General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Quake1028]

If you are quoting GPA and saying that prices are going up then yes you should include it, since you know that they are not ALL going up, as you know of the percentage sale.

 

Personally, had you just thrown up GPA data and a price I would have considered Peter's post threadkrapping. But the inclusion of the statement that prices keep going up, then yea I consider Peter's thread more of a disprovement of that point.

 

Just my

 

If Roy had simply quoted GPA figures and left it at that, I'd think Peter's comment would be threadkrapping. But the addition of "the book keeps going up" opens the door for Peter's comment.

 

Why does it open up a door, though? He said it keeps going up per GPA. That is a factually true statement. I'm not seeing the grey area here.

[Columbia Comics]

So in summary:

 

The foreigners are messing up the US comic market.

 

Case dismissed

[vaillant]

So in summary:

 

The foreigners are messing up the US comic market.

 

Case dismissed

 

[VintageComics]

If you are quoting GPA and saying that prices are going up then yes you should include it, since you know that they are not ALL going up, as you know of the percentage sale.

 

Personally, had you just thrown up GPA data and a price I would have considered Peter's post threadkrapping. But the inclusion of the statement that prices keep going up, then yea I consider Peter's thread more of a disprovement of that point.

 

Just my

 

If Roy had simply quoted GPA figures and left it at that, I'd think Peter's comment would be threadkrapping. But the addition of "the book keeps going up" opens the door for Peter's comment.

 

Except, I didn't say "the book keeps going up".

 

This is what I wrote:

 

I thought this book was sold but the buyer did not come through. GPA has been rising so I'm not complaining.

 

And as most people have commented over the past two months in the General Forum, auction prices for more common books are typically soft this time of year but even if we factor in the Clink price into the 90 day average, we get a 3 book average of $2416, and my asking price is $2450. Hardly deceitful as I was asking well under GPA 90 day average and actually the average of the Clink and GPA sales.

 

But it's the manner in which the information was delivered that is problematic. Where in my listing did I open the door for someone to start a debate about Clink reporting to GPA?

 

GPA has been rising so I'm not complaining.

 

to bad comiclink didn't report their 2 recent sales to GPA then.

 

The only reason I can think of is PiP wanted to get his in, for whatever reason.

[bababooey]

So in summary:

 

The foreigners are messing up the US comic market.

 

Case dismissed

 

[KPR Comics]

Not to get all lawyer-like, and this has nothing to do w/Roy because again, he disclosed more than necessary, making a factually true statement is not always black and white.

Plenty of guys have been hit w/10b-5 charges for doing that very same thing.

 

And no, it has no applicability to selling comic books. Just an example to make a point.

[HarveySwick]

It's just my

 

Nothing more, nothing less. I feel like we just had a similar issue come up a few weeks ago involving listing high GPA sales for Adventure Comics #40 where in reality the seller had JUST purchased it for a lot less. It seemed a bit disingenuous. In this instance, IF Roy had listed that the prices were steadily rising and quoted GPA figures to back up his statement, but in reality knew that there were two recent sales that were much lower than the GPA figures, that would be manipulative on his part. I'm not saying he did, but I don't think Peter contradicting a statement that isn't completely accurate is threadkrapping.

 

Otherwise, sellers would be allow to say whatever they'd like in a sales thread, whether it's the true or not, and no one would be allowed to correct them.

 

If Peter wanted to, sure he could have PMed Roy behind the scenes. But he decided to post the corrections in public. That's his prerogative. But in my opinion, it's not threadkrapping.

 

 

[vaillant]

Generally speaking I know Peter is straightforward and does not think much of subtleties, so it was probably not threadcrapping in his intentions, but nonetheless gives the sale a "negative aura", so to speak, even if it is just a reporting of additional data, that’s why I don’t like it.

[HarveySwick]

"negative aura"

 

[VintageComics]

It's just my

 

Nothing more, nothing less. I feel like we just had a similar issue come up a few weeks ago involving listing high GPA sales for Adventure Comics #40 where in reality the seller had JUST purchased it for a lot less. It seemed a bit disingenuous. In this instance, IF Roy had listed that the prices were steadily rising and quoted GPA figures to back up his statement, but in reality knew that there were two recent sales that were much lower than the GPA figures, that would be manipulative on his part. I'm not saying he did, but I don't think Peter contradicting a statement that isn't completely accurate is threadkrapping.

 

 

What RickyBobby did was entirely different. While what that guy did was sneaky (he was selling the book before GPA got the sales data, which they eventually would have), he also was selling a book he hadn't paid for yet.

 

And he ended up not owning the book. It went back to auction. That was the real issue.

 

And the fact that this is the 2nd time PiP went out of his way to say something unnecessary in a sales thread of mine shows that intent to help my sales is probably not the motivation.

 

If Peter wanted to, sure he could have PMed Roy behind the scenes.

 

Except he didn't. Which is why we're here.

 

So the consensus is that if you provide any data, even if it's reasonably comprehensive (which mine was) and not misleading (which mine wasn't) as long as it's not exhaustive people can make comments?

 

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

I thought GPA didn't record Heritage sales data?

[EC ed]

So the consensus is that if you provide any data, even if it's reasonably comprehensive (which mine was) and not misleading (which mine wasn't) as long as it's not exhaustive people can make comments?

 

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

No, this is not the consensus. I argued to the contrary up above there. I think the only time people should make sales thread comments is if a statement made is obviously, provably false.

[VintageComics]

I thought GPA didn't record Heritage sales data?

 

GPA scrapes Heritage and eBay and also other sites like Comic Connect (selective) and also takes data from dealers who submit (like Greg Reece, NewForceComics and a few others).

 

Where else, you'll have to ask George.

[bababooey]

It's just my

 

Nothing more, nothing less. I feel like we just had a similar issue come up a few weeks ago involving listing high GPA sales for Adventure Comics #40 where in reality the seller had JUST purchased it for a lot less. It seemed a bit disingenuous. In this instance, IF Roy had listed that the prices were steadily rising and quoted GPA figures to back up his statement, but in reality knew that there were two recent sales that were much lower than the GPA figures, that would be manipulative on his part. I'm not saying he did, but I don't think Peter contradicting a statement that isn't completely accurate is threadkrapping.

 

Otherwise, sellers would be allow to say whatever they'd like in a sales thread, whether it's the true or not, and no one would be allowed to correct them.

 

If Peter wanted to, sure he could have PMed Roy behind the scenes. But he decided to post the corrections in public. That's his prerogative. But in my opinion, it's not threadkrapping.

 

Did you read Peter's posts in that thread?

After tipping the seller that comicdonna was looking for one then going to ciorac's past owner post, someone said this

What it sell for last night?

 

and he responded with

wouldn't that be considered thread krapping ?

Seems pretty clear to me.

[VintageComics]

wouldn't that be considered thread krapping ?

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

So Peter even considered it thread krapping in someone else's thread but not when he did it in mine?

 

Sorry if I

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

[VintageComics]

So the consensus is that if you provide any data, even if it's reasonably comprehensive (which mine was) and not misleading (which mine wasn't) as long as it's not exhaustive people can make comments?

 

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

No, this is not the consensus.

 

I was being sarcastic to try to make my point.

[HarveySwick]

It's just my

 

Nothing more, nothing less. I feel like we just had a similar issue come up a few weeks ago involving listing high GPA sales for Adventure Comics #40 where in reality the seller had JUST purchased it for a lot less. It seemed a bit disingenuous. In this instance, IF Roy had listed that the prices were steadily rising and quoted GPA figures to back up his statement, but in reality knew that there were two recent sales that were much lower than the GPA figures, that would be manipulative on his part. I'm not saying he did, but I don't think Peter contradicting a statement that isn't completely accurate is threadkrapping.

 

Otherwise, sellers would be allow to say whatever they'd like in a sales thread, whether it's the true or not, and no one would be allowed to correct them.

 

If Peter wanted to, sure he could have PMed Roy behind the scenes. But he decided to post the corrections in public. That's his prerogative. But in my opinion, it's not threadkrapping.

 

Did you read Peter's posts in that thread?

After tipping the seller that comicdonna was looking for one then going to ciorac's past owner post, someone said this

What it sell for last night?

 

and he responded with

wouldn't that be considered thread krapping ?

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

You got me again! What do I know?

 

But I wouldn't consider that threadkrapping in RickyBobby's thread either.

[EC ed]

So the consensus is that if you provide any data, even if it's reasonably comprehensive (which mine was) and not misleading (which mine wasn't) as long as it's not exhaustive people can make comments?

 

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

No, this is not the consensus.

 

I was being sarcastic to try to make my point.

 

(thumbs u

 

I agree with you on the Ricky Bobby thing, as well. More comprehensive all-around dooshbaggery was the issue there.

[bababooey]

wouldn't that be considered thread krapping ?

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

So Peter even considered it thread krapping in someone else's thread but not when he did it in mine?

 

Sorry if I

 

He followed it up with a pernts post so he may have been sliding into shenanigans mode.