eBay The eBay Official eBay Thread eBay
19 19

1,953 posts in this topic

1,029 posts

By the way this is what I love about ebay. Where else can you find a super high mid grade book?

 

asm194.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
7 hours ago, bababooey said:

Based on my skimming aren't you arguing against the idea that selling an item "as is" implies the agreed upon price already has the discount built in for the suspicion/probability.  (shrug)  

Not necessarily. Maybe yes, maybe no. A seller automatically discounting (without mention) for any and all potential problems may be doing himself a disservice; after all, there's just as much chance the book is not restored, if they genuinely don't know, and pricing at a substantial discount (when compared to similar items in similar condition) would potentially be shortchanging themselves, if they're even aware there could be a problem in the first place.

Typically, when sellers acknowledge there could be serious problems that they aren't capable of detecting, they can state that upfront, like "this item could potentially be X, so it is offered at a discount of Y to account for that potential." That language would, in my mind, release the seller from liability, because they've acknowledged the potential problem upfront and offered something in consideration for that potential (in a fixed price format, of course.)  Of course, that would be substantially more than "I don't know", and would put the buyer on notice...which should be the goal in the first place. If the book ends up restored, well, the buyer got a discount in consideration of that. If it doesn't...hey, bonus.

A seller doing that would be much further than the "I don't know" scenario that is the heart of this discussion.

7 hours ago, bababooey said:

In my mind, 'as is' means as it sits...knowingly offering something restored as an 'as is' item is a misrepresentation.  I don't think I'd ever buy or recommend anyone else buy something 'as is' because I think most people would believe "as is" means the seller is protected even if it's a restored item.   Generally, I feel restoration that is detected by a buyer should always be returnable and I think anyone looking for an "I'm going to CGC this" guarantee should confirm that when buying and establish a timeline.  

I agree. Selling "as is" is perfectly acceptable, but it hinges on the buyer being able to inspect for him/herself, or have it inspected by someone in the business of doing that. If the buyer cannot inspect, if the seller denies the buyer the right to inspect, you no longer have the free and willing exchange of goods.

"I don't know" does not mean "...and neither can you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
29 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

By the way this is what I love about ebay. Where else can you find a super high mid grade book?

 

asm194.PNG

It's an 8.5++++++++++++++

:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,041 posts
2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

.

.

.

Typically, when sellers acknowledge there could be serious problems that they aren't capable of detecting, they can state that upfront, like "this item could potentially be X, so it is offered at a discount of Y to account for that potential." That language would, in my mind, release the seller from liability, because they've acknowledged the potential problem upfront and offered something in consideration for that potential (in a fixed price format, of course.)  Of course, that would be substantially more than "I don't know", and would put the buyer on notice...which should be the goal in the first place. If the book ends up restored, well, the buyer got a discount in consideration of that.

.

.

.

You're arguing in circles so much you're actually arguing against yourself and contradicting yourself now - your first response to my statements were:  "...the discount price argument doesn't hold water..."

So if the seller upfront acknowledges he doesn't know if it's restored or not, which means, to any reasonable person, that it might be or might not be restored, and sells it at a discount price compared to a genuinely unrestored copy, that's either okay with you or not okay with you depending on the hour of the day it seems!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,041 posts
3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

.If the buyer cannot inspect, if the seller denies the buyer the right to inspect, you no longer have the free and willing exchange of goodds.

"I don't know" does not mean "...and neither can you."

Strawman argument. 

" I don't know" means, "I don't know".

Words do get harder the more you twist them. ;)

 

I never said the buyer can't inspect it, but if it's advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored, which any reasonable person would conclude after being told " I don't know if it's restored", then later finding restoration confirms  the description as advertised. 

The inspection for restoration is not addressing any defects, issues or problems that were not addressed prior to the sale.

 

Edited by jcjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
15 minutes ago, jcjames said:

You're arguing in circles so much you're actually arguing against yourself and contradicting yourself now - your first response to my statements were:  "...the discount price argument doesn't hold water..."

You have ripped that statement out of its context, and completely altered it in the process. This is, unfortunately, a very, very common problem on the internet, which is why the "book length" posts become necessary.

