Ebay Seller Issue...

[RockMyAmadeus]

And in that regard, it's not about what the buyer, or anyone else, thinks is reasonable...it's only about what the seller thinks is reasonable. If the seller is lying, and believes the book has a problem, but disregards it anyways, that is on him. But unless you can prove that he believes otherwise, the charge of deliberate deception cannot be made.

 

The point is, no one else can come along and say "I think you're lying. I think you really believe the book is trimmed, and are hiding that fact to rip someone off" without further evidence.

 

It depends on whether or not you consider failing to disclose that cgc says it was trimmed as deception. It is certainly withholding pertinent information that the seller must know the buyer would want to know. Does the rise to the level of deception? I guess that depends on your own personal definition.

 

I submit a book to CGC. It has a popped bottom centerfold staple. I know this, because I submitted the book to CGC.

 

It gets an 8.5. The book is not an "otherwise 9.6." It's a typical book for the grade, and, in fact, maybe a tad overgraded (in this case, I had told the customer I thought it was a 6.5/7.0, all things considered.)

 

VF+ is not a category into which a popped staple should fall.

 

Am I obligated to disclose that...?

 

Why, or why not...?

[KPR Comics]

If it's a Bats 222, no need to disclose. Everybody knows that bottom staple is too short.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

How are these the same things?

[Mijael.Levy]

i brought a FF52 PGX 6.0 some years ago . I decided to break the slab , rather than sell it as is was because i know pgx overgrade the books . i am selling it now as a 5.5 and i am disclosing that was it was a pgx 6.0 i hope i am doing the right thing

[ChrisInBaltimore]

i brought a FF52 PGX 6.0 some years ago . I decided to break the slab , rather than sell it as is was because i know pgx overgrade the books . i am selling it now as a 5.5 and i am disclosing that was it was a pgx 6.0 i hope i am doing the right thing

 

You know I've seen a lot more cases of people cracking PGX books for an upgrade from CGC, right? We've had a lot detailed here.

[wombat]

So someone here buys a book and gets the same results. Comes back trimmed from CGC. They end up returning it hassle free. They are "ok" with the transaction as the seller claims he didn't know or doesn't agree. Now they find out this has happened before with the same exact book. How many people are still going to be ok with it?

[Mijael.Levy]

i brought a FF52 PGX 6.0 some years ago . I decided to break the slab , rather than sell it as is was because i know pgx overgrade the books . i am selling it now as a 5.5 and i am disclosing that was it was a pgx 6.0 i hope i am doing the right thing

 

You know I've seen a lot more cases of people cracking PGX books for an upgrade from CGC, right? We've had a lot detailed here.

 

PGX is bad business so maybe it will sell better as a raw .

[RockMyAmadeus]

So someone here buys a book and gets the same results. Comes back trimmed from CGC. They end up returning it hassle free. They are "ok" with the transaction as the seller claims he didn't know or doesn't agree. Now they find out this has happened before with the same exact book. How many people are still going to be ok with it?

 

There are two separate issues involved.

 

"Didn't know" is inexcusable, as he does know.

 

"Doesn't agree" is a fair assessment, and within his rights.

 

The attitude of "being ok with it" is entirely dependent on the buyer's perspective about the opinion of CGC. If they believe CGC is the end-all, be-all (which CGC specifically disavows), then they will have a problem. If they believe that CGC is just an opinion, they probably won't have a problem with it, even if they agree with CGC.

 

So I have a question back for you...

 

What if it goes back to CGC and does NOT come back trimmed? There are reasonable scenarios (and real life ones, too) for this to occur, so it's not pure conjecture.

[cousin itt]

That would be unlikely in this case, right? But if it did happen, assuming they didn't just miss it, then you'd be in new territory. You can't assume something like that is going to happen though.

 

Regarding your other question: you should disclose BOTH opinions. Yours and cgcs. Of course, cgc's is on the label, so you don't need to do much disclosing there.

 

 

[wombat]

So someone here buys a book and gets the same results. Comes back trimmed from CGC. They end up returning it hassle free. They are "ok" with the transaction as the seller claims he didn't know or doesn't agree. Now they find out this has happened before with the same exact book. How many people are still going to be ok with it?

 

There are two separate issues involved.

 

"Didn't know" is inexcusable, as he does know.

 

"Doesn't agree" is a fair assessment, and within his rights.

 

The attitude of "being ok with it" is entirely dependent on the buyer's perspective about the opinion of CGC. If they believe CGC is the end-all, be-all (which CGC specifically disavows), then they will have a problem. If they believe that CGC is just an opinion, they probably won't have a problem with it, even if they agree with CGC.

 

So I have a question back for you...

