Nominating DavidtheDavid 1 1

[Mxwll Smrt]

Here's what the board also needs to be aware of - James opened a dispute with Paypal and I don't even have the book back. I will let Paypal decide what it believes occurred and didn't occur and report back.

[DavidTheDavid]

FWIW, I use my middle name, David, hence DavidTheDavid. James is my first name. I blame my parents for a lifetime of confusion.

[DavidTheDavid]

17 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

Here's what the board also needs to be aware of - James opened a dispute with Paypal and I don't even have the book back. I will let Paypal decide what it believes occurred and didn't occur and report back.

You prompted me to do so. Remember?

[Mxwll Smrt]

15 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

You prompted me to do so. Remember?

Really? 

 

[vaillant]

Honestly, I believe Randall’s hypothesis is the most consistent. Even if the book received was not coinciding with the pictures, I can’t see any reason to be derogatory towards David because of an apparent ”change of mind”. Even in case the interested party was malicious, this tone is arrogant and assumes things without any proof.

An example: a few years ago I bought on eBay, from a reputable dealer, a wartime Walt Disney Comics and Stories with a period shipping label on the cover tjat was very neat, together with other two issues. The first one was the one I cared most about, but since I get the books months after because US friends help me with shipping, I got them  a pair of months after.

Initially I did not check them in detail, and was super-excited as they looked great. But when I browsed them calmly I realized that my favorite one had panels cut out from the inside pages(!)

I was very saddened, it was late and I thought I could not contact the seller, but a friend which knows him advised me to do so.

When I did, he could have easily doubted my good faith, but he did not, and he agreed to refund me a 40% of the cost, and I kept the book. Outside of a framework of trust, this could have never happened.

So my question is: Maxwll, why did you suppose malicious intentions on David's part to begin with? From your replies, it’s clear you do not know him.

Second: David, I understand you were annoyed but why you got so defensive? There was no need for  this. The PayPal dispute becomes necessary when no agreement can be satisfactiously reached. Otherwise it’s just something unpleasant.

In this case it really looks like there is no fault on either part, as far as the book defects go. Couldn't it be possible that the damage, IF there was "intermediate damage" happened without awareness on neither the seller or the buyer's part? It certainly does not look like "capital damage" to me…

My bottom line is: books which are both expensive and pretty are  problematic and cause mischief: avoid them.

Kidding, but seriously I am sad this happened: calm down and I'm sure a solution will be found.

Edited June 24, 2017 by vaillant

[ChiSoxFan]

13 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

Really? 

 

I'm headed to work, and I really didn't want to add anything else other than what I said, but ... really?

That post you're using by DavidTheDavid in that PM chain, I guess to dispute that you "prompted" him to make a PayPal claim was posted a full hour after a previous reply of yours to him.  That reply in question you gave was,  (I'll simply type out the quote since I can't figure out how to do otherwise, but anyone can scan up this thread and read it clearly, posted an hour before the referenced quote above):

"You left kudos as well.  Feel free to start and AMEX or PayPal claim. I'm willing to dispute it." 

As in English major in college, I almost started to challenge your interpretation of "in hand" to be as specific as you claim it was.  ("In hand", unless otherwise elaborated on or specified about, could be easily interpreted to mean "The box is here and in my possession", "I'm holding the book in the mylar/sleeve/bag & board", "I've held it in said mylar/sleeve/bag & board and have put it up in my collection", "I'm actually holding it in my hands RIGHT NOW as I'm typing while reading it", or even more I could come up with).  

But in this case, it's clear from a reading of that email chain posted in this thread, he said he wanted to proceed with the refund that you had already agreed to (which by definition, would not need any "resolution" or involve any "dispute" since that would simply be either an amending of the original sales agreement to accept a return, or the beginning of a new agreement -- the return).  The escalating of the situation by referring to a handling of the dispute through a 3rd party was clearly stated by you first.  If you want to gain support towards your case, it would be best to work off of provable facts -- but misstating a timeline of what anyone can clearly read above isn't going to help that.

[Mxwll Smrt]

4 minutes ago, ChiSoxFan said:

I'm headed to work, and I really didn't want to add anything else other than what I said, but ... really?

That post you're using by DavidTheDavid in that PM chain, I guess to dispute that you "prompted" him to make a PayPal claim was posted a full hour after a previous reply of yours to him.  That reply in question you gave was,  (I'll simply type out the quote since I can't figure out how to do otherwise, but anyone can scan up this thread and read it clearly, posted an hour before the referenced quote above):

"You left kudos as well.  Feel free to start and AMEX or PayPal claim. I'm willing to dispute it." 

 

Oops. I missed that - you're right. Thanks. OK.

4 minutes ago, ChiSoxFan said:

As in English major in college, I almost started to challenge your interpretation of "in hand" to be as specific as you claim it was.  ("In hand", unless otherwise elaborated on or specified about, could be easily interpreted to mean "The box is here and in my possession", "I'm holding the book in the mylar/sleeve/bag & board", "I've held it in said mylar/sleeve/bag & board and have put it up in my collection", "I'm actually holding it in my hands RIGHT NOW as I'm typing while reading it", or even more I could come up with).  