The "discount price argument" has to do with the (fallacious and overly simplistic) idea that "CGC books sell for more than their raw counterparts" on the open market for a "reason", and that reason is because you are, in theory, "accepting" the risk involved with buying raw books, and therefore, the market "pays less" for raw books to compensate for that risk, which, by that reasoning, includes objective problems like the presence of restoration or missing pages or the like. It is a fallacious argument because 1. it's not true that all CGC books sell for more than their raw counterparts, 2. there's a wide variety in production quality, grading consistency, seller reputation, and other factors which influence prices in ways that cannot be transferred from slab to slab (even in the same grade), much less trying to compare a slabbed book with a raw book.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do...like, at all...in any respect...(have I belabored the point enough..?) to do with a discount price offered by a seller because of the potential for unknown problems that might exist with their specific item.

They are two separate, entirely different, points.

Context is king.

54 minutes ago, jcjames said:

So if the seller upfront acknowledges he doesn't know if it's restored or not, which means, to any reasonable person, that it might be or might not be restored, and sells it at a discount price compared to a genuinely unrestored copy, that's either okay with you or not okay with you depending on the hour of the day it seems!

That is not correct, and you have misunderstood what was said. The seller doesn't "sell it at a discounted price compared to a genuinely unrestored copy." The seller sells it at a discount compared to their own original asking price

You have to understand what the other person is saying before you can formulate a counterargument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
2 hours ago, jcjames said:
5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

.If the buyer cannot inspect, if the seller denies the buyer the right to inspect, you no longer have the free and willing exchange of goodds.

"I don't know" does not mean "...and neither can you."

Strawman argument. 

If you're going to quote me, make sure you don't introduce typos that aren't in my original post. Also, that post was in reply to Bababooey, not you.

And I don't think you understand what a "strawman argument" means, as you are using it incorrectly here.

A "strawman argument" is an argument that misrepresents/misstates what someone else said, and then argues against that misrepresentation (the "strawman") as if the other party said that.

That's not what I've done here. I did not misrepresent nor misstate anything that either you or Bababooey said.

2 hours ago, jcjames said:

" I don't know" means, "I don't know".

Correct. It means "I don't know." It does not mean "...and neither can you." We agree.

2 hours ago, jcjames said:

Words do get harder the more you twist them. ;)

That's why context is king. One's words cannot be twisted, or "twisted", if context is understood and preserved.

2 hours ago, jcjames said:

I never said the buyer can't inspect it, but if it's advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored, which any reasonable person would conclude after being told " I don't know if it's restored", then later finding restoration confirms  the description as advertised. 

I never said you did, either. Again, that comment was to Bababooey, not you. However, you're still making the same fallacious arguments.

1. "I don't know" is not a description of the item or its qualities. It therefore cannot be used as an argument to claim "the item is as described." If it's NOT described...then that non-description cannot be used as a description, since it could mean literally anything. I am inelegantly wording it, but my point should be clear.

2. You keep trying to change the parameters of the description. "I don't know" does not mean the book is being "advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored." Those are not the same representations. What you're continuing to ignore is the plain fact that, as likely as the book is to be restored, it is just as likely to be UNrestored. If the buyer later finds NO restoration, guess what...? The book is also "as advertised." 

3. Any "reasonable person" would not conclude, despite your assertion, that "I don't know" is the same thing as "it's advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored." You cannot conclude any of that from "I don't know", and you're adding unknowable variables ("priced...as being possibly advertised") which haven't even been part of this discussion.

Again...it's a very clever, novel approach you're trying to argue, and I'm not smart enough to unravel it succinctly, but it doesn't hold water. Sorry.

2 hours ago, jcjames said:

The inspection for restoration is not addressing any defects, issues or problems that were not addressed prior to the sale.

lol

The double negative aside, "I don't know" does not address anything. It is the ultimate expression of "not addressing." Come on, you're just messing with me now, right...?

