BeatleBlueCat DEFRAUDING BUYERS with Massive SHILL BIDDING and Same old "Buy CGC graded 7.5, crack and sell as raw "NM" scam 10 10

[The Less Blob]

18 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

One key word missing. Consistently underpromising. These incidents are not few and far between. It's the other way around, including the most egregious element of all; shill bidding and bid retracting, to the tune of 700+ incidents per month on average. It's also not minor under-promising. He's buying 2.0 and grading them VF+ to NM- .And again, photoshop plays a major part in all listings, if not to fill corners and touch up images, the extreme brightness and contrast to disguise the flaws that he doesn't have the time to touch-up. 

 

"It's also not minor under-promising. He's buying 2.0 and grading them VF+ to NM- ."  I am not here to defend the bad seller, but as I explained in a prior post, you're unintentionally mischaracterizing one of those transactions. The original seller in question lists ALL of his books as "Good" "or better", even the NM moderns, and says they could have a host of defects, not that they do have those defects. He is undergrading to be safe and avoid hassles, I assume. And he gets good $ for his books. I think you are right to point this guy out (the re-seller) and target him for his scammery, but I think when one does that they should be very careful not to spin it, even if unintentionally. The Batman lot did not necessarily consist of 2.0s. That's just not accurate. It's the kind of spinning, or overselling your poiont, as a lawyer, I would go holy war on in a brief  or cross-examination on to discredit the accuser.

 

[kav]

24 minutes ago, the blob said:

This is kind of the opposite. If I put money in your pocket without you asking it probaby isn't theft like if I took the money out.

[James J Johnson]

33 minutes ago, the blob said:

"It's also not minor under-promising. He's buying 2.0 and grading them VF+ to NM- ."  I am not here to defend the bad seller, but as I explained in a prior post, you're unintentionally mischaracterizing one of those transactions. The original seller in question lists ALL of his books as "Good" "or better", even the NM moderns, and says they could have a host of defects, not that they do have those defects. He is undergrading to be safe and avoid hassles, I assume. And he gets good $ for his books. I think you are right to point this guy out (the re-seller) and target him for his scammery, but I think when one does that they should be very careful not to spin it, even if unintentionally. The Batman lot did not necessarily consist of 2.0s. That's just not accurate. It's the kind of spinning, or overselling your poiont, as a lawyer, I would go holy war on in a brief  or cross-examination on to discredit the accuser.

 

The Batman lot is only one example of many. I used it to illustrate. He typically buys books other ebay raw sellers have described as Good to others listed as Fine, that range of grades, and then relists as VF+s to NM+s mentioning nothing about the missing or detached centerfolds, splits, and what have you that would understandably keep the book well below Fine. Look at the description for the Batman lot. That seller describes the books as averaging "good", with an assortment of the major grade killing flaws I just mentioned. I'm not embellishing. There's no need to. The evidence is damning enough on its own merits, good luck to anyone wishing to sweep it under the rug, you'll need a big broom for that and a big rug. And beside, the major issue, the illegal one, is the massive fraud via massive shill bidding. or do you not consider 700 shill bids on your own items in the course of one month alone an issue? The overgrading and photoshopping are perioheral to the real criminal activity; shill bidding. Just an added little bonus to affirm that this is a crooked seller walking a crooked mile. Don't blame me for poitning this out. Blame him. But many here condone everything he is doing, it seems. What he's doing is no mystery to me. I see it all. The info I posted here is about 5% of the whole picture, the totality of it. The only mystery to me is why forum members approve of it and make excuses for him, and impune my integrity because of blowing the whistle on someone damaging hobbyists by illegal means, over and over and over again. Very puzzling. And even with my usually high-powered perception, I can't figure that one out, unless it's simply a case of condoning this and encouraging it due to a vested interest in the outcome. 

Anyway, I have a lot more to look at. I don't like putting away a puzzle that's been started but hasn't been completed.  

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, comicginger1789 said:

New indie series to watch out for...Something is Shilling the Children.

