Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined


About comicwiz

  • Boards Title
  • Birthday 06/05/1971

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    IT Consultant
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,858 profile views
  1. Thanks Andy, I'll do prize #2 if it's still available
  2. Thanks Andy, I'll take #52 if it's still available
  3. I'm speaking generally here, not toward any specific seller. I replied in the context of you suggesting the feature to check on past aliases does not allow a feeBay member to see what a sellers used as a past alias. This was something you could see in the past, but feeBay took away that feature, and replaced it with an anonymized alias. There is no way to know that information. That is all.
  4. Can we establish one thing here before this goes any further. We can collectively blame that fail of feeBay which has allowed the anonymity to creep into every aspect of it's platform. Private bidding, feedback, past aliases, etc. When I started using feeBay, you could contact other bidders to warn them of a seller ripping people off, can't do that anymore. In fact, it's been subverted by sellers who love to shill bid. If a seller doesn't want you to know it's bidding on it's own auctions, they can run an auction hiding the bidders, even though you can't see who is bidding anyway. Even when you want to study patterns in bidding, all it shows you is that bidder 1 is bidding on auctions of one or more sellers, it doesn't allow you to see if there is an association to those sellers and bidders. And when you had a bad feeling about a seller possibly trying to play games, you used to be able to look up that sellers information, which included past aliases. Can't do that anymore. It's not anyone's fault other than feeBay.
  5. There are a number of things in this thread that do not make sense, which include why anyone would try to operate a seemingly legitimate charity in an allegedly opportunistic and abusive manner. Ultimately it is the responsibility of named individuals for this charity to manage/upkeep the way their charity operates, as their name association and credibility is inextricably linked to people's perceptions of the charity with which they are involved. Nothing about what I'm saying absolves them of this responsibility, nor am I insinuating this. Rather, in light of the last email Mecha received, and the indignant/unprofessional manner they used to respond to a legitimate inquiry, if this is a situation where a rogue member within the organization may be unknowingly speaking/operating as a representative of the charity without the other members being fully aware.
  6. There's just too many variables. I simply wanted to explain/elaborate that a successful sticker removal is not only possible, but performed very regularly on high end collectibles (much to my disdain, as I'm a "leave it alone" kind of collector), and that the population data at least from worthpoint past sales would seem to indicate a high success rate on this particular comic.
  7. Of the 18 copies which were shared on page 1 of this thread, only 3 show a sign of removal on copies without a sticker. That's roughly 12 to 13 copies without a sticker with no sign of removal, versus 3 that show signs. The rest were no price variants with stickers. That's somewhere around a 75% chance of being able to remove it without any sign of removal, if we believe all 5,000 of these were stickered. Sticker removal is a hot button topic in other collecting categories I'm involved with. There's an inordinate amount of energy spent around removal techniques - everything from using steam, to naphtha, blow dryers and even the use of clothing irons. There's a more deceitful element that save stickers that peel off over time on vintage pieces, to reuse them to mask defects. I've seen pieces where there is no sign of residue, and others where it's as clear as day that a sticker was once there. On the former, I know a sticker was removed because I once owned the piece and someone down the line of ownership decided the sticker had to go. Neither the amount of time the sticker was on the piece, nor the history/provenance associated to it would seem to matter to those who loathe their appearance. So there is no doubt a sticker can be saved if the removal is done well enough, but what none of the above mentioned techniques can do is restore the original adhesion strength. This includes trying to put stickers that peel-off on their own back in play. To use a donor sticker on a piece that never had one, an intermediary adhesive would be necessary.
  8. Seemingly quite high, as there are more without stickers than with - the example you used is one of very, very few which show a botched sticker removal. Many of them don't even show the residue of a sticker even being there. What we don't know is the adhesion strength of these stickers, and whether those without a sticker were deliberately removed as seeming unsightly, or whether they just peeled off on their own. I would guess the former. It's also quite possible that they didn't produce enough stickers for what was supposedly a 5,000 comic print run.The way some of these don't even look like they had anything stuck to the cover reveals a possibility they were given out without stickers, and or they had a bad batch of stickers. And if we assume some of these may have quickly been stuck to the cover, and were just as easily unstuck immediately afterwards, that someone saw enough value in keeping it for provenancial reasons does not necessarily imply they were only thinking to keep it because they knew it would be valuable some day. These photos are from past listings within the last two years and not all encompassing - check my previous post to see all the listings (thumbnail view) dating as far back as 2011. From memory, the example you posted was one of only three in the last 8 years that showed a botched removal, and the other two were not anywhere nearly as bad.
