concerning something like what you mentioned, I would probably refund their money because I do not believe in arguing with any of my customers. I never have and never will. A happy customer is a repeat customer and treating them fairly is the only way to go. I understand that there will always be that one loser who will try to take advantage of a seller with policies like mine, but I look at the bigger picture. What is one [!@#%^&^] compared to hundreds of happy customers? That's a no brainer to me

 

[BronzeBruce13]

Is it only CGC's job to disclose information about a comic? Is the seller totally without responsibility? NO ! ! ! The main reason people like this deserve negative feedback is because everybody points at everybody else as the reason for it being a problem. "Nobody else takes returns on CGC books!" "CGC doesn't note it on the label, so it's not my fault." Bullcrap! Assuming this seller wasn't aware that some collectors can't stand date stamps--which I find incredibly hard to believe--he sure knows it now that Dam complained.

 

I agree JR.. It's not only CGC's responsibility, but the CGC Policy Change has created an atmosphere of confusion on the matter. They also have provided a rationalization for the seller to hide behind and feel comfortable about at the same time... and some may legitimately buy the argument initially and need convincing. The fact that the attitudes vary from era to era (GA, SA, BA) also make this a difficult issue to agree on. I feel it's like an honor system... If the seller is aware of a "distribution related addition" lets call it (DRA)... and that these DRA's "used" to be on the label and some buyers "care-but don't know"... he DOES have responsibility. There are plenty other scenarios in which I feel if they "know better", they should disclose. On the other hand, some sellers really don't get it (like ones that are newer to selling-after the policy change, or older collectors with differing views on DRA's, etc.)... those types deserve to have an opportunity to be informed and hear the issue calmly first without being attacked... so they have a true opportunity to consider it and do the right thing. After they are challenged on it once and understand the confusion non disclosure can cause..they should disclose from there on (like this guy).. at least on Bronze. I get indecisive on the matter when I consider if it should be done on GA and SA books too.. since they are far more common...thoughts?

 

Refusing the return, whether he said he'd give one or not, deserves a negative.

 

Not sure I understand this... If the seller has cause to reconsider a refund after thinking about it more, or "comes around" after you explain it clearer... you feel he should still be neg'd?

 

I'm probably the last person anyone would figure would give consideration (or the benefit of the doubt) to any seller in these scenarios after arguing vehemently against the policy change and sellers who hide behind it. However, I think if I'm asking some sellers (that need to hear the issue more clearly) to have a open mind and consider this somewhat controversial and unclear issue... I have to offer understanding and effort also... and would make the extra effort before slamming them. I'd want to be sure they had a chance to consider it first.

 

After that though.. if they don't get it... by choice, apathy, greed, etc... then screw 'em. After you understand the buyers side of it... it's clear IMHO that disclosure is the only fair solution.

 

I also feel the widely-accepted/used "no return on CGC books" contributes to the problem as it has seemed to be accepted as a law... does anybody remember if this was common from the beginning? I don't recall seeing many/any auctions in which the seller made a point to say returns allowed on CGC books.

 

 

 

[BronzeBruce13]

This is something I haven't thought through 100% as to how I feel about it either way, but here's a question: what if somebody gets a CGC book and says "this CGC 9.4 is really an overgraded 8.5, and here's why: (assume a list of VF-type defects follow)"

 

Would you refund in that event?

 

 

Don't even go there JR!!! ...

that is exactly what the opposing side (who really understands the issue but does not want to give in) wants you to bring up so they can throw that whole convoluted argument at us... "If I allow for return on DRA's.. I guess I'll have to refund issues when people don't like the grade too" ... and than they have us.

 

We simply have to accept the CGC grade we get when buying from a seller...that is not their problem (or Gorgo would be a constant violator) they did not grade the book. We accept the process in which CGC grades... no specific grading criteria, but faith that the system is pretty accurate and fair. If we disagree, we sell... and look for a copy that we feel is more in line with our own view of the particular grade. Observing the scans carefully and asking questions always helps when unsure... which is what we now have to do about the DRA's to protect ourselves, once we are aware.

 

We can't break it down that far... or the whole CGC concept becomes meaningless.

[thecomicsheet]

I've had over a hundred CGC sales on eBay and have only had one request for a refund (and that was for a good reason - the case cracked in shipment). I don't actually display my return policy on my eBay ads, it's on my website. I may change that in the near future and display a return policy on my eBay template.

 

Keeping the customer happy has paid off for me. The one return I had turned into a multiple repeat buyer and good customer.

[BronzeBruce13]

I have never run into this type of problem since most people understand the fact that CGC is an impartial 3rd party grading company and the "grade" is hardly ever an issue. Most people tend to be unhappy when they receive a book with a date stamp, production crease, etc.

 

However, if my customer takes the time out and emails me concerning something like what you mentioned, I would probably refund their money because I do not believe in arguing with any of my customers. I never have and never will. A happy customer is a repeat customer and treating them fairly is the only way to go. I understand that there will always be that one loser who will try to take advantage of a seller with policies like mine, but I look at the bigger picture. What is one [!@#%^&^] compared to hundreds of happy customers? That's a no brainer to me

 

I applaud your attitude and I wish more sellers were more like you Rick...but you go further than one should expect. I don't feel a seller should "have to" disclose production creases, a small bindery tear, or other production related defects that may be included in CGC's grade...unless asked specifically. There is one exception that comes to mind... missing staple (which I think may still makes it to the label?) and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting. BUT...there has to be a line somewhere as to what you should expect a seller to disclose. A consumer does have some responsibility to review a products fine points that are important to him/her. The "distribution related additions" DRA's occur AFTER the comic is fully produced and thus needs to be disclosed as their acceptance varies not only from era to era, but also as an "individual eye appeal" consideration. NOW, if someone asks you to report on anything and relies on you to be their eyes...of course you should be 100% honest.

 

Your level of disclosure would give fuel to the opposing sides argument of... "where does disclosure responsibility end?" Keep it simple... DRA's unless asked for more.

[BronzeBruce13]

That's a great attitude Darryl... it's cool you will allow a return for a cracked slab, but do you allow a return period? Just if the person is unhappy with the book or CGC grade?

 

[WernerVonDoom]

Hey, FF,

 

Please explain the difference to me:

 

"This is something I haven't thought through 100% as to how I feel about it either way, but here's a question: what if somebody gets a CGC book and says "this CGC 9.4 is really an overgraded 8.5, and here's why: (assume a list of VF-type defects follow)"

 

and

 

"This is something I haven't thought through 100% as to how I feel about it either way, but here's a question: what if somebody gets a CGC book and says "this CGC 9.4 is really an overgraded 8.5, and here's why: date stamp on back cover."

 

It seems that buyers should accept CGC grading, or better make sure the seller offers refunds.

[fantastic_four]

Or just buy and hope for the best. If I limited myself to just those sellers who offered refunds on CGC material, I'd probably never finish my runs!!! I guess I'll just have to keep barking about date stamps until people decide to listen. Luckily, it has only happened to me once on a CGC book, and I didn't return it because it was a very small amount of writing on the back cover only.

[fantastic_four]

Refusing the return, whether he said he'd give one or not, deserves a negative.

I didn't mean to leave a negative if they did offer a refund, I meant to leave a negative regardless of what the seller said in the initial listing about refunds on CGC books.