Only parshilly killing them and only commershilly in the Marshill Islands now.. 

[James J Johnson]

On 12/21/2020 at 8:13 AM, Pat Thomas said:

You're only a hero to yourself. Thousand dollar comics are a luxury. No watchdog needed.

I don't stoop to help a woman, child, animal, or someone in peril to be a hero. I don't do it for praise and I'll do it with a crowd, or on a deserted street. I do it because that's what I do, and I have no choice. If I tried not to, I wouldn't be me. I'm no hero. When I see someone in real need, if I can make a difference, I do it. I do what needs to be done, and if I can't, I locate someone who can, ASAP. That attitude and behavior is engrained and it's not my choice to act differently. 

[The Less Blob]

11 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

The Batman lot is only one example of many. I used it to illustrate. He typically buys books other ebay raw sellers have described as Good to others listed as Fine, that range of grades, and then relists as VF+s to NM+s mentioning nothing about the missing or detached centerfolds, splits, and what have you that would understandably keep the book well below Fine. Look at the description for the Batman lot. That seller describes the books as averaging "good", with an assortment of the major grade killing flaws I just mentioned. I'm not embellishing. There's no need to. The evidence is damning enough on its own merits, good luck to anyone wishing to sweep it under the rug, you'll need a big broom for that and a big rug. And beside, the major issue, the illegal one, is the massive fraud via massive shill bidding. or do you not consider 700 shill bids on your own items in the course of one month alone an issue? The overgrading and photoshopping are perioheral to the real criminal activity; shill bidding. Just an added little bonus to affirm that this is a crooked seller walking a crooked mile. Don't blame me for poitning this out. Blame him. But many here condone everything he is doing, it seems. What he's doing is no mystery to me. I see it all. The info I posted here is about 5% of the whole picture, the totality of it. The only mystery to me is why forum members approve of it and make excuses for him, and impune my integrity because of blowing the whistle on someone damaging hobbyists by illegal means, over and over and over again. Very puzzling. And even with my usually high-powered perception, I can't figure that one out, unless it's simply a case of condoning this and encouraging it due to a vested interest in the outcome. 

Anyway, I have a lot more to look at. I don't like putting away a puzzle that's been started but hasn't been completed.  

"That seller describes the books as averaging "good", with an assortment of the major grade killing flaws I just mentioned." As I have pointed out, he doesn't. I know, I am nit picking, it's the lawyer in me, but the seller doesn't actually say the books have those defects or that they are "Good," just that, potentially at worst, they could have those conditions. There is a distinction, because you are trying to convict based on the original auction listing. I am sure there is plenty of of other evidence to convict him on (and I am not using "convict" literally here), some of which I think you have also put forward. I'm not impugning your integrity, I think you're unintentionally reading things a certain way. The original seller lists ALL his books like this, regardless of their actual grades. I'm saying that were this a legal proceeding and the only claim against this guy was based on the wording in the original batman lot you reference, it would be a pretty straight forward to discredit your claims. That's all. Mind you, I don't doubt that the re-seller is overgrading and all of that, but it is not accurate to assume this was 2.0 to 8.0/9.0. 

[The Less Blob]

I'm giving out some free legal advice without calling it such. Take it. My usual rate is $650 an hour.

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, the blob said:

"That seller describes the books as averaging "good", with an assortment of the major grade killing flaws I just mentioned." As I have pointed out, he doesn't. I know, I am nit picking, it's the lawyer in me, but the seller doesn't actually say the books have those defects or that they are "Good," just that, potentially at worst, they could have those conditions. There is a distinction, because you are trying to convict based on the original auction listing. I am sure there is plenty of of other evidence to convict him on (and I am not using "convict" literally here), some of which I think you have also put forward. I'm not impugning your integrity, I think you're unintentionally reading things a certain way. The original seller lists ALL his books like this, regardless of their actual grades. I'm saying that were this a legal proceeding and the only claim against this guy was based on the wording in the original batman lot you reference, it would be a pretty straight forward to discredit your claims. That's all. Mind you, I don't doubt that the re-seller is overgrading and all of that, but it is not accurate to assume this was 2.0 to 8.0/9.0. 