;)

 

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Clarity! Oh, rapturous clarity! I think on thee daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
52 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The "discount price argument" has to do with the (fallacious and overly simplistic) idea that "CGC books sell for more than their raw counterparts" on the open market for a "reason", and that reason is because you are, in theory, "accepting" the risk involved with buying raw books, and therefore, the market "pays less" for raw books to compensate for that risk, which, by that reasoning, includes objective problems like the presence of restoration or missing pages or the like. It is a fallacious argument because 1. it's not true that all CGC books sell for more than their raw counterparts, 2. there's a wide variety in production quality, grading consistency, seller reputation, and other factors which influence prices in ways that cannot be transferred from slab to slab (even in the same grade), much less trying to compare a slabbed book with a raw book.

To expound on this point (because I believe it's an interesting part of how the market works), CBCS books generally...not always, but generally...sell for less than CGC.

Why?

The "objective problem" issue is taken completely off the table when your book is graded by CBCS. You are just as likely to get a book with missed resto or unknown missing parts in a CBCS slab as you are a CGC slab (which is to say "extremely unlikely"), and CBCS has proven to be about even in grading consistency with CGC...and even stricter (until recently) with regards to modern books.

So, why are buyers paying less for CBCS books, generally? 

I believe it's nothing more than brand recognition and trust...which has nothing whatsoever to do with factors like the potential for restoration or missing pages. And if that's true for items that are generally, for all intents and purposes, functionally identical, how much moreso for items that are not?

So, the idea that raw books "sell for less" than CGC books because "the market" compensates buyers for the "risk" of undisclosed restoration or missing pages and the like is an overly simplistic one that doesn't understand, or fails to recognize, that there are multiple other factors involved in determining the price of any particular item on the open market. Not that it is entirely without merit...it's definitely A factor...but it's hardly a driving factor, or even one of the more important factors, and certainly cannot be used to justify telling the buyer "you assumed the risk, because you paid less for that raw book than you would have if it were slabbed. That's why the book cost you less."...which, of course, is not a claim anyone can make, especially if it didn't "cost you less."

After all...if you "overpay" for the book, does that mean you're then entitled to have it be restoration free and complete...? No, you're entitled to have it be restoration free and complete regardless of the price you paid, and if not and the seller didn't disclose it...whether they knew about it or not...you have the right to return it for a refund, within the parameters of the law and common practice. 

Suggesting your rights are dependent on the price you paid is a bad argument, which enables fraud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,041 posts

RMA, I know you were referencing my reply with your comments to Bababooey, and you implied that my position was that "I don't know" means "and neither can you" and you were rejecting that position (otherwise why specify that it doesn't mean that?). That's the strawman argument.

In any case, I'm not convincing you of my position and you aren't convincing me of yours me so, we differ on it.

 

But I will say this, if I sold a book that turned out to be restored and the buyer wanted some restitution for not knowing it was restored ahead of time (and me not knowing either), I would try working something out because that's what a good seller should do (though is not obligated to IMO but clearly is IYO).

As I'm sure you would too. I'm curious though, how long of time do YOU think is "reasonable" time for what you call an "inspection" by the buyer? One week, one month,  three months, one year? Where do you draw the line, (or grey smudge if it's not a clear line)?

Edited by jcjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45,883 posts

anyway isnt this all just academic?  If you get an item you dont like just return it 'not as described'.  No need to get into detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
1 hour ago, jcjames said:

RMA, I know you were referencing my reply with your comments to Bababooey, and you implied that my position was that "I don't know" means "and neither can you" and you were rejecting that position (otherwise why specify that it doesn't mean that?). That's the strawman argument.

I bet you think this post is about you....

You err in a few ways:

1. You're not the only person to have taken part in this conversation, nor the only one to take the position you're taking. 

2. Your statements were not misrepresented. I made a general statement, in a reply to Bababooey. I was neither quoting you, nor replying to you.

3. The position which you AND OTHERS have taken was that "I don't know" means the buyer, if he or she goes ahead with the transaction, accepts the item as THE SELLER says it is, potential problems or not, restored or not, inspected or not, and if it's discovered that it has restoration, the buyer does not have the right to reject it, because of some strange philosophy which says the buyer accepting the seller's ignorance about the item is the same thing as the buyer accepting the item itself without question or objection.

