Should revealing a book's history be mandatory for a seller?

[esquirecomics]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

[VintageComics]

[THE_BEYONDER]

To clarify...my statements were made with regards to known 'manipulation' of a books CGC grade. I don't expect sellers to give me a complete recap of the book's history from newsstand until today.

 

Although.....OO collections due seem to be all the rage nowadays.

[nik]

Just agreeing with you, and yes Beyonder OO collection are the bomb, finding them are harder and harder.

[Scheradon]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

 

I agree. I stand by what I said in my earlier post. It's how I've handled every transaction where I've sold on eBay. I mostly deal in toys and collectibles and many times have disclosed even the slightest dent in say a Monopoly game, even though I knew other sellers probably wouldn't and that disclosing it would lower my sale. Believe me, I've gotten some pretty banged up games from sellers who hid the damage in their photos. I've even taken close up pics and paid the extra pic fees to show something as small as a tiny tear in the cellophane even though I could just stick to Unopened MIB (which would be correct as the game itself is mint in Box and unopened). But, because it might matter to a very picky customer I disclose it. I don't need to hide it and say..."Well, I would have told you about the dent and tear in the plastic if you had asked".

 

When I sold my raw Mads a long while back, I disclosed every defect in minute detail...1/8 inch creases, you name it. In all my transactions I've never had a return, neutral, or negative. I now have a large customer base whose confidence I have gained by my honesty and fair dealings that work completely off of eBay with me. Many of my repeat customers will also pay more to win items from me because of the trust I've built through honest dealings. So, I do believe the model of full disclosure will work when sellers establish a pattern of doing so.

 

Everyone can run their auctions how they want, but I prefer to think I've given the buyer the fairest shake I can.

[Darthdiesel]

(b) disadvantage your book because another copy is up for sale and the other seller discloses nothing

 

Disadvantage? A book that has been worked on to achieve the grade on the label should sell for less than one that wasn't.

 

Chris, you missed his valid point. The disadvantage occurs when you disclose the history on your book that has had "work" done to it, while the other seller who has a similarly worked on copy equivalent to yours in condition, decides not to disclose anything.

 

your point about what should sell for less (worked on vs untouched copy) is only valid in a market where all sellers are on an even playing field and practice full open disclosure and all collectors are of the same mind as you and reward the seller who fully discloses with their business. The problem is the reality of the market will never match the collector ideal for how the market should be run. Competition prevents this. Loyalties to dealers you've known and dealt with for a long time will keep buyers' business right where they are instead of going to the openly disclosing dealer.

 

So back to skybolt's question:

 

" Should revealing a book's history be mandatory for a seller?"

 

In an ideal marketplace, this would already be common practice. In today's marketplace climate, the answer is "no" because there is currently no policing body to enforce that the next seller reveals all they know and there is no way to prove if what any seller reveals is really all they know as well or if they are tossing the masses a few "scarificial lambs" to gain the buyers' trust and eventually sucker them in on other bigger ticket books that they conveniently chose not to disclose full history on.

 

If this give you a headache, take some Midol

[Darthdiesel]

Although.....OO collections due seem to be all the rage nowadays.

 

"OO collection" is another marketing tool, just like "pedigree" - I'm betting some of the books are not as OO as the sellers would like to have the folks snapping them up by the longbox, think.

[Forbush-Man]

If there's something to disclose (you know the book has had some form of inhancement)............Yes!

 

This position of "buyer didn't ask so I didn't tell" is bull.

[esquirecomics]

Mandatory is probably the wrong choice of wording b/c it will never be mandatory, unless I can get the darn FTC to declare it is just as it did with gemstones.

 

The question is more whether sellers should practice this policy and be persuaded to do so. I think they should, and I think those that do in the long run will be rewarded.

 

The law declares criminal lots of things, people still do it. Need we forget that selling drugs is unlawful. Yet look at the value of that market. So, should we sell drugs just because others disregard the law? Of course not.

 

Now, I obviously realize that the disclosure issues or practice we are discussing are generally not unlawful to withhold (depending upon the factual circumstances), but the basic point is that just because some people will not act a certain way doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't try to do so.

[Darthdiesel]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

 

While this revelation is all nice and good Mark, this is my problem. you, the "fully disclosing upright practicing" dealer has absolutely nothing in your inventory/website that would interest me. Meanwhile, Heritage, Pedigreecomics,

ComicLink, even Jason Ewert, all who have been brought up here time and again by forumites for questionable business practices, have the books I collect at the prices I want, at the grades I want, provide payment plans that I can use, etc. etc. Therein lies my collector's dilemma.

