The influence and effect of the CGC forum on Ebay selling 0

[James J Johnson]

We discussed this item yesterday in the Chadwick Boseman thread, when discussion turned to opportunistically vulturesque ebay sellers capitalizing on misfortune. I didn't want to clutter that CB thread with more semi-off-topic discussion of ghoulish ebay price gougers, so started a new thread on the subject.

This Chadwick Boseman signed (?) FF 52 has had its price reduced from $7500 to $5000, although still priced at about $4000 to $4500 more than its value, IMO. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/chadwick-boseman-signed-Rare-Fantastic-Four-52-Stan-Lee-Joe-Sinnott-PSA-COA/392923966758?hash=item5b7c17ed26:g:wNcAAOSwnd5fSlsU 

Note to Kav: What do you think of the Stan Lee and the Chad B. signatures? Curious.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

People took advantage of Stan Lee's death by jacking up his signed pieces price, too.

#BlackPantherRIP

[James J Johnson]

I always get a kick out of the strategy that a seller will choose when one of his items is mentioned on the forum that he'd really rather wish wasn't mentioned. 

mamcs-1 ended the original listing, the link of which was posted here in the lead post of the thread, and relisted it. He added a few lines to the description about his accepting a reasonable offer (i'll bet!), but basically, the listing is unchanged, nothing that he couldn't have accomplished editing by simply amending the existing listing. 

Why would mamcs-1 end that listing and start from scratch when an edit, using the revise function, would have sufficed? 

Because now the link for the re-listing is different than the one in the first post of this thread. Here's the new link for the relist: 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/chadwick-boseman-signed-Rare-Fantastic-Four-52-Stan-Lee-Joe-Sinnott-PSA-COA/392925349842?hash=item5b7c2d07d2:g:wNcAAOSwnd5fSlsU 

One thing remains exactly the same. Still no information on whre and when Chadwick Boseman signed it. I would think that for a $5000 selling point, he would include that information. 

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

On 8/31/2020 at 8:33 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

People took advantage of Stan Lee's death

... and Prince, Michael Jackson, etc. 

[90sChild]

Or, from another view,

Since this is a free market economy after all,

Perhaps they are taking advantage of people who are now suddenly willing to spend 10x as much for an autograph of someone that has passed that they didn't think twice about buying for 10% of the price just a week before hand.

I'm not for exploiting anyone's death, but it seems more like the people who are buying autographs at inflated prices are the ones being exploited.
 

[Buzzetta]

Actually moments after the Chadwick Boseman announcement was made, issue with the 1st Shuri shot up in price, and started selling immediately as the modern speculators swooped in.   I went through the sold listings to see for myself. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

41 minutes ago, 90sChild said:

Or, from another view,

Since this is a free market economy after all
 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! @90sChild 

[Djrodunchained]

Excuse my ignorance, but how does this seller have 100% positive feedback when there are several negative feedbacks due to nonpayment (as a buyer)?

[90sChild]

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

Actually moments after the Chadwick Boseman announcement was made, issue with the 1st Shuri shot up in price, and started selling immediately as the modern speculators swooped in.   I went through the sold listings to see for myself. 

Yeah it was funny how that had a history of being a $250-300 book in 9.8 then everyone started listing copies at $800 haha.  Moderns are overrated.

  

58 minutes ago, Djrodunchained said:

Excuse my ignorance, but how does this seller have 100% positive feedback when there are several negative feedbacks due to nonpayment (as a buyer)?

 

I believe the percentage is just a reflection of that past year's activity.

Edited September 1, 2020 by 90sChild

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, 90sChild said:

an autograph of someone that has passed 

And based on another view, this one the critical eye of a longtime autograph hound and long time student of handwriting analysis, IMO, the chances favor that the Chadwick Boseman name on that cover is not an autograph  of someone that has passed, which is further reinforced by the seller remaining mute as to where Chadwick signed it and when, an important particular that should be necessary for the sale of this piece to divulge. 

What I can tell you is that of all the Chadwick Boseman signatures I've seen with an unshakeable provenance, that is, eye-witnessed, not just an authenticator's opinion, there is one glaring atypical inconsistency about this particular signature, which I won't go into because I don't want to help the forgers correct a glaring tell.

Edited September 1, 2020 by James J Johnson

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, Djrodunchained said:

Excuse my ignorance, but how does this seller have 100% positive feedback when there are several negative feedbacks due to nonpayment (as a buyer)?

It's ebay's skewed feedback system heavily favoring the buyer. A buyer cannot receive a negative. A buyer can win 100 items from a seller, not pay for a one of them, never answer a message, and still, a buyer cannot be given negative feedback by a seller, even in such an extreme condition such as that. Unpaid item stirkes are a formality, in name only. They mean nothing, 3 strikes or 300 for non-payment. There is no weight, no enforcement by ebay, no penalty.  So in the cases you see in this seller's buying feedback, only the comments are negative in nature, indicating a habitual non-responding buyer. In order to make those negative comments, the sellers had to leave the buyer the only thing they could; a positive. So technically, though many times this seller has not performed as a buyer, a buying nightmare to his sellers, he has no "negatives" on his record. Ebay does not give a seller the option to neg a buyer. 

[Buzzetta]

26 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

It's ebay's skewed feedback system heavily favoring the buyer. A buyer cannot receive a negative. A buyer can win 100 items from a seller, not pay for a one of them, never answer a message, and still, a buyer cannot be given negative feedback by a seller, even in such an extreme condition such as that. Unpaid item stirkes are a formality, in name only. They mean nothing, 3 strikes or 300 for non-payment. There is no weight, no enforcement by ebay, no penalty.  So in the cases you see in this seller's buying feedback, only the comments are negative in nature, indicating a habitual non-responding buyer. In order to make those negative comments, the sellers had to leave the buyer the only thing they could; a positive. So technically, though many times this seller has not performed as a buyer, a buying nightmare to his sellers, he has no "negatives" on his record. Ebay does not give a seller the option to neg a buyer. 

That’s not entirely true that unpaid item strikes are a formality.  If you go to your requirements for bidders you control the threshold of allowable unpaid item strikes your potential buyer may have in order to participate.  It will also keep track of how many people have been blocked from shopping with you because of it.  

I know it is for real as one person messaged me last year to change my restrictions to allow them to make a purchase.  You would think that anyone in that situation would be too embarrassed to make such a request.  

Keep in mind though that this is community driven so these were not unpaid item strikes that I myself filed. Other people did this.  So the system can potentially work provided everyone does their part.  

Edited September 2, 2020 by Buzzetta