 

What if it goes back to CGC and does NOT come back trimmed? There are reasonable scenarios (and real life ones, too) for this to occur, so it's not pure conjecture.

 

My question was coming entirely from the perspective of the buyer. And I have a hard time believing too many buyers are going to think everything is cool if they find out the same exact thing happened before. And it seems a bit of a moot point to try and figure out what their opinion is of CGC if they are sending the book off to CGC. I think we can say with pretty much certainty no one wants to get that book back labeled as trimmed when they weren't expecting it.

 

As to your question that would probably just be the end of things I guess. You get a book back as expected. You would have no reason to question it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That would be unlikely in this case, right? But if it did happen, assuming they didn't just miss it, then you'd be in new territory. You can't assume something like that is going to happen though.

 

It would be very unlikely in this case, but that's not the point. It's not about assuming it's going to happen; it's about discussing what follows IF it happens. But you wouldn't be in new territory, you'd simply be back to the reasonable objection argument, because this isn't theory, it's actually happened.

 

The JIM #83 is a perfect example. It now resides (if I'm not mistaken) in a blue label slab. Should the person who owns it have to disclose the melodrama surrounding it?

 

No. Not at all. You're getting exactly what is advertised: a JIM #83 blue label.

 

Regarding your other question: you should disclose BOTH opinions. Yours and cgcs. Of course, cgc's is on the label, so you don't need to do much disclosing there.

 

 

The market doesn't care one whit about my opinion. My opinion doesn't HELP ME when I think CGC has been overstrict, so why should I let it HURT ME when I think CGC has been understrict?

[RockMyAmadeus]

So someone here buys a book and gets the same results. Comes back trimmed from CGC. They end up returning it hassle free. They are "ok" with the transaction as the seller claims he didn't know or doesn't agree. Now they find out this has happened before with the same exact book. How many people are still going to be ok with it?

 

There are two separate issues involved.

 

"Didn't know" is inexcusable, as he does know.

 

"Doesn't agree" is a fair assessment, and within his rights.

 

The attitude of "being ok with it" is entirely dependent on the buyer's perspective about the opinion of CGC. If they believe CGC is the end-all, be-all (which CGC specifically disavows), then they will have a problem. If they believe that CGC is just an opinion, they probably won't have a problem with it, even if they agree with CGC.

 

So I have a question back for you...

 

What if it goes back to CGC and does NOT come back trimmed? There are reasonable scenarios (and real life ones, too) for this to occur, so it's not pure conjecture.

 

My question was coming entirely from the perspective of the buyer. And I have a hard time believing too many buyers are going to think everything is cool if they find out the same exact thing happened before.

 

And that would be because those buyers have an unhealthy reliance on CGC, rather than developing their own skills and abilities to form their own educated opinions.

 

And it seems a bit of a moot point to try and figure out what their opinion is of CGC if they are sending the book off to CGC.

 

I don't understand what you're saying here, perhaps reword/clarify?

 

I think we can say with pretty much certainty no one wants to get that book back labeled as trimmed when they weren't expecting it.

 

Granted. Not in dispute. But...and this is key....every buyer needs to understand that that's the risk you take buying every single raw comic book that exists.

 

Every single raw book...and many slabbed books...are at risk for having undisclosed restoration.

 

I have bought books that I didn't know were restored. I have had books SIGNED that I didn't know were restored. In all those cases, I lost out, substantially, either in actual value, or potential value.

 

But, I learned very early on that restoration was frowned upon in comics, so I educated myself, and spent time learning to identify it, so that, while not entirely eliminating my risk, I mitigated it substantially.

 

The only two instances of unknown resto that got by me and to CGC were "5th wrap married" on an Avengers #1 that I got Stan Lee SS'd (which House of Secrets in Burbank did NOT fairly compensate me for), and a Strange Tales #97 that I bought off eBay in 2002 or thereabouts, and the cover was "cleaned."

 

All the rest, I caught, mostly before I bought them. And yes, I've gotten trimmed books before, and caught them. No doubt, I possess some very well trimmed books that I didn't catch, but I have a good understanding and eye for trimming (especially with Silver Age), so it's going to be more difficult to get one by me.

 

The answer, again, isn't in trying to force sellers to disclose, or relying entirely on CGC, but to educate oneself. Education is the single best defense against being scammed, even when the seller doesn't know better. There is no substitute to being your own best advocate.

 

As to your question that would probably just be the end of things I guess. You get a book back as expected. You would have no reason to question it.

 

But...what about disclosure? CGC disagreed with itself; wouldn't it be important for the new owner to know that?

 

Setting aside the unlikelihood of the new owner discovering this through the normal course of things, the fact is, at one point, CGC thought it was trimmed, and at another point, they didn't (theoretically.)

 

If full disclosure is the key, here, then the new owner should be told by the seller that CGC thought it was trimmed, even though it now has come back as untrimmed (again, theoretically.)

 

Right...?

 

Sure, it would be the end of it for the buyer...but what about the seller? Would the seller then be vindicated...?

 

No, of course the seller wouldn't be vindicated; no one would care, though he would certainly deserve it.

 

Like Jimjum said: if you want a blue label slab, buy a blue label slab. Everything else is a gamble.

[passion4comics]

A recent Detective Comics 33 that was found to be trimmed slipped under the CGC radar upon slabbing. It was caught by Matt Nelson before subbing and after a big run around I finally got the seller to take it back. He didn't disclose it was a married cover and that it was trimmed. CGC gave it a purple EP label; I think a 4.0 without mention of trimming or a married cover. I told the EBay seller, I told the new owner that was trying to sell it, but it went nowhere. Let the buyer beware.

 

I think Peter In Portugal could chime in on this since he saw most of the paperwork unfolding.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA - first, I apologize for my tone. I will try to dial it back.

 

Second, I think the source of confusion here, and this is just a guess, is that you interpret the word "caught" to only mean "deliberately caught", as in setting a trap. That's not how I'm using it. I'm using it in the "to discover unexpectedly" sense. If you are interpreting it the other way, then I can see how you interpreted my statement as you did. That's why I thought you were using a strawman - I never said anything about laying any kind of trap for the seller, and was baffled as to why you were arguing about that.

 

No, you've misunderstood. I was explaining the scenarios in which, going forward, a buyer would find a reason to leave negative feedback, which was the logical conclusion to "well, if a seller doesn't want negs, he best disclose that information." I didn't say you were claiming that the buyer would lay a trap. I said the only way your statement could play out is if the buyer either A. found out information after the fact not related to the transaction, (ie, revenge), or B. knew going into it that the seller was "hiding" information (ie, laying a trap.) And neither of those are legitimate reasons to leave negative feedback.

 

Also, your "proof" (I guess that's what that was) that no one can be "caught" hiding trimming... that just makes no sense to me at all.

 

Sure, because that's not what I said. We do not find agreement here, because we do not agree on the foundation: you conclude that the seller is deliberately hiding trimming that he has been told exists. I do not. Everything after that will be divergent.

 

Of course someone can be caught - the seller in this case was caught. They can be caught accidentally or deliberately. But my statement is primarily about the unexpected kind of "caught". E.g., a buyer buys a book, then finds out the seller knowingly withheld the fact that cgc has said the book was trimmed. So, the buyer gets angry and negs the seller. That's what my statement is about. It sounds like you are arguing it wouldn't be possible for the seller to be caught in that case because it would be bad faith on the part of the buyer to find out? I don't agree that it would be bad faith, but even if it was, that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.

 

Again, that's not it. No one was discussing whether the buyer "stumbled upon" the "truth", or deliberately looked for it; getting "caught" has to do with the actions of the SELLER, not the buyer. It means the SELLER was doing something (you believe) he knew he shouldn't be doing.

 

My argument had nothing to do with how the buyer discovered that information.

 

I understand your point, and explained it earlier: at this point, the seller cannot hide behind the "I didn't know what CGC said" excuse, because they do know....however, that's not what they did at all. They said they disagreed with CGC's opinion, and don't need to disclose that fact. If someone were to buy it, then send it off to CGC, the seller can still say "sorry, I didn't agree with that assessment", and the new buyer would still not have legitimate cause to leave a negative.

 

But as it applied to the original transaction, those conditions didn't (yet) exist.

 

And, just so we're clear, because this keeps cropping up, we're not talking about what's going on in the seller's mind. (E.g., does he really "believe" that the book is trimmed or untrimmed.)

 

I am talking about precisely that. That's what the whole "intent" part of the discussion has been about from the start. If the seller disagrees, he is not guilty of withholding "pertinent" information...to him, it's not pertinent at all.

 

No one can prove what's going on in his mind.

 

Exactly! Which is why leaving a negative would be illegitimate.

 

But we don't have to. We are talking about the fact that we know the seller was told the book had been deemed to be trimmed by cgc, and is still selling that book without disclosing that fact to potential buyers (unless they specifically ask about it.) If he truly thinks cgc is wrong, he doesn't need to say the book IS trimmed, he just needs to say that cgc says the book is trimmed - that is, if he doesn't want to get negged by a disgruntled buyer down the line.

 

According to you. I do not agree, and neither do others. If he truly thinks CGC is wrong, why on earth would he be obligated to include that information? Does that make any sense at all?

 

Only people who think CGCs opinion is above question would argue that. Is that not so?