OK. So let's assume that his grading is very fair. Even the 7.5 crackouts and photoshop that are listed as 9.4 and 9.6. I'll concede that. Let's pretend that CGC undergraded the majority of his purchases. For accurately graded books, BBC is the seller to buy from. What about shilling? He's just a victim of circumstance? It's all a big mistake? 

[James J Johnson]

2 minutes ago, the blob said:

I'm giving out some free legal advice without calling it such. Take it. My usual rate is $650 an hour.

OK, point taken. This is a seller of the highest integrity. Like most here, I can't speak highly enough. I was only kidding. Anything I posted, don't believe your lying eyes. 

[The Lions Den]

19 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

The Batman lot is only one example of many. I used it to illustrate. He typically buys books other ebay raw sellers have described as Good to others listed as Fine, that range of grades, and then relists as VF+s to NM+s mentioning nothing about the missing or detached centerfolds, splits, and what have you that would understandably keep the book well below Fine. Look at the description for the Batman lot. That seller describes the books as averaging "good", with an assortment of the major grade killing flaws I just mentioned. I'm not embellishing. There's no need to. The evidence is damning enough on its own merits, good luck to anyone wishing to sweep it under the rug, you'll need a big broom for that and a big rug. And beside, the major issue, the illegal one, is the massive fraud via massive shill bidding. or do you not consider 700 shill bids on your own items in the course of one month alone an issue? The overgrading and photoshopping are perioheral to the real criminal activity; shill bidding. Just an added little bonus to affirm that this is a crooked seller walking a crooked mile. Don't blame me for poitning this out. Blame him. But many here condone everything he is doing, it seems. What he's doing is no mystery to me. I see it all. The info I posted here is about 5% of the whole picture, the totality of it. The only mystery to me is why forum members approve of it and make excuses for him, and impune my integrity because of blowing the whistle on someone damaging hobbyists by illegal means, over and over and over again. Very puzzling. And even with my usually high-powered perception, I can't figure that one out, unless it's simply a case of condoning this and encouraging it due to a vested interest in the outcome. 

Anyway, I have a lot more to look at. I don't like putting away a puzzle that's been started but hasn't been completed.  

You're absolutely right JJJ. There is no way to justify this type of behavior. To me, you're doing this community a big favor and you should be commended for shining a light on this shady seller. And anyone here who practices or condones this type of behavior isn't someone I want to be associated with...

[The Less Blob]

Just now, James J Johnson said:

OK. So let's assume that his grading is very fair. Even the 7.5 crackouts and photoshop that are listed as 9.4 and 9.6. I'll concede that. Let's pretend that CGC undergraded the majority of his purchases. For accurately graded books, BBC is the seller to buy from. What about shilling? He's just a victim of circumstance? It's all a big mistake? 

Dude, I am assuming he is overgrading, I am just nit picking one piece of evidence you cite. As pointing out ebay evil doers is an important hobby to you, I want to help you make your arguments and evidentiary presentations perfect.

 

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, the blob said:

Dude, I am assuming he is overgrading, I am just nit picking one piece of evidence you cite. As pointing out ebay evil doers is an important hobby to you, I want to help you make your arguments and evidentiary presentations perfect.

 

There's really no presentation, and to be honest what was presented here is only a tiny taste of the whole. With my knowledge of the hobby, instincts, and savvy, I know right where to look for info in a minute that might take another all day to locate. I work very quickly. There's so much more, but as stated, a taste to make hobbyists aware by citing just a few examples. . 

You know, nothing ever completely disappears from the web. Even if it's gone from the 5% of the web that we typically use, there's as much cached in the deep web as there is dark matter, what we can't usually see in relation to the immediately visible universe. I can see well past the 90 day typical ebay window to review auctions from years ago, let alone the past 3 months. This was just a taste. A snippet of the whole. If you know how to find and interpret it, everything is somewhere on the full web. 

