The two most common excuses for buyers remorse

[joeypost]

It's from 2013

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=306435&Number=6858606#Post6858606

 

and a for finding it.

 

But he put up so didn't he pay your full asking price? Or did he post the and then negotiate from there?

 

Has this been answered? This was my question earlier.

 

Now we're off arguing about community vs. legal obligation & making lists etc..etc..

 

The only way the guy used false pretense to get a better price AND post a is if he edited the PER PM out of the thread after the fact, I don't believe Joey would do a post sale renegotiation especially after a few people commented that it sold cheap.

 

 

The final price was negotiated via PM. 3M posted the but did not pay the asking price in the thread. I don't know if he just posted the or if he said "per PM" and later edited it. I don't see any reason why he would after the fact.

 

A sale is a sale, but you do have to factor in what is legal and what is ethical. Legally he purchased a book I priced at $Xxx,xx. Ethically he lied about it being a Grail. Legally he could put it up on High Grade Comics site. Ethically (and maybe morally) he should have sold it back to me if the real reason he was getting rid of it was due to his wife throwing a fit over the cost of the book. I really need to find that PM now.

 

The whole letter of the law, vs. the spirit of the law thing.

[Lucky Baru]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars via negotiation too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

The final price was negotiated via PM. 3M posted the but did not pay the asking price in the thread. I don't know if he just posted the or if he said "per PM" and later edited it. I don't see any reason why he would after the fact.

 

Because he would want anyone finding the thread to think he paid full price as insurance if his intent was to flip

[jaybuck43]

I'm like 99.9% sure when I pulled that thread it said per PM. I even said as such to booy when he asked what the big deal is.

[Lucky Baru]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a "d bag" move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

The thread rolled with this and that after that. People advising their views and got tense as a pile-on tend to get. OK, no skin off my fanny. I just don't dig the personal attacks. That has no place in a discussion.

[bababooey]

I'm like 99.9% sure when I pulled that thread it said per PM. I even said as such to booy when he asked what the big deal is.

It was edited with a stamp 19 minutes that is still visible and the post was quoted that day.

 

 

I'm fine with Joey's word on it being negotiated via PM prior to the take it.

 

 

 

edit: thanks for the response Joey

 

[Sqeggs]

I'm like 99.9% sure when I pulled that thread it said per PM. I even said as such to booy when he asked what the big deal is.

It was edited with a stamp 19 minutes that is still visible and the post was quoted that day.

 

 

I'm fine with Joey's word on it being negotiated via PM prior to the take it.

 

 

 

A subsequent Ninja edit wouldn't show, though, would it? Or is the post too old to be edited?

[Dano]

The Marketplace has always been a terrific community to me. I've bought and sold with deals going both ways that benefit buyer and seller. No one owns part of my collection because I discount a book for a board member. I don't even know what that part meant, TBH.

 

Dan

[THE_BEYONDER]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a d bag move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

I read your original comment, and responded to it.

 

I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make. Is your point merely that nothing illegal transpired?

[Lucky Baru]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a d bag move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

I read your original comment, and responded to it.

 

I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make. Is your point merely that nothing illegal transpired?

 

Yes, and that neither party after the sale was obligated to each other to do this or that. The sale was complete.

[bababooey]

I'm like 99.9% sure when I pulled that thread it said per PM. I even said as such to booy when he asked what the big deal is.

It was edited with a stamp 19 minutes that is still visible and the post was quoted that day.

 

 

I'm fine with Joey's word on it being negotiated via PM prior to the take it.

 

 

 

A subsequent Ninja edit wouldn't show, though, would it? Or is the post too old to be edited?

Edit time stamps can't be fudged as long as one is showing, you can edit and check the box and not show an edit time but you can't fudge a fake edit time unless you type out a fake one to that looks like an edit time, with an adjusted font in the message that would be quotable & wasn't when silver surfer quoted the mishmashman post.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

I'm like 99.9% sure when I pulled that thread it said per PM. I even said as such to booy when he asked what the big deal is.

It was edited with a stamp 19 minutes that is still visible and the post was quoted that day.

 

 

I'm fine with Joey's word on it being negotiated via PM prior to the take it.

 

 

 

A subsequent Ninja edit wouldn't show, though, would it? Or is the post too old to be edited?

Edit time stamps can't be fudged as long as one is showing, you can edit and check the box and not show an edit time but you can't fudge a fake edit time unless you type our a fake one to that looks like an edit time, with an adjusted font in the message that would be quotable & wasn't when silver surfer quoted the mishmashman post.

 

 

What I meant was: The edit stamp we see may be legit and shows that it was made about 19 minutes after the initial post. But ... wouldn't it be possible to edit the post again later, check the box, and not have a time stamp show for that later edit?

 

All hypothetical, of course, and not necessarily what happened here.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

No edits will show if you check the box for the subsequent edit

[THE_BEYONDER]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a d bag move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

I read your original comment, and responded to it.

 

I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make. Is your point merely that nothing illegal transpired?

 

Yes, and that neither party after the sale was obligated to each other to do this or that. The sale was complete.

 

The point was that the buyer was an assclown. Nothing more.

[Logan510]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a d bag move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

I read your original comment, and responded to it.

 

I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make. Is your point merely that nothing illegal transpired?

 

Yes, and that neither party after the sale was obligated to each other to do this or that. The sale was complete.

 

No one said it was illegal, obviously it was a legal sale. The fact that Joey appears to be a little irritated because someone took advantage of his kindness with a BS sob story and you find that "strange", because hey...it's legal..is what people are taking issue with.

[bababooey]

If an edit time is shown in small letters below the text of the post with a time (as my last two posts in this thread demonstrate) it is the last time that poster edited that post.

 

You can edit and get either a new time or check the box to not show the edit time at all but you can't get back the old edit time.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

If an edit time is shown in small letters below the text of the post with a time (as my last two posts in this thread demonstrate) it is the last time that poster edited that post.

 

You can edit and get either a new time or check the box to not show the edit time at all but you can't get back the old edit time.

 

 

Let me try ....

 

First edit

 

Second edit

 

Third edit: Seems as if hitting the Ninja edit box on the second edit wipes out the time stamp from the first edit.

 

Every time you come on the boards you learn something new!

[THE_BEYONDER]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a d bag move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

I read your original comment, and responded to it.

 

I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make. Is your point merely that nothing illegal transpired?

 

Yes, and that neither party after the sale was obligated to each other to do this or that. The sale was complete.

 

No one said it was illegal, obviously it was a legal sale. The fact that Joey appears to be a little irritated because someone took advantage of his kindness with a BS sob story and you find that "strange", because hey...it's legal..is what people are taking issue with.

 

^this

[joeypost]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars that way too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

What are you trying to say? What about the buyer in this scenario makes you feel the need to defend them?

 

Not defending anyone. My original post was this:

 

I had a board member use the wife excuse on the Avengers 57 I sold him. Gave me every "this is my Grail book, I am taking this to my grave" line to get it for a discounted price from me. A week later I see it up an HighGrade Comics site for considerably more. When I asked him why he was selling his "Grail" book he used the wife excuse. When I said no problem, send me back the book and I will refund payment and shipping he all of a sudden could not arrange for that to happen. I hope some board detectives can pull up that sales thread to see who it was.

 

The above seems strange as you agreed to the price and sold it to him at that price and he paid you for it. Thus, it was his property. He was under no obligation to you to keep it, hold it, burn it, or whatever.

 

I was stating that the sale was legal and neither party had an obligation to the other after the sale. That's all.

 

I have agreed that the seller shouldn't have made up a story to obtain the book in three post. I said I agreed it was a d bag move as Logan510 stated. Can be found on page 7 of the thread.

 

I read your original comment, and responded to it.

 

I'm still confused about the point you're trying to make. Is your point merely that nothing illegal transpired?

 

Yes, and that neither party after the sale was obligated to each other to do this or that. The sale was complete.

 

No one said it was illegal, obviously it was a legal sale. The fact that Joey appears to be a little irritated because someone took advantage of his kindness with a BS sob story and you find that "strange", because hey...it's legal..is what people are taking issue with.

 

^this

 

It's all perspective. To a crook, criminal activities seem perfectly normal.