Difference between Comic Art & Transparency? 2 2

[malvin]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I think he believes it; he may just be wrong. His comments are too impassioned for me to think it was written by a liar.

He is a liar.  What he is claiming are facts (e.g. he sold to heritage) not opinions.  And we know Heritage doesn't deal in comic transparencies.

Malvin

[vodou]

8 hours ago, Axmen said:

Quoting POS eBay scammer: "I can assure you they are authentic."

 

Legal eagles among us, is this not a contract law warranty? If Axman has the time and money, I'd suggest getting the piece chemically analyzed as to age of materials used (recent, of course, but especially not 64 year old "ink" ) and then find somebody to help file suit.

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I think he believes it; he may just be wrong. His comments are too impassioned for me to think it was written by a liar.

The bigger and longer story the more it reeks of L I E (aka "thou doth protesteth too much" ); 100% absolutely positively written by a liar.

[Will_K]

5 hours ago, Twanj said:

https://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=790+231&Nty=1&Ntt=transparency&ic10=ArchiveTab-071515

 

(hint: 0)

Not to give any legitimacy to the item//seller in question but that HA search for transparencies actually did come up with one:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/memorabilia/batman-the-dark-knight-returns-2-story-page-11-color-transparency-dc-1986-/a/121308-10499.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Edited November 13, 2018 by Will_K

[Rick2you2]

6 hours ago, vodou said:

Legal eagles among us, is this not a contract law warranty? If Axman has the time and money, I'd suggest getting the piece chemically analyzed as to age of materials used (recent, of course, but especially not 64 year old "ink" ) and then find somebody to help file suit.

The bigger and longer story the more it reeks of L I E (aka "thou doth protesteth too much" ); 100% absolutely positively written by a liar.

If issued in the context of a sale or lease, it would be. But if it is after the fact, then it didn't induce action. It might qualify if he decided not to return something because of it. 

Whether he is a liar or badly in error doesn't matter if no one buys it. If someone wanted a cheap wall hanging, it might be worth the money. I wouldn't. 

 

[vodou]

41 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

It might qualify if he decided not to return something because of it.

Correct. I'm suggesting OP does not return it on the basis of seller's excessively detailed (and BS) A to OP's Q. And then prove it false and keep pulling that string...

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Correct. I'm suggesting OP does not return it on the basis of seller's excessively detailed (and BS) A to OP's Q. And then prove it false and keep pulling that string...

But if he knows it was BS, there is no reliance, undercutting the argument. Besides, the $ cost would be high. Best not to play games with this stuff.

[vodou]

41 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

But if he knows it was BS, there is no reliance, undercutting the argument. Besides, the $ cost would be high. Best not to play games with this stuff.

OP knows nothing, that's why he's asking (here and also seller). Duh. Because nobody ever pursues the slightly uphill battle, we have this exact thread question pop up every 2-3 months. Personally, I do the minimum to prove and go with small claims. Get a judgement and have that sit on the seller's credit report for 10 years. That would work for me. Along with publicizing the public details (of the case and judgement) for everyone else, dampening the seller's ability to repeat with others.

[Rick2you2]

8 hours ago, vodou said:

OP knows nothing, that's why he's asking (here and also seller). Duh. Because nobody ever pursues the slightly uphill battle, we have this exact thread question pop up every 2-3 months. Personally, I do the minimum to prove and go with small claims. Get a judgement and have that sit on the seller's credit report for 10 years. That would work for me. Along with publicizing the public details (of the case and judgement) for everyone else, dampening the seller's ability to repeat with others.

Small claims judgments may not be reported (not sure). In NJ, they do not attach to property unless separately recorded as a lien on property. 

I think you are overoptimistic about any such result.

[vodou]

40 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Small claims judgments may not be reported (not sure). In NJ, they do not attach to property unless separately recorded as a lien on property. 

I think you are overoptimistic about any such result.

My success rate is 100% in similar situations getting settlement exceeding out-of-pocket damages before appearing in court. Demand letter (with threat of SC follow-up language) alone works half the time, actual follow-up with SC filing cleans up the other half. Reputations and clean credit scores matter. At least in RI, MA, NH. NJ...my feeling is protecting same may not matter much if the external perception (mine for sure) is already significantly impaired due to location. I never knowingly do business with NJ   and haven't yet had to follow-up there in this manner.

Due diligence here, to each there own, etc...I was just pointing out a path that may be appealing to one wishing to dampen the proliferation of garbage being pushed mistakenly (an exceptionally generous interpretation at best, laughably so) as vintage original art and/or production materials.

 

[Rick2you2]

44 minutes ago, vodou said:

My success rate is 100% in similar situations getting settlement exceeding out-of-pocket damages before appearing in court. Demand letter (with threat of SC follow-up language) alone works half the time, actual follow-up with SC filing cleans up the other half. Reputations and clean credit scores matter. At least in RI, MA, NH. NJ...my feeling is protecting same may not matter much if the external perception (mine for sure) is already significantly impaired due to location. I never knowingly do business with NJ   and haven't yet had to follow-up there in this manner.

Due diligence here, to each there own, etc...I was just pointing out a path that may be appealing to one wishing to dampen the proliferation of garbage being pushed mistakenly (an exceptionally generous interpretation at best, laughably so) as vintage original art and/or production materials.

 

Nothing wrong with doing it. I have recommended it for basic breach of contract actions like you have seemingly described (art wasn't as described or not sent at all). I just wouldn't use the process to create a test case.

[Weird Paper]

On 11/13/2018 at 10:59 AM, vodou said:

...If Axman has the time and money, I'd suggest getting the piece chemically analyzed as to age of materials used...

You don't even need to go to that effort. Tossing aside the fact that positive transparencies were never used in the comic book web printing process in the U.S., you can easily determine if a transparency is a proper photographic transparency. If it was printed on a water-based inkjet like an Epson, it is water soluble. On the printed side, run a wet q-tip along the edge of a crop mark where a little bit of damage wouldn't matter. If it smears, it's not a photo-based transparency. If it was printed on a eco- or bio-solvent printer like a Mutoh, you could do the same thing with a little alcohol on the q-tip, as water wouldn't affect those inks, but those printers are more expensive and less likely to be used for these purposes.