 

"My mechanic thinks the clutch is bad, but I think he's wrong, but I'm going to tell you my mechanic said so, it may or may not be, but I don't think it is. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm going to tell you that my mechanic reached a conclusion I think is wrong."

 

That's not within reason. It places an unreasonable burden on the seller. It would be *nice* if the seller said "hey, my mechanic thinks the clutch is bad, but I'm a pretty good mechanic myself, and I disagree with him; you might want to have it checked out." But is it an obligation to include information the seller believes is inaccurate...?

 

Of course not.

 

And that really illustrates the point: "if he doesn't want to get negged by a disgruntled buyer down the line"...a disgruntled buyer who had no legitimate reason to leave the seller a negative in the first place, and now we're back to the same scenario: the buyer sends it in, it comes back trimmed, the buyer tells the seller, the seller takes it back...what cause is there to leave a negative?

 

But "the seller KNEW it was trimmed!" No, the seller knew CGC thought it was trimmed, but has a reasonable objection to that opinion. A buyer leaving negative feedback because he/she "found out" the seller "knew" the book was "trimmed" would be doing so based on circumstances not related to the transaction.

 

Either/or, neither is legitimate cause for negative feedback.

 

I will amend my statement, and I don't see how this can be controversial, but it probably will be:

 

"If you don't want to get a negative, do not hide from potential buyers the fact that cgc says the book you are selling is trimmed."

 

Would be nice, but doesn't rise to the level of obligation, and such a buyer would be leaving negative feedback for an illegitimate reason (ie, revenge or spite, aka "disgruntled.")

 

As far as "reasonable objection" goes, or the claim that he has given a good excuse for non-disclosure: again, we are talking about the fact that cgc said the book is trimmed. There is no reasonable objection to that, no reason to disbelieve that. I called cgc and verified it. The seller could do the same if he really didn't believe cgc had said the book was trimmed.

 

The fact that CGC says it was trimmed is not in dispute.

 

Finally, you seem to feel the need to remind me that the seller didn't do anything wrong before he knew that cgc had said the book was trimmed. No one disputes that.

 

Correct. That is not in dispute, and if you thought it was in dispute on my part, that would be incorrect. Glad to clarify.

 

That's not what's being argued at all.

 

Correct on both your and my part.

 

I can only guess that you are brought that up to try to say that the buyer had no right to neg because the "alleged" wrongdoing occurred after the buyer's transaction. Let's assume for the sake of argument I agree with you - it doesn't change anything. My statement is simply that a seller is going to get negs if he hides these kind of extremely pertinent details from buyers. Sure, some of those negs may be out of line, but it doesn't mean they won't happen.

 

 

Not in dispute, except for your continued insistence on classifying CGC's opinion as an "extremely pertinent detail." That is very much in dispute. The seller thinks that detail is not only NOT pertinent, but entirely irrelevant.

 

If you start with a conclusion ("There is no doubt, this book is trimmed, CGC says so, and if the seller doesn't disclose that, he's being deceptive") then you will always find a way to that conclusion, regardless of where the evidence may lead.

 

I don't dispute that people leave negative feedback for unjustified reasons...that's exactly what happened here...my issue was the justifiability of those negatives, and in no case would they be justified under the existing circumstances.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The TL:DR version:

 

Educate yourselves. Learn, learn, learn. Do your homework. The more you know, the less chance you have of being scammed, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[MetalPSI]

The TL:DR version:

 

Educate yourselves. Learn, learn, learn. Do your homework. The more you know, the less chance you have of being scammed, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

 

Only takes thousands of posts to get to the tasty middle goodness

[BassGMan]

I don't know if this guy deserved a neg, or having his name thrown under the bus

He said he didn't know, gave you your money back, and has stated what happened, and that it has possibly been trimmed to everyone who has inquired about it's resto status in the current auction.

 

About the only thing more he could do would be to list in the new auction that cgc alleged trimming on a past submission, but the expert he checked with said it wasn't the case.

 

 

This is exactly why I posted my experience here.

 

The guy wouldn't have received a negative if he would have mentioned a possible trim in the new description. My experience with him was decent until I saw the new listing. I even emailed him asking why he didn't include the possible trim in the relisting, but he didn't reply until I left the feedback. If he's not willing to include recently acquired info regarding one of his books (whether it's true or not), what else could he be failing to mention? That's great that he'll mention the trim if you email, but what about the guy who doesn't and gets the book thinking there is no restoration.

 

This is why the negative has been left. I don't want anyone to go through the same trouble and disappointment with this book.

 

He has his opinion about the trimming based on his experts word, but at least throw the info into the description to ensure people know 100% what they are getting.

 

Based on reading the first few pages of this thread I think leaving the negative in this case was the wrong thing to do. Seems as if the buyer is better fit in the blocked bidders list.