Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Now hold on... I have auctions to be fierce in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Buzzetta said: I have sold books that were in purple labels at auction and people bid them up to unrestored prices. At no point did I feel the need to stop the bidding and reach out to the buyers. If people want to have a contest because they cannot read or educate themselves that is on them. I am not going to start a Master Class on YouTube on comics buying. Again... this guy may have engaged in shady practices in the past... there is nothing wrong with the Hulk 181 listing except that he should say it's restored for a fourth time and put it in the title. when I sell restored books I dont mention it specifically but I do say pls go to the CGC board and educate yourself on stuff so it's not like I'm being dishonest or trying to hide stuff- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlowUpTheMoon Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Based on the date the CGC book was graded, I'm assuming the seller was taking advantage of the CGC CrossOver promotion. Tedsaid and awakeintheashes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, BlowUpTheMoon said: Based on the date the CGC book was graded, I'm assuming the seller was taking advantage of the CGC CrossOver promotion. they should do a CGC/BLGC crossover label much like the superman vs the amazing spider man book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, BlowUpTheMoon said: Based on the date the CGC book was graded, I'm assuming the seller was taking advantage of the CGC CrossOver promotion. Yup... BTW... if anyone heard screaming and yelling coming from the East that was me as I was the underbidder for the piece of art I wanted... I bid $456 and it went for $481... I threw in a cushion bid while I was winning at $375 and someone threw that last minute bid in after I did. I gotta time my cushion bids better. ADAMANTIUM and Tedsaid 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, kav said: when I sell restored books I dont mention it specifically but I do say pls go to the CGC board and educate yourself on stuff so it's not like I'm being dishonest or trying to hide stuff- The guy clearly lists that it is restored... so... shrug... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Buzzetta said: The guy clearly lists that it is restored... so... shrug... look I'm just trying out my comedy material- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Buzzetta said: Yup... BTW... if anyone heard screaming and yelling coming from the East that was me as I was the underbidder for the piece of art I wanted... I bid $456 and it went for $481... I threw in a cushion bid while I was winning at $375 and someone threw that last minute bid in after I did. I gotta time my cushion bids better. yep it gets worse as the days go by and you are like if only I- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Winner... winner... chicken dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, Buzzetta said: Winner... winner... chicken dinner. you won a chicken dinner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, kav said: you won a chicken dinner? I didn't win the page I REALLY wanted... I was the underbidder at $456 to the winning bid of $481... However I took home two other pages I was very interested interested in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, Buzzetta said: I didn't win the page I REALLY wanted... I was the underbidder at $456 to the winning bid of $481... However I took home two other pages I was very interested interested in... cant wait to see em! Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceman399 Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Or if you resubmit the book a few times maybe it gets a blue label... (guy claims he pressed the book and corrected the spine) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Iceman399 said: Or if you resubmit the book a few times maybe it gets a blue label... (guy claims he pressed the book and corrected the spine) And people want both companies to start notating pressing when they detect pressing... Edited August 1, 2019 by Buzzetta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Buzzetta said: And people want both companies to start notating pressing when they detect pressing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Buzzetta said: And people want both companies to start notating pressing when they detect pressing... How do we know it's the same book? At least with the Tec #359, we have pictures of the book in each slab. Not here. Is it likely to be the same book? Sure. But without even that basic documentation, I wouldn't take it at face value. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it, if I just showed labels. Quote Jesse_O said: If you can look up the notes to get a date, why not share the rest of the notes?? That single factor has me convinced that it is because CGC does not note the grease pen. This whole discussion of "is it the same book or not" is pretty much squashed if they do. So the fact that the notes have not been shared tells me that it is not mentioned. Therefore, did CGC miss something as obvious as a grease pen??? Or was it removed?? I have worked with grease pens in the automotive market and I'm 99.9% positive that chemicals are needed to remove them. If you don't use chemicals, you'd need to do some serious scraping. As you correctly noted, J_O here is impugning your character, from a position of ignorance, suggesting that you 1. had the notes, and 2. purposely left them out because it didn't support your position (which you haven't even taken.) This is a great example of the impetuous childishness of the main CBCS forum moderator, and the reason why the board has the tone that it does: Jesse_O fits in well with the other children. Also as you correctly note, anyone with a serial number can find out when a book was graded...but notes have to be purchased by anyone who isn't the submitter. Quote Buzzetta said: I did not buy the notes so I am not holding any information back. I will take your comment not as one of a criticism of my character as to not raise unnecessary drama and chalk it up to the fact that you did not know that or I did not word my phrasing correctly. Indeed. Buzzetta 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedsaid Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said: This attitude is what I find the most shocking. If restoration exists, it is absolute. It's not a matter of opinion, like grading. If a book is trimmed post-production, it's trimmed, whether it was caught or not. If a book is color touched, it's color touched, whether it's detected or not. Same with tear seals. That doesn't mean they can't be undone...trims usually not, but CT and tear seals, sure...but if it is there, it is there. I am not suggesting that either company got it right OR wrong in this case when it came to detecting or not detecting all of this. But it's this "hey, let's see if you can send it back to CBCS and see if they miss it!" that is nothing more than gaming the system, which is why grading companies exist in the first place. It's one thing to disagree with a company's grading...within reason. It's quite another to send a book in that you know, or even that you're relatively sure, has restoration (rather than you can't tell) and "hope" that they miss it so you can then sell it to a dupe. The "gain" isn't legitimate...IF the resto is actually there...it's ill-gotten. That's crossing the line. No, it's not. I wouldn't try to "game the system" and I never said that I would. I'll tell you what IS crossing the line, though ... taking my quote from CBCS's forum and replying here and insulting me, with the expectation that I'll never see it or be able to refute it. That's pretty unethical, if you ask me. What I said was, "I would LOVE to buy that comic for $1000 and send it to CBCS, on the greater-than-50%-chance CGC "spotted" resto that isn't there. (Well ... greater than 50% chance in my opinion.) That would definitely be worth a gamble." Whether you agree with me or not doesn't really matter ... it is my opinion that CGC saw restoration that wasn't there, and that's what I said. It's just more likely that CGC screwed up in this case than CBCS did. My desire to buy the book and resubmit is drawn entirely from that assumption. But by pretending I didn't say that, and then drawing conclusions based on what you imagine is "really" going on in my head? That's pretty crooked. Strike two for you. Is it a sure thing that CGC saw resto that wasn't there? No. And that's exactly what I stated, which is based on my experience with both companies over the last three years or so. As far as the idea that "If restoration exists, it is absolute," that's a pretty naive opinion, actually. Needlessly - and falsely - unequivocal. Restoration is missed all the time; there are many examples of false positives, too. I recently had a copy of Monstress #1 come back a 9.8, as it should have. (This from CGC.) It was previously - and wrongly - graded a 9.2, due to "slight moisture damage." That's because the special ink they used in the cover has spots that show up under a black light. That, and carelessness, gave the book the wrong grade for a false reason. CGC misses things; CBCS misses things. It happens. Not much use pretending it doesn't. And that's just one example from my personal experience. Another person posted here the example with an ASM 121 - CGC thought it was trimmed when it wasn't. And there was the Spider-Dan JIM 83 example, too. And yet you still think "If restoration exists, it is absolute?" I think you just aren't paying attention. Edited August 1, 2019 by Tedsaid kav 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 38 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: As far as the idea that "If restoration exists, it is absolute," that's a pretty naive opinion, actually It assumes some perfect entity that never makes mistakes. Or that some things can always be detected. This is incorrect. Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockMyAmadeus Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: No, it's not. I wouldn't try to "game the system" and I never said that I would. Disagree. 3 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: I'll tell you what IS crossing the line, though ... taking my quote from CBCS's forum and replying here and insulting me, No one insulted you. You might have noticed, since you gave your hearty endorsement to the post announcing it, but I am banned from the CBCS forum, and cannot comment there. 3 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: with the expectation that I'll never see it or be able to refute it. That is an erroneous assumption on your part. On the contrary, one only need read both threads to discover that there were people posting in both threads who made it clear that both threads existed. I have nothing to hide, and I both hoped and expected people from both boards would read what I say, and, if they so chose, attempt to refute it. So, if you think you have a "gotcha!" on your hands, I would think again. 