In other words: "I don't know...and neither can you."

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

In any case, I'm not convincing you of my position and you aren't convincing me of yours me so, we differ on it.

True. But one of us IS correct. Which one....? hm

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

But I will say this, if I sold a book that turned out to be restored and the buyer wanted some restitution for not knowing it was restored ahead of time, I would try working something out because that's what a good seller should do (though is not obligated to IMO but clearly is IYO).

So, let me make sure I understand you: if you, the seller, the one who is responsible for knowing what he is selling, sell a book to someone that is restored...but you don't know it...and the buyer discovers it...you'll try to work something out with them...? That's very sporting of you! 

"I don't know" doesn't relieve a seller of any and all responsibility. That's not how it works. The buyer has the right to inspect. If the seller doesn't know if it's restored or not, not a problem...if the buyer discovers it has resto, the seller is obligated to take it back, if that's what the buyer wants.

Not difficult.

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

As I'm sure you would too.

I wouldn't be in that position (of saying "I don't know"), because I know how to detect resto. Not because I'm any great shakes, but because I took the time and effort to get educated on the matter. If I missed it, I would apologize profusely (because we all make mistakes), and take the book back, without question, and pay the buyer's shipping both ways, so they would be out nothing. If they had it slabbed, I would pay that, too, without even a hint of resistance. I might even compensate them for me wasting their time.

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

I'm curious though, how long of time do YOU think is "reasonable" time for what you call an "inspection" by the buyer? One week, one month,  three months, one year? Where do you draw the line, (or grey smudge if it's not a clear line)?

Whatever the buyer thought was reasonable. Obviously, it would be necessary to prove that it was the same book, but as I maintain a pictorial database of all the books I've sold, it wouldn't be difficult. I'd do a quick comparison of the photos, and if they were a match, I'd offer to refund the buyer. If the transaction was so old that I couldn't find photos, I'd still have the buyer's contact info in Paypal, going back to 2013, I believe, and can confirm the transaction. I'd discuss it at that point. 

To date, I have never had anyone take me up on that offer, and I have sold acres of raw books, both restored and unrestored.

What's a reasonable amount of time for the average buyer or seller on eBay? Probably about a month or two. Most books can be evaluated at CGC in that time frame, especially with fast track for the cheaper tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,815 posts
2 hours ago, the blob said:

Please, you're making my head hurt and I have to deal with legal karp all day....

No one's forcing you to read, counselor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45,883 posts
3 hours ago, jcjames said:

RMA, I know you were referencing my reply with your comments to Bababooey, and you implied that my position was that "I don't know" means "and neither can you" and you were rejecting that position (otherwise why specify that it doesn't mean that?). That's the strawman argument.

In any case, I'm not convincing you of my position and you aren't convincing me of yours me so, we differ on it.

 

But I will say this, if I sold a book that turned out to be restored and the buyer wanted some restitution for not knowing it was restored ahead of time (and me not knowing either), I would try working something out because that's what a good seller should do (though is not obligated to IMO but clearly is IYO).

As I'm sure you would too. I'm curious though, how long of time do YOU think is "reasonable" time for what you call an "inspection" by the buyer? One week, one month,  three months, one year? Where do you draw the line, (or grey smudge if it's not a clear line)?

You like playing with the laser pointer, dont you?  lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19,504 posts

There is a horse here that has been brutally beaten even after it died. This is cruel and inhumane. Please stop this horse abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893 posts

warning: non-comic related post

This just seems wrong. My printer is out of Magenta, so I bid (& win) a cartridge for less than $2 (with free shipping). A genuine cartridge ... none of this refilled carp. Anyway, the guy (or girl) cancels ... then promptly relists the exact same cartridge for 3x as much BIN with $2 shipping.

I know it's just a couple of bucks, but it kinda grinds my gears. Oh well, guess it's part of the game. (shrug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,819 posts
On 2/13/2019 at 11:00 AM, Ride the Tiger said:

By the way this is what I love about ebay. Where else can you find a super high mid grade book?

 

asm194.PNG

I'm looking for a Super high low grade book.  Maybe I should message him

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
19 19