[esquirecomics]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

 

While this revelation is all nice and good Mark, this is my problem. you, the "fully disclosing upright practicing" dealer has absolutely nothing in your inventory/website that would interest me. Meanwhile, Heritage, Pedigreecomics,

ComicLink, even Jason Ewert, all who have been brought up here time and again by forumites for questionable business practices, have the books I collect at the prices I want, at the grades I want, provide payment plans that I can use, etc. etc. Therein lies my collector's dilemma.

 

Hey, I can work payment plans for you. I would probably own your soul, assuming there is one, but we can negotiate.

[Scheradon]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

 

While this revelation is all nice and good Mark, this is my problem. you, the "fully disclosing upright practicing" dealer has absolutely nothing in your inventory/website that would interest me. Meanwhile, Heritage, Pedigreecomics,

ComicLink, even Jason Ewert, all who have been brought up here time and again by forumites for questionable business practices, have the books I collect at the prices I want, at the grades I want, provide payment plans that I can use, etc. etc. Therein lies my collector's dilemma.

 

Yes, there lies the suck part. Doug has the 9.8 Winnipegs I love...what to do now? Chances are if I buy them down the road from some eBay seller, they will just be Doug's inventory passed through other's hands and at a mark up for their profit flip. It is a delemma.

[esquirecomics]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

 

While this revelation is all nice and good Mark, this is my problem. you, the "fully disclosing upright practicing" dealer has absolutely nothing in your inventory/website that would interest me. Meanwhile, Heritage, Pedigreecomics,

ComicLink, even Jason Ewert, all who have been brought up here time and again by forumites for questionable business practices, have the books I collect at the prices I want, at the grades I want, provide payment plans that I can use, etc. etc. Therein lies my collector's dilemma.

 

Yes, there lies the suck part. Doug has the 9.8 Winnipegs I love...what to do now? Chances are if I buy them down the road from some eBay seller, they will just be Doug's inventory passed through other's hands and at a mark up for their profit flip. It is a delemma.

 

Guys, the answer to your problems are so obvious they could not be any closer than in your face. Just start collecting what I have in my inventory!

[Ze-man]

 

Guys, the answer to your problems are so obvious they could not be any closer than in your face. Just start collecting what I have in my inventory!

 

OK , fine.

Start lowering your prices!

[esquirecomics]

 

Guys, the answer to your problems are so obvious they could not be any closer than in your face. Just start collecting what I have in my inventory!

 

OK , fine.

Start lowering your prices!

 

Hey, that can be arranged for Heritage purchased books! All one needs do is ask! So those who don't care about buying from Heritage, check out the site and take these books off my hands.

[Scheradon]

I'm more than willing to disclose all I know. I do it all the time. On the website. When asked. When not asked. I am a total straight shooter in handling transactions.

 

For those who care about this, frequent the dealers who act this way. Steer away from those who don't.

 

That policy will bring about the change.

 

While this revelation is all nice and good Mark, this is my problem. you, the "fully disclosing upright practicing" dealer has absolutely nothing in your inventory/website that would interest me. Meanwhile, Heritage, Pedigreecomics,

ComicLink, even Jason Ewert, all who have been brought up here time and again by forumites for questionable business practices, have the books I collect at the prices I want, at the grades I want, provide payment plans that I can use, etc. etc. Therein lies my collector's dilemma.

 

Yes, there lies the suck part. Doug has the 9.8 Winnipegs I love...what to do now? Chances are if I buy them down the road from some eBay seller, they will just be Doug's inventory passed through other's hands and at a mark up for their profit flip. It is a delemma.

 

Guys, the answer to your problems are so obvious they could not be any closer than in your face. Just start collecting what I have in my inventory!

 

What, no BA stuff?

 

[skybolt]

Mark,

 

Would you put the name of the original seller on your website? As others have mentioned, I have a problem with revealing the previous owner's name or their handle directly in an Ebay auction, or when consigning with ComicLink. I can easily resolve this issue on Ebay by placing a disclaimer at the bottom to have the person e-mail me for this additional information. However, the anonymous nature of ComicLink buyers vs. sellers makes this a little more difficult.