6 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: What I said was, "I would LOVE to buy that comic for $1000 and send it to CBCS, on the greater-than-50%-chance CGC "spotted" resto that isn't there. (Well ... greater than 50% chance in my opinion.) That would definitely be worth a gamble." Yes, and that is precisely what "gaming the system" is. CGC possibly could have "spotted" a trimmed edge (or 2) that weren't really trimmed. CGC perhaps could have "spotted" a tear seal that wasn't there. CGC could have "spotted" color touch that wasn't there. There's essentially no way (much less a "greater than 50% chance) they erroneously "spotted" all three, and there is, in fact, NO restoration on this book. CBCS dropped the ball, and did so badly. Suggesting that CGC missed all three, and that it was worth "a gamble" to hope that CBCS would also miss all three AGAIN is where the issue lies. In that case, you would be hoping that CBCS would miss not one, not two, but THREE different types of detected restoration that CGC detected, which is so unlikely as to be functionally impossible. That said, however...your point is taken. You didn't actually say you hoped that CBCS would miss restoration that was actually there, but that CGC saw what wasn't there, not once, not twice, but three times. The total unlikeliness of that happening is where you come right to the very edge of the line, but fair enough...I concede your point. 22 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: Whether you agree with me or not doesn't really matter ... it is my opinion that CGC saw restoration that wasn't there. That CGC can see one form of restoration that isn't there is a fair point. That CGC can see THREE forms of restoration that isn't there is not. 23 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: It's just more likely that CGC screwed up in this case than CBCS did. No. 24 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: My desire to buy the book and resubmit is drawn entirely from that assumption. But by pretending I didn't say that, and then drawing conclusions based on what you imagine is "really" going on in my head? That's pretty crooked. Strike two for you. That's still the same "strike", and I concede that your argument came right up to the very edge of the line, but didn't cross it. I make no claims about what is "really" going on in your head, and never did. I based my comments on what you wrote. You have explained your rationale, so there you have it. A simple explanation, without the sturm und drang, would also have sufficed. 31 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: As far as the idea that "If restoration exists, it is absolute," that's a pretty naive opinion, actually. Needlessly - and falsely - unequivocal. That is incorrect, and it is not an opinion. Either restoration exists or it does not. It is not a matter of opinion. While it may be difficult to detect, and even experts may disagree if it is there, the fact is, if someone, at some point in the book's history, purposely (that's the key word, there) tried to make the book look better by using one of the restorative techniques...in this case, trimming, tear seals, and color touch..,then the book is, by definition, restored. 33 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: Restoration is missed all the time; there are many examples of false positives, too. As I said before...whether it is detected or not doesn't matter. It either exists...it happened...or it did not. There's no "grey area" with restoration; either someone intentionally did something to improve the look of the book at some point, or it's not restored. 35 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: I recently had a copy of Monstress #1 come back a 9.8, as it should have. (This from CGC.) It was previously - and wrongly - graded a 9.2, due to "slight moisture damage." That's because the special ink they used in the cover has spots that show up under a black light. That, and carelessness, gave the book the wrong grade for a false reason. CGC misses things; CBCS misses things. It happens. Not much use pretending it doesn't. You're not understanding the point. It's not about "missing" things, or "seeing" things that aren't really there. With restoration, either it is or it isn't. There is no middle ground. If a company misses it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a company "FINDS" it, that doesn't mean it DOES exist. Nobody disputes that CGC and CBCS miss things. It is their consistency and expertise that is what matters, and, as of now, CGC's far outweighs CBCS'. 37 minutes ago, Tedsaid said: And that's just one example from my personal experience. Another person posted here the example with an ASM 121 - CGC thought it was trimmed when it wasn't. And there was the Spider-Dan JIM 83 example, too. And yet you still think "If restoration exists, it is absolute?" I think you just aren't paying attention. That's because you didn't understand what I wrote. You're still referring to examples that were missed. Restoration either exists or it doesn't. Whether it is detected or not doesn't change that. It is absolute. Dan's JIM #83? It is restored or it isn't. CGC going back and forth doesn't change ITS status. Same with namisgr's ASM #121. Hopefully, my explanation is sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Quantum mechanics would refute that things 'exist' independently of observation. Tedsaid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
