LOCKED - OP request - CLOSED MODS PLEASE REMOVE IF POSSIBLE 5 5

[vaillant]

On 4/10/2022 at 4:48 AM, Chaz G. said:

This is where I'm stuck.

Dave, if you consider yourself an experienced grader, why didn't you contact Roger immediately when you thought his grading was off regardless of what you felt he was "guaranteeing" you?

Additionally, if you strongly felt it was a 7.0, while he thought it was a 9.0, why didn't you you take detailed pics and post it on the "Please Grade My" forum and get a consensus to share with Roger, before sending it to CGC?

It seems plain to me that you both share in the responsibility here.

I genuinely hope you can work this out.

This is also similar to what I was trying to say. Aside from Dave’s skills in evaluating grading, in this case  he wished to submit to CGC.

My opinion is that you are either satisfied by the book as is, compared to how Roger described it, or you more or less agree on perceived grading (again, pressing isn’t “magic”).

In both cases (“happy as is” or “sending to CGC for press & pro-grading”) the bottom line to me was whether the book in hand met expectations as far its price was set for the trade.

[wombat]

On 4/10/2022 at 3:45 AM, Poekaymon said:

I'd be on your side if it wasn't for the line where you said "on the slim chance you are not [happy] we can discuss it than and I promise to do what I can to make things right."  So, now he's not happy.  What do you honestly think "makes things right"?  If you were on his side of the deal, what would you want?    

As for "potential damages to my reputation," there won't be any, particularly if you guys just come back here and say it's resolved.  Which really shouldn't be that tough from what I've seen.

To me this was a huge mistake by the buyer. He should have made sure this was spelled out specifically. 

[shadroch]

The OP states he thinks $2800 would balance this out.  The seller agrees that some compensation is owed, but not nearly $2800.

I'd like the OP to put forth his reasoning behind his figure, and the seller to name a number he thinks is fair.  Then we will have a better understanding of where each is coming from.

As I understand it, the OP had the book in hand, with an attached cover. It came back from CGC with a detached cover. I'm not sure how that is on the seller.

 

That CGC or anyone grades a book with a fully detached cover anything over a 2.0 is bugfuggery at its worst.

Edited April 10, 2022 by shadroch

[Joshua33]

On 4/10/2022 at 3:17 AM, jimjum12 said:

Something no one mentioned, sometimes a CGC 6.0 is an 8.0 with a fingerprint, which further complicates a meeting of the minds in a trade scenario. If you want a raw to be slabbed, it's simplest to assign a "price per point" factor and finalize after the slabbing is complete, otherwise there will just be too many moving parts. GOD BLESS.... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

The devil's in the details. 

[Joshua33]

On 4/10/2022 at 3:48 AM, Ryan. said:

Arguable. 

Agreed, I already think less of Roger. Totally kidding, of course. I'm excited to see them pull it together on their scheduled phone call and put this thing to bed.

[Callaway29]

Gonna stir the pot here… If the book came back a 9.4, would a check be sent to roger to make up the difference? I don’t think so…

This whole arrangement was doomed from the start…

[Hudson]

Dave and Roger,

I do not know either of you personally.  As far as I know, I have not purchased books from either of you (although given the number of books I have purchased in my life, it is possible I have and I just don't remember it).  That being said, I hope you both can work this out on your phone call today.  If you cannot then I suggest that you both agree to binding arbitration as follows.

1) Arbitration should be done by a 3 person board whose decision is final.

2) The board should be made up of 3 mutually agreed upon people.  In a perfect world these 3 people should be as follows....

a) Long Standing Board Members in good standing (How long they have to have been on the boards is up to you.  Obviously no one on any of the "lists")

b) Preferably board members who do not have a personal relationship with either of you.

c) Preferably board members who have not done business with you in the past (who may have either a positive or negative recollection of those transactions).  I know this may be difficult to find as you both have likely done business with many board members.

d) Board Members who are generally well respected on the boards.  No one is probably liked by everyone, however, we all know that some board members tend to get into arguments and disagreements more than others; those should be avoided.

e) Board Members who have not already given strong opinions in this thread already (as they already now have a publicly expressed bias toward one side or the other).

I understand that finding three willing Board Members who are willing to come together and arbitrate this (and who fit ALL of the above) could be challenging.  I think the above would be the "gold standard".  If, however, you could find 3 people who fit MOST of the above and who you both could agree on, then that would be acceptable.

Both of you should then present any opinions or evidence that you have to the 3 members, allow them to ask questions as needed, and then agree to be totally bound by their decision.  I trust both of you to keep your word and to be bound by the outcome.  

The 3 members should hear all arguments, weigh the evidence, discuss among themselves what is the best resolution and then within 30 days or less, provide that decision to Roger and Dave.  The final outcome does not need to be disclosed to the boards in public.

This should be the end of the situation with neither Dave or Roger bringing it up on the Forum again (in a negative way), as to preserve the reputations of all involved. 

This is simply my opinion.  Again, I have nothing against either of you and I hope you find resolution and peace.

 

[JollyComics]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:41 AM, Domo Arigato said:

It was news to me when I found out a book with a detached cover could get at least a 5.0 blue label.......which I think is utter horse s**t and you can read my thoughts on it starting here.

 

That book has only one staple due to the metal shortage during WWII.   Baker book has TWO staples.

[Domo Arigato]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:02 PM, JollyComics said:

That book has only one staple due to the metal shortage during WWII.   Baker book has TWO staples.

I realize that.  But I don't care how many staples a book has.....a detached cover should never get a universal 5.0 grade.

Overstreet doesn't allow a fully detached cover in a book above 2.0 grade.

 

[JollyComics]

On 4/10/2022 at 2:36 PM, Domo Arigato said:

I realize that.  But I don't care how many staples a book has.....a detached cover should never get a universal 5.0 grade.

Overstreet doesn't allow a fully detached cover in a book above 2.0 grade.

 

I agreed with you.   CGC is taking soft on GA books than all other books in different ages.  We had grading contest here recently. Some GA books threw us off.

[Diamonddave]

Roger & I had a productive conversation this Sunday, which resulted in an amicable-fair resolution. Thank you to all of you, who commented and offered their insights and helpful advice.  Our final agreement on this matter closes this for both of us and we desire to keep the terms private & confidential.  This was not an issue of ‘gross-misrepresentation’ but of trust, which has now been fully restored.  We both look forward to our continued friendship and future conversations about comics and life in general.  In hindsight we should’ve been able to resolve this privately but as happens emotions can get the best of us. Lessons were learned and we are happy to now put this behind us and let it rest.  Amen.   

[Bird]

glad you guys worked it out

I hope the thread stays though

[Chaz G.]

[vaillant]

On 4/10/2022 at 10:00 PM, Bird said:

glad you guys worked it out

I hope the thread stays though

I agree that it can be helpful, but I understand the desire to remove it.
We all get carried away by passional responses, here and there, but I am glad that our discussion and attempts to understand better helped both to reconsider their position and reconcile.