Ebay Seller Issue...

[RockMyAmadeus]

Wow...

 

Just what do you think CGC is...?

 

A gathering of immortals on Mt. Olympus who are infallible...?

 

No, they are people, and yes, they make mistakes. Do they often make mistakes? No. Do they sometimes make them? Of course!

 

Are you familiar with the JIM #83 "trimmed" controversy of last year...?

 

Guess what: CGC changed its stance on the book multiple times.

 

The person who owned the book was well within his rights to sell the book and not "disclose" that some people at CGC thought it was trimmed, others didn't, then some others changed their minds and they ultimately concluded it wasn't.

 

The fact that this has to be spelled out is orders of magnitude more disturbing than "not disclosing that CGC thought it was thus and such."

 

[Sqeggs]

So, you're saying that if you knew that cgc had determined that a book you owned was restored, you would sell it without disclosing that fact?

 

If I disagreed with their opinion, yes, of course.

 

+ 1 .......GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Say it ain't so Jimbo, say it ain't so!

[koollectablz]

So, you're saying that if you knew that cgc had determined that a book you owned was restored, you would sell it without disclosing that fact?

 

If I disagreed with their opinion, yes, of course.

 

I agree with the above statement.

 

This particular book DOES look trimmed, that would be my opinion, many others opinion and also CGCs opinion.

 

But if I felt it didn't look trimmed and someone else thought that it was, would I then add that to my auction? No I wouldn't.

 

Would I offer a refund if the buyer then sought another verifiable third party opinion that I'd consider as valid as my own?

 

Yes I would, and I'm not just talking CGC, there's plenty of guys who don't work for CGC who's opinions are just as valid.

 

And that, in a nutshell, is what seems to have happened here.

[Jeffro.]

Wow...

 

Just what do you think CGC is...?

 

A gathering of immortals on Mt. Olympus who are infallible...?

 

No, they are people, and yes, they make mistakes. Do they often make mistakes? No. Do they sometimes make them? Of course!

 

Are you familiar with the JIM #83 "trimmed" controversy of last year...?

 

Guess what: CGC changed its stance on the book multiple times.

 

The person who owned the book was well within his rights to sell the book and not "disclose" that some people at CGC thought it was trimmed, others didn't, then some others changed their minds and they ultimately concluded it wasn't.

 

The fact that this has to be spelled out is orders of magnitude more disturbing than "not disclosing that CGC thought it was thus and such."

 

 

Some people seem to think that CGC's opinion is sacrosanct.

[cousin itt]

Yes, I am aware of the JIM 83 thing, and namsigrs book. Yes I know CGC is not infallible. I assume you are aware that you are also not infallible?

 

Fact is, as a buyer, I would want to know if the most respected authority on the subject has declared a book to be restored. I assume you would also want to know this.

 

It's STAGGERING to me that anyone here would publicly state that they don't consider themselves obligated to disclose restoration if, in their personal "opinion", they don't consider it to be restoration.

 

 

[wombat]

Question for those saying they wouldn't disclose it. What if you sold that book for a second time and the same thing happened? Would you still not disclose it?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Here's another one for you:

 

There are people in the wider comic collecting world who are as good, if not better, than CGC at detecting restoration (and detecting what looks like it might be restoration, but really isn't.)

 

Over the course of the thousands of books of mine I have sent to CGC, precisely two came back with restoration I wasn't aware of.

 

The first was an Avengers #1 with a married 5th wrap. I checked for CT, I checked for trimming, I checked for tear seals, all the usual bells and whistles for a book like this...but I missed the 5th wrap.

 

The second was a Strange Tales #97 that came back "cover cleaned." That one, I tend to disagree with, but it's debatable. In both cases, it was "non-typical" restoration, and not something even a moderately well-trained eye would always catch.

 

Otherwise, I've caught or knowingly subbed every other book that had restoration. I've also caught restoration for clients, including things like "glue" and "replaced staples", things that even trained eyes might miss.

 

Does that make me an expert...? Maybe. Who knows? I apply a magnified eye to everything that comes under my hands. Do I know more than the average bear? Sure. Am I as good as CGC's resto experts? No, because I don't look for resto every day, all day long.

 

But there are people who are as good, if not better.

 

It's all just about opinions, and the goal isn't perfection...it's to find the most informed, most consistent opinion. And that means you can disagree, and not be "wrong."

[slym2none]

Devil's Advocate (no, my name is not Becky) - what if this was an OO book that the owner bought off the stands, and the CGC said it was restored? Would you feel obligated to tell people that?

 

 

 

-slym

[koollectablz]

Using that book as the example is a none starter.