  9. It wouldn't have to be an empty box, it could have been a shipment for a non-related transaction, which the buyer conveniently used as the tracking info to complete his part of the refund process. There is no audit mechanism within PayPal or eBay to check if that tracking informations ultimate destination corresponds with the sellers address, and as long as it shows a signature and "delivered", eBay's evidence based tracking framework recognizes it as the buyer fulfilling their obligation to receive a refund. Like I said earlier, it is one of those things that people have been exploiting for quite some time, not necessarily only to circumvent the refund process either.
  10. In a perfect world, the placement of the sticker would be important. It is borrowed entirely from the multipack format blocking out early direct editions which hadn't yet used a blank upc box. The logic here is that the price on a polybag (usually priced for two or three comics, with a whole penny of savings) would cause an issue at check out if the bar code on the comic was accidentally scanned. Blocking out that bar code peaking through from the issues inside the multipack meant avoiding such a scenario. Utlimately my posts (including my PM's) have been to tread with caution before arriving at the conclusion this is right as rain, and I do believe the placement of the sticker would be a good tell on a no-price copy, however in the anomalous case a priced copy somehow found its way in the mix, trying to blocking the bar code with the sticker doesn't have the same effect on a copy that is visibly priced. If we try to think back at how this promotion ran, we can assume a few things. These promotional copies were likely stickered at the retail level, where the bundle of books and a roll of stickers was provided along with a floor merchandiser whereby a comic would be matched to a box of detergent purchase. In the event where a retailer was short on an inventory of no price promotion copies, they might have made the decision at that moment in time to pull one off the newsstands to satisfy a deficient inventory problem. Even if this isn't as plausable as a retail copy somehow finding itself mixed-in with a promotional kit (which I have to say is even a further stretch), and this is a retail copy that at some stage received a donor sticker, we have to look at the market dynamics. This isn't a no-price copy. The value dynamics are appreciably discriminate for this particular variant as it is deficient of a cover price, and even when those examples are lacking a sticker (assuming it was carefully removed and didn't leave a big circle in that spot), the reason why the market values this no-price variant is because it is far less common than the Whitman or newsstand edition. Not even the Mark Jewelers variant (which has only shown up for sale once in the last 8 years, and is seemingly much rarer than this all detergent promo of this particular issue) doesn't command anywhere near as much. I don't believe the sticker being on this issue has the same positive value trickle effect if it's a newsstand priced example, even if we see this as an error. As I told @GACollectibles, and beyond the sticker placement, we cannot exclude the possibility an unused sticker or donor sticker (removed from one of the numerous examples that have sold over the years without a sticker) was saved and put back into play. The one thing that doesn't sit right with me is the residual adhesive staining seen from the inside cover. I have not seen that on other copies, at least not to this extent. I've held one in the past and I know I would have noticed that while flipping through the comic, which leaves me with an impression an intermediary adhesive was likely used to reattach a donor sticker, or even possibly an unused sticker whose adhesive agent had long expired. This is an assumption based on photos alone, and not conclusive, but something to add to the previous observations and opinions brought forward by others.
  11. That is an unusual occurrence for certain, but not decisively indicative of whether that comic was originally part of the all detergent promo. I acquired collections with multiples where certain ones were stickered. You quickly realized one sibling had an upper-hand in these decisions (always seeming to put the stickers on lower condition copies for their brother, and keeping the better copies for themselves). Only in one instance did I have a chance to speak to one of the surviving brothers and he even admitted he made sure to take the better copies. That's unscrupulous, but not fraud per se. Anyhow, here's a screenshot of all the past auctions for the all detergent variant, they are all no price copies: