ASM 12 CGC 9.4 ON EBAY NOW ..Undisclosed writing okay or not?

[FlyingDonut]

Wow I am sure you felt terrible about the price of the book doubling like that. Didn't essentially take advantage of the seller? Did you offer to pay him the "real" value of the book?

 

I'll reckon he didn't!

[comicwiz]

Didn't essentially take advantage of the seller? Did you offer to pay him the "real" value of the book?

 

No.

 

I took advantage of the seller? The book was a relist (I discovered later) and this guy had already been through the hassle of a refund and return. I was his next victim. Take a guess why the book was returned the first time? The fact that is when I mentioned how I was displeased with his lack of communicating the defects and mentioned the possibility of a refund, HE offered to refund half my money. I'm guessing the guy had made enough money on the comic to have even made such an offer. Was I wrong to accept his offer? Was I supposed to turn that down?

[FlyingDonut]

Was I wrong to accept his offer? Was I supposed to turn that down?

 

That, by the way, is the crux of the infamous "you're ripping off little old ladies" argument from a couple of months ago. My answer is, basically, no, you're fine.

[clobberintime]

I was just playing devil's advocate. We hear so much about buyers being ripped off. Sounds like a lot of buyers are ok with deals when they are looking to hit the lottery - and that usually only happens when one party has a much greater knowledge than the other - but let something be a little wrong the other way, and the buyer starts whining. Fraud can run both ways. I don't really think there is a thing wrong with your deal either but you are the one that pointed out how happy you were because the guide doubled.

[clobberintime]

To get back to the original theme of this post, I was looking around last night and came across a cgc 8.0 Tales of Suspense 39 selling for $2900 on a certain dealers website. I looked at the scan and what do you see but in large letters just above Iron Man in the middle of the book but a pencil date stamp. Now that bothers me. The dealer had it disclosed and all but what bothers me is the cgc grade. A giant marking in the middle of the artwork obviously detracts from the visual aesthetics and I wonder how on earth it got graded an 8.0 - something like that would be about a 6.0 in my book. Had the mark been in the corner or on the back, no problem but right in the middle? I think with these kinds of things, you have to take into account factors like location, size, intrusiveness into artwork, severity, marker type etc. That's why i find a pencil mark on the back inconsequential.

[blazingbob]

CGC grades STRUCTURE, they have gone back and forth on eye appeal. What you are stating is that the book structurely looks like a 8.0 but has the eye appeal of a Fine due to the writing on the cover. I find Stan Lee and Jack kirby autographs written across a cover very unsettling which brings up the Autograph vs writing debate. Writing is writing if you ask me but thank you for stating that I disclosed it

[joe_collector]

>>which brings up the Autograph vs writing debate.

 

Which gets even more bizarre now that CGC has gone into the autograph business, and one now rates a Qualified while the other doesn't even get a freaking notation anymore.

[OldGuy]

"A giant marking in the middle of the artwork obviously detracts from the visual aesthetics and I wonder how on earth it got graded an 8.0 - something like that would be about a 6.0 in my book."

 

Elitist.

[comicwiz]

Was I wrong to accept his offer? Was I supposed to turn that down?

 

The only thing I wished I'd included with that comment: "Was I wrong to accept his offer? Was I supposed to turn that down?" [said using the best George Costanza impersonation, after his boss found out he slept with the cleaning lady]

[comicwiz]

Had the mark been in the corner or on the back, no problem but right in the middle? I think with these kinds of things, you have to take into account factors like location, size, intrusiveness into artwork, severity, marker type etc. That's why i find a pencil mark on the back inconsequential.

 

I guess it comes down to buyer/collector preference. I'm not a big fan of autographed books, and I think that a defect like pencil marks are bearable, provided they are disclosed, and the properties of the markings have no corrosive properties (ie. ink or oil-based). I find defects such as tanning and rusting of staples to be a severe problem if not disclosed, as these types of defects could lead to further deterioration of the comic. Making an informed decision about purchasing a comic which requires special attention towards its conservation is why full disclosure with defects that can degrade the condition of the comic is essential.

[comicwiz]

I was just playing devil's advocate. We hear so much about buyers being ripped off. Sounds like a lot of buyers are ok with deals when they are looking to hit the lottery - and that usually only happens when one party has a much greater knowledge than the other - but let something be a little wrong the other way, and the buyer starts whining. Fraud can run both ways. I don't really think there is a thing wrong with your deal either but you are the one that pointed out how happy you were because the guide doubled.

 

clobberintime

 

I think you misconstrued my comments. I was hardly dancing and parading the fact I scored on the deal. It was a stroke of luck that the GS X-Men doubled in the guide later that year. Its hardly worth noting that things were looking pretty grim when I felt I grossly overpaid the book because the fact remains, to people like you, I pulled-out of the transaction looking like sheriff of nottingham for the simple fact that the books value doubled. For the record, that was lucks last match struck, because we all know just as a gambler finds it affirming to let everyone know about their winnings, its rarer and far more ackward for the gambler to recount stories when they lose large.

 

The message I was trying to convey is that the seller felt my demeanour and manner deserved attention that went above and beyond his regular selling practices on ebay. I believe my feedback on that particular transaction and repeat business with the seller confirm this point. IF I had been an a-hole, negged him, and tormented the guy with a barage of insults by email, I'm betting that things would NOT have turned out the way they did. The lesson in my experience had more to do with how a level-headed attitude and kindness can sometimes go a long way, and not about ones self-indulgent commentary about hitting the jackpot.

[notch_top]

Since we are talking about back cover "defects" that you do not seem to mind about.

 

Just wanted your take on this book that you are bidding on

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2170278675&category=32747

 

BEAUTIFUL copy...but from the back cover scan looks like there has been some damage caused by the CGC holder well. URC, appears to be indented at the well "NOTCH" and along the top edge ending at the opposite "NOTCH"

 

An issue that I have discussed in great length in previous threads.

 

This particular issue appears to have very slight damage done, but I doubt that was present prior to grading.

 

Perhaps I am mistaken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[clobberintime]

Thank God ComicLink outbid me on it. He can now deal with the damaged goods.

[uclapeterg]

Is it just me or does there seem to be small tears on the top of the front cover too? esp toward the middle?

[OldGuy]

Hey, it's on the back of the book so who cares?

[ArAich]

Hey, it's on the back of the book so who cares?

 

You know....that's pretty much my opinion on this also....if there is a date stamp or writing on the front cover I immediatly steer away from it as I can't stand the cover art to be defaced (even if it is in the logo box)....but if it is on the back cover....who cares?....it's only an add back there anyway so whats' the diff....

[supapimp]

hey brian,

 

i love your new avatar!

 

pimpy, AKA the "shill bidder"

[OldGuy]

Thanks!