[James J Johnson]

10 minutes ago, the blob said:

Dude, I am assuming he is overgrading, I am just nit picking one piece of evidence you cite. As pointing out ebay evil doers is an important hobby to you, I want to help you make your arguments and evidentiary presentations perfect.

 

And again, the overgrading, cracking, photoshop is a side issue. The side order of mushrooms that goes with the steak. The shilling, and to this extent, is the 800 pound steak.

[The Less Blob]

5 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

And again, the overgrading, cracking, photoshop is a side issue. The side order of mushrooms that goes with the steak. The shilling, and to this extent, is the 800 pound steak.

Yes. Shill bidding isn't subject to interpretation.

 

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, the blob said:

Yes. Shill bidding isn't subject to interpretation.

 

See, we have common ground here. No mistaking that for puffery, and definitely illegal in NYC/NYS. 

[The Less Blob]

7 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

See, we have common ground here. No mistaking that for puffery, and definitely illegal in NYC/NYS. 

I think most of our ground is common, I had a very specific issue with one specific thing you cited. And mainly if I buy some severely undergraded lot and decide some of them are much better than advertised (or implied), which has happened, I'd prefer not to be accused of fraud. Unlikely to happen, but certainly possible.

[sledgehammer]

9 minutes ago, the blob said:

Yes. Shill bidding isn't subject to interpretation.

 

I was happy to catch him at this. I was a little worried that there was still some slim chance that I had found the lunatic fringe buyer that was for some reason absolutely enthralled with only this seller, accounting for the 100%.

That's why I was happy to note yesterday that such a large % of BBC's "feedback left for others (buyers) " during the last year was for the shill account.

Interestingly, his shill account won a $2,000 X-Men book several months ago.

No feedback for that one.

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, sledgehammer said:

I was happy to catch him at this. I was a little worried that there was still some slim chance that I had found the lunatic fringe buyer that was for some reason absolutely enthralled with only this seller, accounting for the 100%.

That's why I was happy to note yesterday that such a large % of BBC's "feedback left for others (buyers) " during the last year was for the shill account.

Interestingly, his shill account won a $2,000 X-Men book several months ago.

No feedback for that one.

You did great. Very important as the shilling is the illegal aspect of all the elements. 

[James J Johnson]

19 minutes ago, the blob said:

I think most of our ground is common, I had a very specific issue with one specific thing you cited. And mainly if I buy some severely undergraded lot and decide some of them are much better than advertised (or implied), which has happened, I'd prefer not to be accused of fraud. Unlikely to happen, but certainly possible.

I never misconstrued general flim flammery as illegal, like overgrading, photoshopping, etc,. Although The quite specific flim flammery of shilling is, especially the shills that affect the final price the buyer paid. Say he throws a few shill bidswhen the auction is young. His shill bids were $50, $60 on an item that ends at $1000. Harmless. But if he and another bidder are going after it, and they are the only two, and he keeps shilling him up, or beating him, then retracting, that's the kind of shilling that falls directly under Federal mail fraud codes to my understanding, the kind of shilling that puts him squarely in the crosshairs of penalties for fraud, and penalties assessed for civil restitution of the bidders affected.. 

[lizards2]

8 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

I never misconstrued general flim flammery as illegal, like overgrading, photoshopping, etc,. Although The quite specific flim flammery of shilling is, especially the shills that affect the final price the buyer paid. Say he throws a few shill bidswhen the auction is young. His shill bids were $50, $60 on an item that ends at $1000. Harmless. But if he and another bidder are going after it, and they are the only two, and he keeps shilling him up, or beating him, then retracting, that's the kind of shilling that falls directly under Federal mail fraud codes to my understanding, the kind of shilling that puts him squarely in the crosshairs of penalties for fraud, and penalties assessed for civil restitution of the bidders affected.. 

I thought shilling was regulated by state law? And that is why Heritage is located in Texas, where it isn’t illegal?