[LearnedHand]

Mandatory is probably the wrong choice of wording b/c it will never be mandatory, unless I can get the darn FTC to declare it is just as it did with gemstones.

 

Get the FTC to make disclosure mandatory? Okay, we’ve now gone down the rabbit hole and we’re in Wonderland. I think it’s common knowledge that the FTC was promulgated per the Constitution’s Article 2 Interstate Commerce Clause (for the regulation of interstate commerce). But disclosure relative to comic books? I’m curious about this notion of FTC regulation of disclosure, so can we explore this a little:

 

Gemstones – have objective qualities that can be measured, such as weight, color, clarity, cut, etc. In the ordinary course of business, raw stones are cut down to remove inclusions (like carbon spots) and to create the desired cut (shape). You start with a larger carat (weight) raw, unshaped stone and cut it down to remove defects and to create a finished stone. Ultimately, the finished stone is much smaller in weight and size than the raw stone (weight is one major price factor). The finished product has no stigma attached for any/all of the cutting, polishing etc. Disclosure makes sense here.

 

Comic Books – have qualities for which no objective standards of measure exist, only subjective measures. Comic books have a “restored” designation and any trimming, cleaning etc. create a (sliding scale) stigma, thus, a restored book’s value can be affected tremendously (unlike a gemstone) by these techniques. There is no objective measure for classifying degrees of restoration, just opinions. There is no objective or scientific way to discern all restoration. Thus, there is no way to confirm full disclosure.

 

What would the FTC require - each owner (as of the date the FTC mandates disclosure) to disclose what he knows? If so, this still leaves a chasm the size of the Pacific Ocean, unless you are Edgar Church, or the equivalent. If this is the notion (is it?), then I don’t see the same level of protection as with gemstones, even with such an FTC mandate.

 

The law declares criminal lots of things, people still do it. Need we forget that selling drugs is unlawful. Yet look at the value of that market. So, should we sell drugs just because others disregard the law? Of course not.

 

Now, I obviously realize that the disclosure issues or practice we are discussing are generally not unlawful to withhold (depending upon the factual circumstances), but the basic point is that just because some people will not act a certain way doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't try to do so.

 

Mark, with respect to your hypothetical, I don’t see it (or the point that follows) as analogous. The law is stated, and acts of dissension carry clear consequences. Irrespective of what criminals do, people follow the law for a multitude of reasons (and not just because of personal ethics or integrity). If the law were unclear, had no real consequences and no real way of tracking compliance (with ignorance being a complete defense), I have a feeling society would look a little different. It’s no secret that so-called law-abiding citizens steal music and cable TV, fudge on their taxes, and break the speed limit (among many other things). I think it’s clear that most people have boundaries, but it’s also clear that they bend the law per self-serving rationalizations. This is a normal human characteristic.

 

As I mentioned, I think it’s Pollyanna-ish to discuss what we think is a “good idea,” as the issue (as others have eloquently stated) is a level playing field. Voluntary compliance doesn’t get you there. You will have the gamut of 100% to 0% disclosure, and at the end of the day, you’ll know not which one you’re receiving from each dealer (regardless of dealer claims), thus, voluntary disclosure guarantees nothing.

 

In fact, you're good material for a hypothetical:

 

You promote yourself on these Boards as an honest dealer that provides disclosure in your sales. Taking everything you say as a given (and I have no reason to doubt even a single word), let’s change the facts a little for our hypothetical: let’s assume you simply make these claims on the Boards (a free forum) as a form of free advertising and marketing for your dealership. Further assume that you aren’t quite as forthcoming as you represent and usually sell books without full disclosure (or with partial disclosure). One out of every so many books will be returned when purchasers discover issues that you did not disclose. You would, of course, claim ignorance and offer a refund.

 

In this scenario, you’ve taken full advantage of a free networking opportunity and made less than truthful claims to steer business away from others and toward your dealership (from which you will have gained a tremendous financial benefit).

 

So the negative consequence is that people will eventually trust you less? I’m of the opinion that this would happen no matter what your publicly stated position - as soon as you sell a book (or two) that has undisclosed worked (regardless of whether you knew about it) and word gets out. Keep in mind that even if you're honest and miss something in your disclosure, your credibility will still suffer, or at least be in question.

 

My point is, there are no controls. And without controls, there is a fundamental flaw with disclosure, voluntary or otherwise.

[B-Smooth]

very good points.

[VintageComics]

Mandatory is probably the wrong choice of wording b/c it will never be mandatory, unless I can get the darn FTC to declare it is just as it did with gemstones.

 

Get the FTC to make disclosure mandatory? Okay, we’ve now gone down the rabbit hole and we’re in Wonderland. I think it’s common knowledge that the FTC was promulgated per the Constitution’s Article 2 Interstate Commerce Clause (for the regulation of interstate commerce). But disclosure relative to comic books? I’m curious about this notion of FTC regulation of disclosure, so can we explore this a little:

 

Gemstones – have objective qualities that can be measured, such as weight, color, clarity, cut, etc. In the ordinary course of business, raw stones are cut down to remove inclusions (like carbon spots) and to create the desired cut (shape). You start with a larger carat (weight) raw, unshaped stone and cut it down to remove defects and to create a finished stone. Ultimately, the finished stone is much smaller in weight and size than the raw stone (weight is one major price factor). The finished product has no stigma attached for any/all of the cutting, polishing etc. Disclosure makes sense here.

 

Comic Books – have qualities for which no objective standards of measure exist, only subjective measures. Comic books have a “restored” designation and any trimming, cleaning etc. create a (sliding scale) stigma, thus, a restored book’s value can be affected tremendously (unlike a gemstone) by these techniques. There is no objective measure for classifying degrees of restoration, just opinions. There is no objective or scientific way to discern all restoration. Thus, there is no way to confirm full disclosure.

 

What would the FTC require - each owner (as of the date the FTC mandates disclosure) to disclose what he knows? If so, this still leaves a chasm the size of the Pacific Ocean, unless you are Edgar Church, or the equivalent. If this is the notion (is it?), then I don’t see the same level of protection as with gemstones, even with such an FTC mandate.

 

The law declares criminal lots of things, people still do it. Need we forget that selling drugs is unlawful. Yet look at the value of that market. So, should we sell drugs just because others disregard the law? Of course not.

 

Now, I obviously realize that the disclosure issues or practice we are discussing are generally not unlawful to withhold (depending upon the factual circumstances), but the basic point is that just because some people will not act a certain way doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't try to do so.

 

Mark, with respect to your hypothetical, I don’t see it (or the point that follows) as analogous. The law is stated, and acts of dissension carry clear consequences. Irrespective of what criminals do, people follow the law for a multitude of reasons (and not just because of personal ethics or integrity). If the law were unclear, had no real consequences and no real way of tracking compliance (with ignorance being a complete defense), I have a feeling society would look a little different. It’s no secret that so-called law-abiding citizens steal music and cable TV, fudge on their taxes, and break the speed limit (among many other things). I think it’s clear that most people have boundaries, but it’s also clear that they bend the law per self-serving rationalizations. This is a normal human characteristic.

 

As I mentioned, I think it’s Pollyanna-ish to discuss what we think is a “good idea,” as the issue (as others have eloquently stated) is a level playing field. Voluntary compliance doesn’t get you there. You will have the gamut of 100% to 0% disclosure, and at the end of the day, you’ll know not which one you’re receiving from each dealer (regardless of dealer claims), thus, voluntary disclosure guarantees nothing.

 

In fact, you're good material for a hypothetical:

 

You promote yourself on these Boards as an honest dealer that provides disclosure in your sales. Taking everything you say as a given (and I have no reason to doubt even a single word), let’s change the facts a little for our hypothetical: let’s assume you simply make these claims on the Boards (a free forum) as a form of free advertising and marketing for your dealership. Further assume that you aren’t quite as forthcoming as you represent and usually sell books without full disclosure (or with partial disclosure). One out of every so many books will be returned when purchasers discover issues that you did not disclose. You would, of course, claim ignorance and offer a refund.

 

In this scenario, you’ve taken full advantage of a free networking opportunity and made less than truthful claims to steer business away from others and toward your dealership (from which you will have gained a tremendous financial benefit).

 

So the negative consequence is that people will eventually trust you less? I’m of the opinion that this would happen no matter what your publicly stated position - as soon as you sell a book (or two) that has undisclosed worked (regardless of whether you knew about it) and word gets out. Keep in mind that even if you're honest and miss something in your disclosure, your credibility will still suffer, or at least be in question.

 

My point is, there are no controls. And without controls, there is a fundamental flaw with disclosure, voluntary or otherwise.

 

And Beyonder, how does your head feel today?

BTW, LH, I agree.