 

It looks trimmed.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Question for those saying they wouldn't disclose it. What if you sold that book for a second time and the same thing happened? Would you still not disclose it?

 

If I disagreed, yes. It's not a trick answer.

[Jeffro.]

Yes, I am aware of the JIM 83 thing, and namsigrs book. Yes I know CGC is not infallible. I assume you are aware that you are also not infallible?

 

Fact is, as a buyer, I would want to know if the most respected authority on the subject has declared a book to be restored. I assume you would also want to know this.

 

It's STAGGERING to me that anyone here would publicly state that they don't consider themselves obligated to disclose restoration if, in their personal "opinion", they don't consider it to be restoration.

 

 

Poll 100 people and ask them if they consider pressing to be restoration. Then ask those same 100 people if they would feel obligated as a seller to disclose pressing on books they sell.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Devil's Advocate (no, my name is not Becky) - what if this was an OO book that the owner bought off the stands, and the CGC said it was restored? Would you feel obligated to tell people that?

 

 

 

-slym

 

There have been people on this very board (namisgr, as a matter of fact) who bought books (ASM #121) off the stands (in 1973)...when the idea of trimming such a book would have been ridiculous...and subbed it. I don't remember all the particulars, but I believe first it came back with a paper clip indentation on the front cover, and the second time it came back trimmed.

 

Should HE be obligated to disclose that if he decided to crack the book and sell it?

[cousin itt]

Who are you asking? Are you talking about namsigr's book? Yes, I would feel obligated - I would argue my side of it too, of course - if I *KNOW* that a book is unrestored, but that cgc had declared it to be restored, I would disclose BOTH things. And the reason I would disclose both is because I would expect any seller to do the same when I am a buyer.

 

(Edit: that was in response to slym2none's question.)

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yes, I am aware of the JIM 83 thing, and namsigrs book. Yes I know CGC is not infallible. I assume you are aware that you are also not infallible?

 

I think that is plainly evident from my posts, yes.

 

Fact is, as a buyer, I would want to know if the most respected authority on the subject has declared a book to be restored. I assume you would also want to know this.

 

It's STAGGERING to me that anyone here would publicly state that they don't consider themselves obligated to disclose restoration if, in their personal "opinion", they don't consider it to be restoration.

 

 

Yes, because you place CGC on a pedestal that even they, themselves, do not.

 

You already have a foregone conclusion: "obligated to disclose restoration."

 

You have concluded that, because CGC said it, it is, prima facie, and there's no further debate.

 

And 99.999% of the time, that is a good conclusion.

 

But if you start with a conclusion, you will find ways to confirm that conclusion, rather than searching for the truth, and the truth is that just because someone says it, doesn't always make it so.

 

[koollectablz]

We should also not get bogged down in making this a discussion about restoration overall as the 'subject'.

 

Some restoration is incredibly easy to spot, others things much more difficult.

 

Trimming, when it's not blindingly obvious, is the most difficult to detect. No one is infallible, guess what.... Not even CGC.

 

Unless you are the OO of certain books it will always be a crapshoot as to whether some books are trimmed.

 

That's life.

[koollectablz]

Who are you asking? Are you talking about namsigr's book? Yes, I would feel obligated - I would argue my side of it too, of course - if I *KNOW* that a book is unrestored, but that cgc had declared it to be restored, I would disclose BOTH things. And the reason I would disclose both is because I would expect any seller to do the same when I am a buyer.

 

(Edit: that was in response to slym2none's question.)

 

Sorry, but that's plainly ridiculous.

[cousin itt]

How? It's easy to be dismissive, but in saying that, you are saying without any wiggle room that you would not disclose in that case.

[rodan57]

Some pretty amazing statements in this thread.

[slym2none]

Devil's Advocate (no, my name is not Becky) - what if this was an OO book that the owner bought off the stands, and the CGC said it was restored? Would you feel obligated to tell people that?

 

There have been people on this very board (namisgr, as a matter of fact) who bought books (ASM #121) off the stands (in 1973)...when the idea of trimming such a book would have been ridiculous...and subbed it. I don't remember all the particulars, but I believe first it came back with a paper clip indentation on the front cover, and the second time it came back trimmed.

 

Should HE be obligated to disclose that if he decided to crack the book and sell it?

 

Exactly my point!

 

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

How? It's easy to be dismissive, but in saying that, you are saying without any wiggle room that you would not disclose in that case.

 

If you know it is patently untrue, then IMHO, no - there is no wiggle room. If I bought a book off the stands, knowing 100% it isn't restored, had it graded, and the CGC said it was restored, I'd not say a word - because in this case, they'd be 100% wrong.

 

 

 

-slym