• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wow, don't you wish you had parent like this?

Started by batman_fan,

20 posts in this topic

Filter81

Filter81

Posted
Posted

If you check his past sales, he has recently sold a mid-grade Daredevil 2, a low grade Daredevil 3, and qualified Amazing Spider-man 95 that were all CGCed. Not only that, but in the descriptions in each auction he said they were all "Fresh from CGC" implying that he had the books CGCed himself.

 

If I were looking at these auctions, my first question would be who sends a low grade Daredevil 3 and an Amazing Spider-man 95 to be CGCed and then tries to sell a high grade Batman 2 and high grade Batman 11 raw?

 

Also if you look at his past sales, he knows that Daredevil 2 is the first appearance of Electro. He knows that Tales of Suspense 40 is where Iron Man's armor turns from grey to yellow. But when it comes to the Batman 2 and Batman 11 all he can say is he got them from his parents and he "doesn't know much about comics".

 

I recognize some of the buyers that have already left him positive feedback, and I believe that his previous auctions were all legitmate sales. (Possibly to get some positive feedback going before bringing out the more expensive items)

 

My guess is that on the Batman 2 and 11 the "I don't know anything about comics" part was added so that the seller can play dumb when the buyer receives restored books that aren't in the grade the buyers expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
showcase4

showcase4

Posted
Posted

1st there was the Action 2 auction, and now this.

 

The guys only been registered since last month, so he builds his feedback real quick and has plenty of comic knowledge with his low dollar recent sales, because those books he actually ships ( to get the positive feedback ). Now that he thinks he has peoples confidence, time to list about $10,000 worth of raw books, play dumb so we think we can get a good deal and all bid heavily, all the while he tries to make (steal) a quick buck ( or $10,000 ) at our expense because he has no plans to ship "the good stuff" now being offered...I don't think so!

This guy is bad news...... 893naughty-thumb.gif

 

 

(this scenerio is my opinion - not a statement of fact)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JuliusSeizure

JuliusSeizure

Posted
Posted
Also if you look at his past sales, he knows that Daredevil 2 is the first appearance of Electro. He knows that Tales of Suspense 40 is where Iron Man's armor turns from grey to yellow. But when it comes to the Batman 2 and Batman 11 all he can say is he got them from his parents and he "doesn't know much about comics".

Maybe he doesn't, because Electro first appeared in ASM #9. confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted

When you're concerned about a seller, It is better to use phrases like "red flags" than it is to imply you think the seller might be a thief and both of those are better than pronouncing the seller a thief as if the proof was already in. That skirts the dangerous waters of libel.

 

I have seen people list things with details about the content of lesser issues and no details about the content of others and if you check the overstreet guide you'll often find they are quoting it.

 

That doesn't mean there aren't red flags and that you shouldn't worry the seller has a plan, but to imagine that plan in detail and then to accuse them of doing precisely that as if you had more proof than your imagination could be unfair to the seller and even poitentially actionable.

 

Be careful out there --- in more ways than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comixlawboy

Comixlawboy

Posted
Posted

I sent him an email asking if there was any tape, tear seals, color touch, glue etc. on the books, and here is the response I received (complete):

 

"i don't know how. these things were in a trunk in my grandmas house that still had a outhouse. they were found under a ton of old bibles and old papers. i remember this trunk as a kid then my parents got it and it has sit unopen for as long as i can remember."

 

Decscription is a little too florid. Outhouse and old bibles and outhouses meant to evoke a more innocent time. Outhouse and Sears catalogie would have been a bit more beliveable. Am I just too skeptical? Some of these books look awfully tempting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
showcase4

showcase4

Posted
Posted
When you're concerned about a seller, It is better to use phrases like "red flags"

 

regarding this seller:

red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags

Link to comment
Share on other sites
showcase4

showcase4

Posted
Posted
I sent him an email asking if there was any tape, tear seals, color touch, glue etc. on the books, and here is the response I received:

 

trunk in my grandmas house

found under a ton of old bibles

 

red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags

red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags red flags

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Filter81

Filter81

Posted
Posted
Also if you look at his past sales, he knows that Daredevil 2 is the first appearance of Electro. He knows that Tales of Suspense 40 is where Iron Man's armor turns from grey to yellow. But when it comes to the Batman 2 and Batman 11 all he can say is he got them from his parents and he "doesn't know much about comics".

Maybe he doesn't, because Electro first appeared in ASM #9. confused-smiley-013.gif

 

lol that was my bad, not his. I meant to say second appearance. (Which is how he describes it in his listing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Filter81

Filter81

Posted
Posted
When you're concerned about a seller, It is better to use phrases like "red flags" than it is to imply you think the seller might be a thief and both of those are better than pronouncing the seller a thief as if the proof was already in. That skirts the dangerous waters of libel.

 

I have seen people list things with details about the content of lesser issues and no details about the content of others and if you check the overstreet guide you'll often find they are quoting it.

 

That doesn't mean there aren't red flags and that you shouldn't worry the seller has a plan, but to imagine that plan in detail and then to accuse them of doing precisely that as if you had more proof than your imagination could be unfair to the seller and even poitentially actionable.

 

Be careful out there --- in more ways than one.

 

Bluechip,

 

I know that you probably were not refering to my post when you wrote this (I never used the word thief, and also used the words "My Guess is") but I still feel the need to respond to this one.

 

This guy sent an Uncanny X-men 208 and 215 in to be CGCed for goodness sake. He knows that 208 is the first appearance of Nimrod! He knew to list the page quality noted on the label. He knew to mention the CGC serial number. He knew enough about comics that he was able to look up the CGC census and list in his auctions how many CGC graded copies have graded higher than his books and how many have graded lower.

 

But when someone asks him about the Batman 2 & 11 he responds that he knows nothing about comics and that these were found in a trunk in his grandma's house. (I guess the trunk just happened to have a few old Batmans from the 1940s mixed in with a few daredevils from the 1960s and a few X-mens from the 1980s?)

 

Are we really supposed to believe this guy came across an old trunk (that has been unopened for as long as he can remember) that just happened to have a Batman 2 sitting next to an X-men 215? And the guy then decided to CGC the X-men 215 and keep the Batman 2 the way it is? Are we supposed to believe that someone who doesn't know about comics would know his way around the CGC census? Or that it is more common knowledge that Uncanny X-men 208 is the first Nimrod than it is that Batman 2 is the second Catwoman or Batman 11 is a classic cover?

 

I agree that people should always be careful about what they say...especially online.. but within reason. If there is any doubt, it is important to remember everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But even when someone goes on trial for something like murder.. guilt only has to be proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

 

In this case, truth is an automatic defense against any libel claim. And at some point, whether you have a confession written in blood along with a DNA test to confirm who the blood belongs to or not... common sense just has to kick in. And in my opinion it is more important to try to help out the potential victims than it is to help out the scam artist.

 

I don't have proof that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm going to wait to see if it rises tomorrow before I assume that we will have sunlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.tor

G.A.tor

Posted
Posted
When you're concerned about a seller, It is better to use phrases like "red flags" than it is to imply you think the seller might be a thief and both of those are better than pronouncing the seller a thief as if the proof was already in. That skirts the dangerous waters of libel.

hello all...

It is my understanding, that in the US, there are currently no federal laws (and I know in Fl there are none) that govern "internet" postings/printings in terms of potential libel....naturally, if a newspaper or magazine, etc print a false or intentionally misleading statement, that entity (whomever publishes), can be sued and potentially found libel for slander in a state or federal court of law...however, I believe there have already been several cases, one of which was dismissed by the Fl Supreme court, concerning "internet" libel, and the courts found there was no existing laws governing, and thus no rendering could be issued (or something like that, I was paying attention, but don't recall verbatim)...basically, the whole "gist" of the show that appeared courtesy of a local law show, was that you can slander all you want on the internet, and not be prosecuted for it (or if it somehow made its way onto a docket, it would likely be dismissed during discovery...again, I am no lawyer, so hopefully I am using the correct terminology)...

maybe one of our more famed board members that hold a juris doctorate, can lend some credance (or debunk) the information I have heard on this local Law talk show..

thanks

rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing