eBay The eBay Official eBay Thread eBay 33 33

[Ride the Tiger]

40 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't answer the question.

Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone misses things. I have 9.8s that have restoration and are purple label. My question to you is, when you say you don't make claims about restoration, never have, and never will, does that include situations where you know, or discover, there is restoration? 

Honestly I don't understand restoration in most cases. If a kid draws a stick figure in marker on the cover is it restoration?

[serling1978]

27 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

You seem to be making the argument that if the buyer, without benefit of 3rd party appraisals, can’t determine for himself whether a raw book has restoration or not, he probably shouldn’t buy the book.

In fact, in your initial post, you seemed a bit dismayed that after asking questions about restoration and not getting a definitive answer from you, the buyer went ahead and won the book anyway. 

The problem with that argument is it can just as easily be turned on the seller. 

If you as a seller cannot determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that a book is unrestored and you’re unwilling to stand behind what you sell (within a reasonable timeframe of course) regardless of who makes the appraisal of whether a book is restored, then perhaps you shouldn’t be selling the book. 

The problem with your ‘submitting to a 3rd party grading company = final acceptance’ is that it assumes the ONLY reason a person would do so is for the subjective grade. 

It seems clear this buyer was concerned about non-subjective restoration and chose to avail himself of a 3rd party appraisal in that regard before determining ‘final acceptance’. 

 

All good points. I've actually called eBay before to see their policy for both buyers and sellers on the matter but I got different answers each time as to how they would handle it. I am curious if anyone has ever tried to invoke the buyers protection from eBay in a situation like this and how they ruled.

Like I said I'm open to changing my mind on the matter. And some good info has been given here. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

You seem to be making the argument that if the buyer, without benefit of 3rd party appraisals, can’t determine for himself whether a raw book has restoration or not, he probably shouldn’t buy the book.

In fact, in your initial post, you seemed a bit dismayed that after asking questions about restoration and not getting a definitive answer from you, the buyer went ahead and won the book anyway. 

The problem with that argument is it can just as easily be turned on the seller. 

If you as a seller cannot determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that a book is unrestored and you’re unwilling to stand behind what you sell (within a reasonable timeframe of course) regardless of who makes the appraisal of whether a book is restored, then perhaps you shouldn’t be selling the book. 

The problem with your ‘submitting to a 3rd party grading company = final acceptance’ is that it assumes the ONLY reason a person would do so is for the subjective grade. 

It seems clear this buyer was concerned about non-subjective restoration and chose to avail himself of a 3rd party appraisal in that regard before determining ‘final acceptance’. 

 

Agreed.

If I buy a book from one of my favorite dealers @FlyingDonut, and he says it's a 9.4, and it grades 9.0 at CGC...or it grades 9.8...that's the way it goes, because grading is subjective.

But if I buy a book and it's restored...regardless of how or why it is discovered...I have the right to reject, within a reasonable amount of time, because the presence of restoration is not subjective.

[Pete Marino]

10 hours ago, serling1978 said:

Ok final thought 😁

I agree that what your saying makes sense for something like an auto inspection or a home inspection where the potential buyer has the item inspected prior to buying. But I've never heard of anyone buying a house and then having it inspected and returning it.

Of course now someone will cite an example where this has happened 😂 but I still stand by never hearing of it

For what it's worth this exact thing happened to me.  I was in the process of buying a home.  In the inspection process found out the siding was not stucco, but manufactured stucco (eifs), and there was undisclosed leaks that caused the frame of the house to be damaged.  Requested money to replace the siding and the damage, seller refused to give me the money I "returned" the house.

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

Honestly I don't understand restoration in most cases. If a kid draws a stick figure in marker on the cover is it restoration?

It comes down to intent. And, in most cases, intent is pretty obvious to discern. A stick figure drawing isn't...normally...designed to improve the book's apparent condition. That's the key difference. Sometimes, it IS a judgment call as to whether what you're looking at is an attempt to improve the book's apparent condition or not. But those cases are very rare, and the vast majority of the time...as in the above examples, the JIM #107 being quite crude, but still clearly showing intent....it's obvious.

