General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Pitboss]

You have to PM a mod and ask for the thread to be moved.

 

When you want to declare bankruptcy, you don't go to your roof and scream out, "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!". Just saying it doesn't make it happen.

 

I'm a member of a lot of forums and that's something that happens in all the other places. I wasn't aware of that difference here. You could have just typed the first part of your post and left off the second.

 

Honestly, I don't get the underlying hostility here.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

These guys are just clownin' around,they have nothing better to do

[comix4fun]

So is it cricket when someone does this to post in their sales thread something along the lines of: "Thanks for the CLink sales data. Do you happen to also have the GPA sales data?"

 

Edited to add: A bunch of posts materialized between the post I was responding to and this post. The post I was responding to mentioned someone who referred to GPA data in his selling thread most of the time but switched to Clink when the prices were higher there.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

If it happened and it was for the same issue in the same grade is it NOT relevant?

 

People have been letting folks get away with posting GPA for raw books without a peep, so I wonder how quoting actual slabbed sales of the same issue is something to get twisted over.

[divad]

Once again, loose grading abounds . . . it's starting to look like eBay again.

 

 

 

And what's worse is, buyers & lookers seem to be embracing it

[revat]

I think you can post whatever comparative data you want, as long as it's honest, I'm cool. Even if its different within the same sales thread (just make it clear you're doing so). The potential buyer (especially the higher the dollar value items) can decide how much to consider the information provided.

[divad]

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

Quite often.

[revat]

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

Quite often.

 

Correct. SO I personally don't put too much stock in it. But if you want to mention it while trying to sell it to me, I'm cool with it. If I find out you're the one who keeps 'selling' it at fake high prices on deals that never go through... that's less ideal.

[Sqeggs]

So is it cricket when someone does this to post in their sales thread something along the lines of: "Thanks for the CLink sales data. Do you happen to also have the GPA sales data?"

 

Edited to add: A bunch of posts materialized between the post I was responding to and this post. The post I was responding to mentioned someone who referred to GPA data in his selling thread most of the time but switched to Clink when the prices were higher there.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

If it happened and it was for the same issue in the same grade is it NOT relevant?

 

People have been letting folks get away with posting GPA for raw books without a peep, so I wonder how quoting actual slabbed sales of the same issue is something to get twisted over.

 

I think that if you are quoting sales data, you should give the complete picture. Quote it the way you would want it quoted if you were the buyer.

[seanfingh]

Once again, loose grading abounds . . . it's starting to look like eBay again.

 

 

 

And what's worse is, buyers & lookers seem to be embracing it

 

The threadcrapping rules make it impossible to even hint that someone's grading sucks.

[divad]

Once again, loose grading abounds . . . it's starting to look like eBay again.

 

 

 

And what's worse is, buyers & lookers seem to be embracing it

 

The threadcrapping rules make it impossible to even hint that someone's grading sucks.

 

Unless you say something like, "Is that a 1/2" chip out of the BEBC?"

 

or maybe, "Are those creases along the spine? Or scanner artifacts?

[comix4fun]

So is it cricket when someone does this to post in their sales thread something along the lines of: "Thanks for the CLink sales data. Do you happen to also have the GPA sales data?"

 

Edited to add: A bunch of posts materialized between the post I was responding to and this post. The post I was responding to mentioned someone who referred to GPA data in his selling thread most of the time but switched to Clink when the prices were higher there.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

If it happened and it was for the same issue in the same grade is it NOT relevant?

 

People have been letting folks get away with posting GPA for raw books without a peep, so I wonder how quoting actual slabbed sales of the same issue is something to get twisted over.

 

I think that if you are quoting sales data, you should give the complete picture. Quote it the way you would want it quoted if you were the buyer.

 

 

As a buyer, I don't rely on the information provided by the seller as to his opinion of the value of his item. I have a pretty good idea that he's going to want the most he can get for that item regardless of how complete or incomplete the picture he paints.

 

If he said something like "These are all the sales" and only quoted clink it would be a problem for me. If he said "by the way a copy sold on Clink for $X" that doesn't strike me as incorrect unless he misstates the numbers.

[divad]

Once again, loose grading abounds . . . it's starting to look like eBay again.

 

 

 

And what's worse is, buyers & lookers seem to be embracing it

 

Pretty soon we'll start seeing photos of stacks of books - eBay sellers' latest scam technique

[Sqeggs]

So is it cricket when someone does this to post in their sales thread something along the lines of: "Thanks for the CLink sales data. Do you happen to also have the GPA sales data?"

 

Edited to add: A bunch of posts materialized between the post I was responding to and this post. The post I was responding to mentioned someone who referred to GPA data in his selling thread most of the time but switched to Clink when the prices were higher there.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

If it happened and it was for the same issue in the same grade is it NOT relevant?

 

People have been letting folks get away with posting GPA for raw books without a peep, so I wonder how quoting actual slabbed sales of the same issue is something to get twisted over.

 

I think that if you are quoting sales data, you should give the complete picture. Quote it the way you would want it quoted if you were the buyer.

 

 

As a buyer, I don't rely on the information provided by the seller as to his opinion of the value of his item. I have a pretty good idea that he's going to want the most he can get for that item regardless of how complete or incomplete the picture he paints.

 

If he said something like "These are all the sales" and only quoted clink it would be a problem for me. If he said "by the way a copy sold on Clink for $X" that doesn't strike me as incorrect unless he misstates the numbers.