But in this case, it's clear from a reading of that email chain posted in this thread, he said he wanted to proceed with the refund that you had already agreed to (which by definition, would not need any "resolution" or involve any "dispute" since that would simply be either an amending of the original sales agreement to accept a return, or the beginning of a new agreement -- the return).  The escalating of the situation by referring to a handling of the dispute through a 3rd party was clearly stated by you first.  If you want to gain support towards your case, it would be best to work off of provable facts -- but misstating a timeline of what anyone can clearly read above isn't going to help that.

That was my mistake. OK, so Paypal is going to decide.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Mxwll Smrt

[Ryan.]

6 hours ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

sc*muck 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

11 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

He has jumped to conclusions, made spurious accusations, and is working to damage my reputation on the boards...

I found this comment to be the most interesting. There must be a phrase or saying for when a person does something to someone, and then, later on, someone else does that same thing to the first person, but I can't for the life of me remember what that's called...

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

Oops. I missed that - you're right. Thanks. OK.

That was my mistake. OK, so Paypal is going to decide.

 

That's good that you admit that. We all make mistakes. Admitting them and correcting them is the thing that makes the difference.

That said, even with provocation, it's still not very classy to open a dispute before the item has been received back by the seller. At the very least, one should wait until the item has been received, and opportunity given to act, before filing a claim, even if goaded to it.

[DavidTheDavid]

I see where MS has edited three posts in this thread. I've made a point of grabbing these screens, so we'll see what changes he's made. Maybe continuity isn't just a Marvel issue.

[Paddy_McShillihan]

21 hours ago, FineCollector said:

Speaking to the damage, the bend is tough to see through the yellow of the front cover.  I daresay the buyer trusted the reputation of the seller, and graded the book through the bag when he issued kudos, just as the seller trusted the reputation of the buyer when offering a return.

Question: what's the difference in value between the 8.5 initially pictured, and the book as it sits with the creased corner?

Isnt  this book a $1500 book ? .... I would be checking the hell out of it before giving kudos..... Dont care who the seller is...

[Mxwll Smrt]

56 minutes ago, Paddy_McShillihan said:

Isnt  this book a $1500 book ? .... I would be checking the hell out of it before giving kudos..... Dont care who the seller is...

...and now you know one of the things that I just can't seem to accept... 

[wombat]

30 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

...and now you know one of the things that I just can't seem to accept... 

Yet you accepted a return on a $1500 book with no problems only to later change your mind. 

[thehumantorch]

22 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

James, first off, I apologize that I am leaning toward the seller here. I believe your side of the story and I respect you as a Boardie. I don't think either of you should be in the HOS over this. But IMO, and it is just an opinion, your acceptance of the book takes precedence over the return. Regarding nominating the Seller, I had a similar situation where I was the buyer and upon receiving the books immediately recognized they were overgraded. Since the seller stated he bought the books from Heritage, I looked up the Heritage grades and he indeed overgraded. He agreed to send me another book as compensation. I never got the book and tried to nominate him. The overwhelming consensus was he was guilty of bad service and overgrading but not worthy of a nomination. I think the same logic may apply here.

Who was that seller Bomber?

[telerites]

As others have said, it is a shame this has happened and I have interacted in some way with both parties, either in the marketplace or through another forum here.  All good interaction.  I am no lawyer and don't even pretend to be one here or after staying at a Holiday Inn Express but I do not see how either could definitively their argument as to where the damage occurred.   I personally could not vote one or the other. 

I do feel that both of you made hasty errors by submitting a positive response either from David when the book was first received or Eric when first asked about the damage and return.  In hindsight, it would be best to ensure that you review all and ponder a response before writing something.  Kind of like the "say it forget it, write it regret it" saying.

Good luck and either way, it is too bad such a nice book was damaged in any regard.

 

 

[jimjum12]

1 minute ago, telerites said:

As others have said, it is a shame this has happened and I have interacted in some way with both parties, either in the marketplace or through another forum here.  All good interaction.  I am no lawyer and don't even pretend to be one here or after staying at a Holiday Inn Express but I do not see how either could definitively their argument as to where the damage occurred.   I personally could not vote one or the other. 

I do feel that both of you made hasty errors by submitting a positive response either from David when the book was first received or Eric when first asked about the damage and return.  In hindsight, it would be best to ensure that you review all and ponder a response before writing something.  Kind of like the "say it forget it, write it regret it" saying.

Good luck and either way, it is too bad such a nice book was damaged in any regard.

 

 

I love both of these guys...... I keep wondering what alternate reality I've stumbled into where this is even happening..... GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Mxwll Smrt]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Yet you accepted a return on a $1500 book with no problems only to later change your mind. 

I was trying to avoid a confrontation and wasn't able to see the damage on the scans he sent when I initially responded. I thought he was "strange" and said ok only to realize what a fool I had been to say so.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Mxwll Smrt

[RockMyAmadeus]

Character...or its lack...is always revealed in testing. Some people go to great lengths to appear honest, decent, and fair-minded, but when the fire comes, they do not stand. Want to learn who someone really is...? Give little weight to their words, much weight to their actions, and pay close attention to how they treat people they do not like.

[thehumantorch]

3 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

I was trying to avoid a confrontation and wasn't able to see the damage on the scans he sent when I initially responded. I thought he was "strange" and said ok only to realize what a fool I had been to say so.

Here's the problem.  Both of you have sterling reputations and  assigning blame is impossible here, it's your word against his and both of you are credible and believable to me.

Determining how and when the book was damaged is impossible.