That doesn't mean that the presence of restoration is subjective...it just means that, very occasionally, whether or not it IS restoration can be subjective.

[serling1978]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It comes down to intent. And, in most cases, intent is pretty obvious to discern. A stick figure drawing isn't...normally...designed to improve the book's apparent condition. That's the key difference. Sometimes, it IS a judgment call as to whether what you're looking at is an attempt to improve the book's apparent condition or not. But those cases are very rare, and the vast majority of the time...as in the above examples, the JIM #107 being quite crude, but still clearly showing intent....it's obvious.

That doesn't mean that the presence of restoration is subjective...it just means that, very occasionally, whether or not it IS restoration can be subjective.

That was an interesting question and actually reminded me I did have that basic situation happen a couple years ago. I sold an ASM where someone has doodled on Spiderman's web with what looked like a felt pen maybe. I called it out in the listing and showed a close-up pic but when the buyer got it he said he wanted to return it because he saw it as being restored. I assume he didn't clearly read the listing and was maybe surprised by the amateur doodle when he got it. I did accept the return though. See I'm not so terrible. Or am I...? Really though I've never denied an eBay return in over 15 years. Even though buyers do come up with some pretty questionable reasons.

My intent here was never to come across like I'm the all powerful seller and I'll stick it to any buyer who crosses me. Hopefully it didn't seem that way. I just enjoyed discussing something I felt was unclear but I'll happily consider all of the info provided here. Thanks

[Ride the Tiger]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It comes down to intent. And, in most cases, intent is pretty obvious to discern. A stick figure drawing isn't...normally...designed to improve the book's apparent condition. That's the key difference. Sometimes, it IS a judgment call as to whether what you're looking at is an attempt to improve the book's apparent condition or not. But those cases are very rare, and the vast majority of the time...as in the above examples, the JIM #107 being quite crude, but still clearly showing intent....it's obvious.

That doesn't mean that the presence of restoration is subjective...it just means that, very occasionally, whether or not it IS restoration can be subjective.

Its like suppose someone draws anything in marker or pen on the cover. Even a name. What if it was over a spot where the color had been chipped off. What if someone does a small color touch in the very corner of the comic? If you scrape it off with a knife its no longer restoration? Is taking the color touch off itself a form of restoration? What if you just took a scissors and cut that small corner off altogether? Would it get a Blue label then? If you use a scissors on the edge its trimming and that kills your blue lable too. I apologize to all the people that spend time on learning about restoration but its all grey area for me and sometimes comes down to owners intentions. Was he trying to touch up the color there or was he just scribbling on the cover. And I don't understand how a book could be worth so much more by literally scraping off color so that you see the white paper in the background. It would have been so much better and eye appealing just to leave the book alone wouldn't it? Ahg I could go on all day. I'm on board with CGCs grading system but restoration I just don't get it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 minutes ago, serling1978 said:

My intent here was never to come across like I'm the all powerful seller and I'll stick it to any buyer who crosses me. Hopefully it didn't seem that way.

Not at all.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

Its like suppose someone draws anything in marker or pen on the cover. Even a name. What if it was over a spot where the color had been chipped off. 

This has been a long standing issue for Sig Series and yes, many people ask creators to sign over problem spots, in the hopes that it gets overlooked (or, more properly, not considered as restoration.) There's definitely some fine lines in there. With creators and their sigs, there's a bit of leeway.

If it's obvious that it looks like an attempt to cover something up...and it's not a creator's sig..it will probably be designated as restored.

5 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

What if someone does a small color touch in the very corner of the comic?

That would be restoration, since it's an obvious attempt to improve the apparent condition of the book.

6 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

If you scrape it off with a knife its no longer restoration? Is taking the color touch off itself a form of restoration?