 

If we take a buyer beware approach, then I guess it's anything goes. I don't know the specifics of the listing that started this exchange but I have certainly seen people quoting sales data that is seriously misleading, if technically still correct. For instance, quoting only an outlier sale from GPA that is well above the 90-day and 12-month averages.

 

The more honest approach, it seems to me, and one that some sellers follow, is to say something like this: "The most recent CLink (or GPA) sale was $400. The 12-month average is $320, but this book is getting hot (or is a very nice copy for the grade or whatever), so I'm asking $375."

 

You are quite right that buyers have a responsibility to be informed and to investigate sales data for themselves. But, again, I think the test for a seller is: Am I presenting sales data in the way I would want it presented were I the buyer?

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Once again, loose grading abounds . . . it's starting to look like eBay again.

 

 

 

And what's worse is, buyers & lookers seem to be embracing it

 

The threadcrapping rules make it impossible to even hint that someone's grading sucks.

 

Unless you say something like, "Is that a 1/2" chip out of the BEBC?"

 

or maybe, "Are those creases along the spine? Or scanner artifacts?

 

[Speedy-D]

Once again, loose grading abounds . . . it's starting to look like eBay again.

 

 

 

And what's worse is, buyers & lookers seem to be embracing it

 

The threadcrapping rules make it impossible to even hint that someone's grading sucks.

I know. Sometimes it's so hard to hold your tongue!

[miraclemet]

So is it cricket when someone does this to post in their sales thread something along the lines of: "Thanks for the CLink sales data. Do you happen to also have the GPA sales data?"

 

Edited to add: A bunch of posts materialized between the post I was responding to and this post. The post I was responding to mentioned someone who referred to GPA data in his selling thread most of the time but switched to Clink when the prices were higher there.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

If it happened and it was for the same issue in the same grade is it NOT relevant?

 

People have been letting folks get away with posting GPA for raw books without a peep, so I wonder how quoting actual slabbed sales of the same issue is something to get twisted over.

 

I dont dispute that CLINK is a valid market reference. I dont like when a seller picks and choses his reference points within a sales thread. Someone posting GPA references for some books, "last CLINK sale" for others, and then "last recorded sale in GPA" for others is cherry picking data. I have a GPA subscription and seeing how that data is misused while being posted as reference in a sale is at least slightly sketchy.

 

Now if theres no GPA data, and you reference CLINK thats different. I believe the last time I was around when someone started posted GPA reference for raw books I PMed the guys ear off...

 

what rankles me is someone selling a book with a 12 mo GPA of $70, a 90 day GPA of $90 with a last sale of $150 (outlier) and then listing it here as "$120 (last GPA sale $150) when they've referenced the GPA averages elsewhere in their thread. (Oh and there's been a subsequent sale of that book back at the $90 level so it wasnt a market swell, just a dunderhead hitting an outlandish BIN.

 

as others said buyer beware, and only trust the market info in a sales thread as far as you can throw it.

[comix4fun]

So is it cricket when someone does this to post in their sales thread something along the lines of: "Thanks for the CLink sales data. Do you happen to also have the GPA sales data?"

 

Edited to add: A bunch of posts materialized between the post I was responding to and this post. The post I was responding to mentioned someone who referred to GPA data in his selling thread most of the time but switched to Clink when the prices were higher there.

 

I'm not sure I understand why this rankles people.

 

So did the Clink sale NOT happen?

 

If it happened and it was for the same issue in the same grade is it NOT relevant?

 

People have been letting folks get away with posting GPA for raw books without a peep, so I wonder how quoting actual slabbed sales of the same issue is something to get twisted over.

 

I dont dispute that CLINK is a valid market reference. I dont like when a seller picks and choses his reference points within a sales thread. Someone posting GPA references for some books, "last CLINK sale" for others, and then "last recorded sale in GPA" for others is cherry picking data. I have a GPA subscription and seeing how that data is misused while being posted as reference in a sale is at least slightly sketchy.

 

Now if theres no GPA data, and you reference CLINK thats different. I believe the last time I was around when someone started posted GPA reference for raw books I PMed the guys ear off...

 

what rankles me is someone selling a book with a 12 mo GPA of $70, a 90 day GPA of $90 with a last sale of $150 (outlier) and then listing it here as "$120 (last GPA sale $150) when they've referenced the GPA averages elsewhere in their thread. (Oh and there's been a subsequent sale of that book back at the $90 level so it wasnt a market swell, just a dunderhead hitting an outlandish BIN.

 

as others said buyer beware, and only trust the market info in a sales thread as far as you can throw it.

 

I was just trying to get to what was nefarious in the situation. Mentioning a Clink sale with nothing else didn't seem bad. Picking the best data point to use is something I see a lot, it's clear from a few posts if that's happening.

 

Seeing selective price quoting always raises a red flag for me. That's why I tend to ignore the sales quotes from sellers that do that and check them out for myself.

 

 

[miraclemet]

yup, GPA pays for itself just in helping me know bad deals to avoid....

[AnhDepTrai]

For the loose grading books, can i copy and paste the picture to PGM section, it shouldn't violate thread crapping right? Or direct link to the sale thread of these books?

[comicdonna]

For the loose grading books, can i copy and paste the picture to PGM section, it shouldn't violate thread crapping right? Or direct link to the sale thread of these books?

Someone else's books? I wouldn't recommend it.

[miraclemet]

a direct link might be a bit gauche...

Edited June 17, 2013 by Miraclemet