Moderns that are heating up on ebay!
113 113

50,521 posts in this topic

5,507 posts
9 minutes ago, manetteska said:

My comment, as far as shilling, was aimed specifically at the board member saying he has proof of group/site collusion (though has yet to provide any).

Nor will I. I haven't been apart of the group for almost two years. Theres no purpose. It still wouldn't "prove" that it's still going on besides what I've posted. There are enough drama stars on these forums already. 

If you don't agree this one is shilled, cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,199 posts
1 minute ago, I like pie said:
15 minutes ago, manetteska said:

My comment, as far as shilling, was aimed specifically at the board member saying he has proof of group/site collusion (though has yet to provide any).

Nor will I. I haven't been apart of the group for almost two years. Theres no purpose. It still wouldn't "prove" that it's still going on besides what I've posted. There are enough drama stars on these forums already. 

If you don't agree this one is shilled, cool. 

If you knew the eBay names of people in that group or their shill accounts and could be seen bidding on this auction (or others) that would go a long way. 

Even after two years I bet many of the same accounts are used. 

I don’t understand how asking for proof is unheard of these days. I’m just supposed to believe it because someone on the board said so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,969 posts
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ygogolak said:
2 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

I am not sure I named any site in the above paragraph.(Because its more then one.) If I did please point it out to me.

I am not sure I am reading that second paragraph correctly. Go back and read it yourself it doesn't read correctly.

But to you argument, there is all type of nonsense on this board. The difference is I don't see the point in getting
banned trying to argue back and forth. Apparently you missed my ranting and raving about "Mystery boxes" for a long
time before they finally banned them here. We deal a lot in data here so its hard to get that past many of us. Although
shilling is sometimes hard to prove.

Unlike other boards which are controlled by moderators that lets some members freely
talk :censored: about other members, doing that on this board will get you bounced rather quickly.

I honestly feel like here we try to give an honest portrayal of the market in general. Other sites seem to be geared
to promote books rather then just honestly report on the market itself. You cant tell me you don't see this.

Nobody wronged me at least that I can remember. Keep in mind I have been doing this a long time. Having watched my 
hobby go down the tank once I am very weary of anyone type of collusion between websites, publishers and online sellers.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


 

You mentioned the Top 10 which is one group. That list is a reflection of books that have sold. Its easy to verify in this day and age. It's not like the Wizard list that it was modeled after which was used as promotion for sales for dealers who were feeding them the market report.

2 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

It is difficult to prove. What I look for is repeat transactions over a period of time with some sort of repeat behavior. Now is that 
definite proof? No it isn't, but in those cases its enough for me to avoid that seller. (I concede it could be a repeat buyer in that 
case, but the odds are long.)

 

You're missing the entire point. The seller may have no idea what's going on until it comes time for payment. Especially when there are bid retractions. Why would you make a bid retraction on an item if you were in cohorts with a seller?

Okay see I can understand that you made a little more clear there. I was not really discussing that specific seller in that case just in general, but I get 
your point.(thumbsu

The paragraph you quoted me on I didn't name any group. Then you pull the Top 10 out in the next response. So you are missing my point.
You quote a paragraph I wrote where I named nobody and told me I did. How am I supposed to know what you were talking about? First you 
tell me G+ now you say Top Ten neither of you them is in the paragraph you quoted me on. 

At least when you are talking about a seller I can understand that part now. You originally quote I had no idea what you were talking about.

I can discuss the other sites, but I didn't name either one in that paragraph you quote me on. You missed my entire point.

I can discuss clearly other sites and the issue that I see with them that others do or don't, but I didn't name either one in you the paragraph 
you quoted me so I was confused.(shrug)

I am not trying to be problematic, but I honestly had no clue what you were referring too and you gave me a quote that didn't support what you 
were talking about in any sense.

 

Edited by fastballspecial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,103 posts
5 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

lol And has been for a very loooooooooooong time. lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,106 posts

The Alex Ross covers of Detective Comics 1000 have really shot up. I figure they would but not this much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,333 posts
6 hours ago, Bighaley21 said:

The Alex Ross covers of Detective Comics 1000 have really shot up. I figure they would but not this much.

Yeah no kidding! 

Cool cover but dayum. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,923 posts
9 hours ago, jcjames said:

Yeah no kidding! 

Cool cover but dayum. 

 

Everyone is just starting to get their books this weekend.

FOMOOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,333 posts
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Everyone is just starting to get their books this weekend.

FOMOOC

Fear Of Missing Out ... OC?

Edited by jcjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,923 posts
6 minutes ago, jcjames said:

Fear Of Missing Out ... OC?

...on Comics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183 posts
11 hours ago, ygogolak said:

...on Comics!

I was thinking "…on crack"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,707 posts

Just got $125 for a CGC 9.8 of Naomi #1 regular cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168 posts
1 hour ago, Pirate said:

Just got $125 for a CGC 9.8 of Naomi #1 regular cover.

seems like naomi 1 is a book that will only go up. has everything going for it. low print run, no store variants, naturally built hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 posts
On 3/30/2019 at 5:12 PM, Bighaley21 said:

The Alex Ross covers of Detective Comics 1000 have really shot up. I figure they would but not this much.

Same here.... and I really hate I missed them. I would love to have one, but not at the prices I’m seeing currently. I’m hoping they will come down in about 6 months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,947 posts
10 hours ago, Pirate said:

Just got $125 for a CGC 9.8 of Naomi #1 regular cover.

Naomi_Campbell_Cannes_2017_2.jpg&f=1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,969 posts
Posted (edited)

Makes sense retro does well and that's really ancient retro.

 

 

Edited by fastballspecial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,562 posts

5CC77663-AA01-45A6-A9EE-B73AD3949D87.thumb.png.41ee35a8e2d82a68d45a9e268c1aed28.png

just discovered this is happening. Sell or hold?! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
113 113