Technically, according to the absolute definition of "restoration", yes...but not according to the industry's definition. Color touch is an additive process...you're adding something to the book that wasn't there to begin with. Removing that addition...thus "restoring" the book to its original structure and materials...is not considered restoration, since it's not an attempt to improve the book's apparent condition, and almost always makes it look worse...but, it is now back to "all original."

8 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

What if you just took a scissors and cut that small corner off altogether? Would it get a Blue label then?

Yes, since you're dealing with all original material again.

8 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

If you use a scissors on the edge its trimming and that kills your blue lable too.

True, but remember the distinction: intent. "Trimming", as the industry understands it, is the attempt to remove small, damaged areas from the edges of the book, without appearing as if that's what you did. I cannot think of, and don't think there is, any situation where trimming would occur WITHOUT the intent being to improve the apparent condition of the book. But, cutting off a corner...an obvious destructive move...can be done for all sorts of reason, totally unrelated to the process of trimming or "restoration removal."

The purpose of trimming is to hide something...a corner cut off yells it out loud to anyone looking.

12 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

And I don't understand how a book could be worth so much more by literally scraping off color so that you see the white paper in the background. It would have been so much better and eye appealing just to leave the book alone wouldn't it?

I agree with you completely, and think that restoration has gotten a very bad rap, precisely because of the acres of books that were fiddled with by unscrupulous sellers before the advent of CGC. If restoration had been an open, acceptable, always disclosed part of the hobby...I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

That Hulk #1 is a perfect example. In 7.5, with small dots of color touch, it's, what, $8-$10k? With those small dots scraped off...it's a 6.5, sure, but now it's $35-$40k?

The market will figure it out eventually. Restoration has its place, just as with other forms of art. 

[the blob]

17 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Restoration either exists or does not exist, entirely independently of any and all grading companies and their standards. Restoration, if present, is not there because CGC says so (aka, "their standards.") It is there because it is there. You are confusing objective observations with subjective opinions.

If a seller doesn't know if his or her books are restored or not, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Grading is subjective. The presence or absence of restoration is not. If a seller says "I don't know if this book is restored" and the buyer chooses to have its condition appraised by a reputable third party to make sure (and, sadly, at this point there is only one: CGC), and restoration is discovered, the buyer doesn't "own" the book because they chose to have it so appraised...and no court in the land would uphold that as a valid condition of sale.

Besides...there is no such condition as "as is" in an online purchase, where the buyer cannot inspect the item prior to purchase. 

 

Legally I think you are wrong if the seller makes full representations that they are unable to determine if restored, etc. .. No warranties, etc. If that is a lie and you know it is restored, that is different.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, the blob said:

Legally I think you are wrong if the seller makes full representations that they are unable to determine if restored, etc. .. No warranties, etc. If that is a lie and you know it is restored, that is different.

I don't think you are correct, for the reasons given, especially pertaining to the UCC. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", etc. Far too easy for people to just say "I don't know!", hide behind ignorance to force a sale, and effectively engage in unjust enrichment, which is obviously not legal. Ignorance, admitted or not, doesn't change the presence (or absence) of restoration. And if restoration exists, then the seller would be unjustly enriched by obtaining a higher price than they otherwise would have had the restoration been disclosed.

It's not a warranty issue, in other words.

[Ride the Tiger]

Only a handful of people in this hobby are educated in all aspects of restoration. Just like only a handful of people know how to properly press a comic book. Wouldn't be hard for me to hide behind my ignorance on either of these issues. And I've collected on and off since the 80s.

[electricprune]

I'm sure this has been broached here before. Is reporting key word spamming a complete waste of time, or will eBay actually do something about it?

[the blob]

16 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I don't think you are correct, for the reasons given, especially pertaining to the UCC. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", etc. Far too easy for people to just say "I don't know!", hide behind ignorance to force a sale, and effectively engage in unjust enrichment, which is obviously not legal. Ignorance, admitted or not, doesn't change the presence (or absence) of restoration. And if restoration exists, then the seller would be unjustly enriched by obtaining a higher price than they otherwise would have had the restoration been disclosed.

It's not a warranty issue, in other words.

First off, the ucc only applies to goods of $500 or more, has a signature requirement, and the ucc warranty of merchantability can be specifically voided by "as is" type language. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but selling a restored book is not illegal. Saying you don't know it is when you know it is (e.g. evidence you owned it as a plod, bought it as raw restored, etc) is a different scenario. You can't "as is" to cover a lie.

[the blob]

The $500 jurisdictional amount has, amazingly, been the same since I was in law school 25 years ago.surprised they did not raise it.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 2/9/2019 at 1:30 PM, Foley said:

Anyone know why a seller would have the same exact item listed twice at the same time?

No. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, the blob said:

First off, the ucc only applies to goods of $500 or more, has a signature requirement, and the ucc warranty of merchantability can be specifically voided by "as is" type language. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but selling a restored book is not illegal. Saying you don't know it is when you know it is (e.g. evidence you owned it as a plod, bought it as raw restored, etc) is a different scenario. You can't "as is" to cover a lie.

But none of this is the issue. The issue is "does a buyer forfeit their right of rejection/revocation of acceptance if they send the book to a third party to have its condition appraised."

The answer is a resounding "no", for obvious reasons.

And you cannot sell "as is" when the buyer cannot inspect the item...or have it inspected...prior to purchase.

[Callaway29]

38 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But none of this is the issue. The issue is "does a buyer forfeit their right of rejection/revocation of acceptance if they send the book to a third party to have its condition appraised."

The answer is a resounding "no", for obvious reasons.

And you cannot sell "as is" when the buyer cannot inspect the item...or have it inspected...prior to purchase.

To you perhaps...

There’s a reason graded books demand more than raw. If a buyer were entitled to guaranteed results there would not be said premium. By logical inference, the market has already deemed the risk of the seller ends when a buyer submits to a third party. Up until that point, more or less, the seller is responsible for addressing greivances. And I’m not speaking purely from a seller’s perspective, I know this as a buyer...and factor in that risk accordingly.

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But none of this is the issue. The issue is "does a buyer forfeit their right of rejection/revocation of acceptance if they send the book to a third party to have its condition appraised."

The answer is a resounding "no", for obvious reasons.

And you cannot sell "as is" when the buyer cannot inspect the item...or have it inspected...prior to purchase.

To you perhaps...

There’s a reason graded books demand more than raw. If a buyer were entitled to guaranteed results there would not be said premium. By logical inference, the market has already deemed the risk of the seller ends when a buyer submits to a third party. Up until that point, more or less, the seller is responsible for addressing greivances. And I’m not speaking purely from a seller’s perspective, I know this as a buyer...and factor in that risk accordingly.

No. I'll say it one more time: grading is subjective. The presence (or absence) of restoration is objective. The risk involved is whether or not the grading company will agree with the seller as to the overall condition of the item, NOT whether or not it is restored.

Someone much smarter than me can explain the economics of it, but your claim that "there's a reason graded books demand more than raw" is a blanket statement that is not only not always true, but does not therefore mean the buyer assumes the risk of objectively knowable facts about the item in question. That's great that you factor in that "risk" accordingly...but your factoring in unnecessary risk does not therefore mean others must do so also, nor does it imply anything of that nature. It's faulty reasoning. The one is unrelated to the other.

It is simply untrue that a buyer forfeits his right of rejection/revocation of acceptance because he sends the item to a professional appraiser (in this case, CGC) to appraise whether or not the item is restored. It's beyond silly to even suggest it. A buyer is doing his due diligence by engaging in such an action.

A seller does not get to say "too bad, so sad. I told you I didn't know if there was restoration. That's the risk you take!" if the buyer chooses to have the item independently appraised (in a timely manner, of course) and discovers it is restored. 

Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

Edited February 11, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

In effect, one is saying "buyer, regardless of your own level (or lack) of expertise, if you send something you buy from me to a professional to have it inspected, you give up your right to return it if something is discovered to be objectively wrong with it. If you can't figure it out on your own, too bad."

And that's just nonsense.