MYSTIC 18 CGC 1.8 4 4

[Gotham Kid]

2 hours ago, VintageComics said:

This place isn't eBay.

When you commit to something you're supposed to follow through with what you committed and tell the 2nd buyer that the book sold privately.

As for not shipping internationally, I just don't understand why some people in the US have a problem shipping to Canada anywhere in the world, especially if it's a well established board member.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[Logan510]

2 hours ago, Grantley Goddard said:

My initial reaction was to immediately post my disappointment in the actual sales thread as soon as it occurred, but the seller locked the thread. I posted this in the actual sales forum but the mods moved it to CG. I felt the probation route was not the way i wanted to handle it. Perhaps I was wrong.

I didn't know it was the mods who moved it to CG. My apologies 

[greggy]

5 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I didn't know it was the mods who moved it to CG. My apologies 

[oakman29]

5 hours ago, N e r V said:

#19 is still missing. 

It wasnt a 7.0 by chance?

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

It wasnt a 7.0 by chance?

No. A lowly CGC 4.0 but she was clean.

[Logan510]

7 hours ago, Gotham Kid said:

For me personally, it's a hassle. It's extra paperwork and 9 out of 10 times the buyer tries to get me to lie on the paperwork...like declaring it as a gift or for a lower amount...which I refuse to do. It's also an extra trip to the PO that I never normally have to take to ship out packages.

 

That being said, I have shipped books overseas to people on here I am friends with 

[GermanFan]

8 hours ago, Hudson said:

I should probably just leave this alone, having already stated my opinion, however, I guess I just can't wrap my head around the "seller's" actions.

If I understand everything correctly....

Paul offers $300 + postage for the book (which is accepted).

Another "buyer" comes along and offers "something better" via some "negotiation".

The book was only listed at $375, so I think it is safe to say the new "buyer" did not offer the full $375, however, let us assume that he did.

This means the "seller" is now going to make an additional $75 (or less) minus the cost of the free shipping (as listed) to the new "buyer".

Is that really the value of a reputation and a man's word these days; <$75?

If that is the case, then it is a sad world we live in; very sad indeed.

 

Youre so right.

[Gotham Kid]

@Dreamtoreal1

Just honor your original sale and stop being a d-ck otherwise the list of potential buyers in your next sales thread drops considerably. You might even find some sellers reserving the right to not sell to you. As some have already mentioned, this is NOT ebay. Board members have a good enough memory and won't forget nor stand for this sh*t. Is $75 really worth the loss of your credibility here !? Your call.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[comicwiz]

10 hours ago, VintageComics said:

I don't disagree.

We had this discussion years ago when Spider-Dan had a similar issue in his sales thread.

The rules are the rules.

But I still think it's a very unusual rule and I only think it's used because other people copy it from old sales thread. There's no logical reason for that rule and it's actually caused more problems than good over the years.

Personally, I think the sales forum rules should be amended to include that any made commitment needs to be honored regardless of how it sells.

 

I don't disagree with you Roy, with the only exception being that I've been on other collectible forums with active marketplaces where the "I'll take it" rule would have kept things a lot more honest, and sellers bound to their own rules. Having a seller back out because someone else, who happened to be a friend, closer to them location-wise, or even offered more just to have the piece, would have been a very welcome rule in other online marketplaces, especially since there was no probation system in place to keep transactions fair and honest for everyone. I can easily count on one hand the amount of times where I had a seller subvert the PM system to pit buyers against one another, and if an "I'll take it" option existed there, I would have saved myself a lot more money in at least a couple of instances where the seller sold it higher than their original asking. I do agree that there will be rare situations (like this one) where common sense would dictate a commitment needed to be honoured the minute payment terms and details were exchanged, but I wanted to offer a different perspective on why I think there's a level of transparency that needed with the "I'll take it" that should be considered.

[chrisco37]

I agree with Roy on this. 

I can't believe (ok, I guess I can) that there's actually a discussion about this.  Someone saying "Done" or "Deal" or whatever in a PM means the book is sold.  If negotiations are going on and someone posts I'll take it in the sales thread, time stamp will show who wins.  Common sense.

That said, I don't think the seller did anything intentionally nefarious.  On the surface, it looks like an honest mistake.  But GG should be sold the book at the PM agreed price.   

[MustEatBrains]

44 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

I agree with Roy on this. 

I can't believe (ok, I guess I can) that there's actually a discussion about this.  Someone saying "Done" or "Deal" or whatever in a PM means the book is sold.  If negotiations are going on and someone posts I'll take it in the sales thread, time stamp will show who wins.  Common sense.

That said, I don't think the seller did anything intentionally nefarious.  On the surface, it looks like an honest mistake.  But GG should be sold the book at the PM agreed price.   

If you've followed the thread from the beginning seller stated on this thread that after deal was done with GG via PM he instructed GG to post the "take it per PM" on his sales thread.  It turns out that was not true(he did not request a follow up post) and basically used that as the basis for selling to another buyer "for a better offer". this is the piece that does not sit well with me(and others)

[SteppinRazor]

15 hours ago, VintageComics said:

I don't know whether it was edited in or not (and if so, when it was edited in, in relation to the 1st sale to GG) but I still think this is a silly rule.

Who cares whether the book sells in the thread, in a PM, via text or through a phone call?

The important thing is that it should sell to the 1st person who reaches an agreement with the seller and the seller SHOULD honor that agreement or that seller will likely be tarred and feathered by the chat forum.

I have something of that nature in my sales thread, and the reason is timing.  If one or more people are negotiating via pm, and someone posts an in the thread while it is still active, it can get missed.  Or I may agree to an offer at the same time as an gets posted.  If negotiating a price, the buyer posting the take it let's everyone know the sale is closed and let's the buyer themselves see if a take it was posted before them, so there can be no doubt on their end that they were beaten to the punch.  I will also post that it is sold if I agree to a price, and I'm not asking for payment until I've posted or the buyer has.

Edited August 20, 2017 by SteppinRazor

[skypinkblu]

I buy stuff by pm most times, mainly because I don't like people to see what I'm buying, it's just a personal preference. I don't usually post things I've won elsewhere. Part of this is because my house was ransacked years ago and it left me cautious.

SOMETIMES, I'll ask what the person's best price is, sometimes I'll ask a question,but for the most part, I'll just post a 

This morning, I bought an inexpensive book that I might have just posted for in the thread, but I didn't see a grade. Since I was pming anyway, I posted a take it in the pm thread.

Much to my surprise the seller posted the take it by pm with my initials, so I posted in the thread. 

When I went back and looked,  he does have something about posting a  in the thread, so I understand, but it's going to stop me from purchasing sometimes, and I suspect it will stop a few others.

Even if we don't have time stamps, it's really going to be an odd situation where the seller can't tell who took an item first. The main thing is to just behave honorably and we won't have these problems.

One thing I really want to add. I hope Brock @Columbia Comics  saw @N e r V 's post, I know I missed it yesterday. I'm highlighting it for him, because it looks like Brock posted the wrong info and I wonder if that came from Pablo as well.

[Hudson]

19 hours ago, N e r V said:

Um, I'm not a part of this deal but I can say I don't appreciate that last sentence about my books which were stolen and certainly not any part of "seller's remorse" since I'm still missing several other books from the theft. I consider that remark about my "stolen claim" as a pretty good insult to my character here considering you don't know me or obviously have any accurate facts in the case.

Best not to assume things without accurate knowledge in the matter sir...

I hope you get the rest of your books back!

That has got to be a horrible feeling.

[SteppinRazor]

1 hour ago, skypinkblu said:

I buy stuff by pm most times, mainly because I don't like people to see what I'm buying, it's just a personal preference. I don't usually post things I've won elsewhere. Part of this is because my house was ransacked years ago and it left me cautious.

SOMETIMES, I'll ask what the person's best price is, sometimes I'll ask a question,but for the most part, I'll just post a 

This morning, I bought an inexpensive book that I might have just posted for in the thread, but I didn't see a grade. Since I was pming anyway, I posted a take it in the pm thread.

Much to my surprise the seller posted the take it by pm with my initials, so I posted in the thread. 

When I went back and looked,  he does have something about posting a  in the thread, so I understand, but it's going to stop me from purchasing sometimes, and I suspect it will stop a few others.

Even if we don't have time stamps, it's really going to be an odd situation where the seller can't tell who took an item first. The main thing is to just behave honorably and we won't have these problems.

One thing I really want to add. I hope Brock @Columbia Comics  saw @N e r V 's post, I know I missed it yesterday. I'm highlighting it for him, because it looks like Brock posted the wrong info and I wonder if that came from Pablo as well.

If I were to sell something via pm (so far I have only through having the comics posted in a WTB), I would assume the buyer private messaged me  a take it because they preferred it be private.  in that instance, I would post 'sold via pm'.

I don't think it's all that odd a situation though, where because the board doesn't happen in real time, there can be instances where the seller strikes a deal, but the sale thread is not ended that instant.  A seller can get multiple offers via pm and still have the thread going while negotiating, and be limited in amount of time.  It's not necessarily that a seller can't tell who came first (though possible w/o timestamps), it's that there can be more than one claim and someone make take it poorly that theirs wasn't the one honored.  That's in general, not applicable in this particular instance.   Having a clear option that is the version of walking up to the rack, pulling it off, and paying for it (ie a take it post) is useful IMO.  The take it option isn't intended IMO at least, to be a backdoor opening to sell the book to multiple people if they come in at a higher price.  Just run an auction if you want that.

In this instance, the seller should have posted sold, and the onus is on the seller because they offered an alteration in the stated parameters (int'l shipping) via pm.  If a seller is going to initiate pm negotiations different than what is being offered in the thread, then IMO they are clearly bound once saying, 'done' (equivalent to a take it) to post that in the thread. 

[Columbia Comics]

3 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

One thing I really want to add. I hope Brock @Columbia Comics  saw @N e r V 's post, I know I missed it yesterday. I'm highlighting it for him, because it looks like Brock posted the wrong info and I wonder if that came from Pablo as well.

I did see that post and I don't believe I posted the wrong information.

I was told that Pablo bought some books that turned out to be stolen.  It was my understanding that Pablo returned them to the seller, not the original owner.  The seller refunded the cash and took the books (and then I assume the seller returned them to the OO).  My comment was in regards to the unauthorized seller possibly having seller's remorse.  Nothing more.

Pablo was very confused regarding the whole deal.  He alerted me to the purchase (b/c there was a book I would want) and then informed me that the seller wanted them back.  I don't think he was explicitly told they were stolen, just that the seller needed them back and things didn't seem right.  So he returned the books, got a refund and that was that.

[skypinkblu]

2 hours ago, Columbia Comics said:

I did see that post and I don't believe I posted the wrong information.

I was told that Pablo bought some books that turned out to be stolen.  It was my understanding that Pablo returned them to the seller, not the original owner.  The seller refunded the cash and took the books (and then I assume the seller returned them to the OO).  My comment was in regards to the unauthorized seller possibly having seller's remorse.  Nothing more.

Pablo was very confused regarding the whole deal.  He alerted me to the purchase (b/c there was a book I would want) and then informed me that the seller wanted them back.  I don't think he was explicitly told they were stolen, just that the seller needed them back and things didn't seem right.  So he returned the books, got a refund and that was that.

I'm glad you clarified that, Brock, because when I read it, and obviously when @N e r V read it, I thought you were referring to N er V as having seller's remorse. I'm not sure I was the only one who thought that.

[Columbia Comics]

2 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

I'm glad you clarified that, Brock, because when I read it, and obviously when @N e r V read it, I thought you were referring to N er V as having seller's remorse. I'm not sure I was the only one who thought that.

I didn't even know that @N e r V was the original owner of the books.  Just that Pablo bought then and then had to return them.  It was my suspicion that the seller had remorse, not the one who had the books taken.

[VintageComics]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:12 AM, comicwiz said:

On 8/19/2017 at 8:27 PM, VintageComics said:

I don't disagree.

We had this discussion years ago when Spider-Dan had a similar issue in his sales thread.

The rules are the rules.

But I still think it's a very unusual rule and I only think it's used because other people copy it from old sales thread. There's no logical reason for that rule and it's actually caused more problems than good over the years.

Personally, I think the sales forum rules should be amended to include that any made commitment needs to be honored regardless of how it sells.

 

I don't disagree with you Roy, with the only exception being that I've been on other collectible forums with active marketplaces where the "I'll take it" rule would have kept things a lot more honest, and sellers bound to their own rules. Having a seller back out because someone else, who happened to be a friend, closer to them location-wise, or even offered more just to have the piece, would have been a very welcome rule in other online marketplaces, especially since there was no probation system in place to keep transactions fair and honest for everyone. I can easily count on one hand the amount of times where I had a seller subvert the PM system to pit buyers against one another, and if an "I'll take it" option existed there, I would have saved myself a lot more money in at least a couple of instances where the seller sold it higher than their original asking. I do agree that there will be rare situations (like this one) where common sense would dictate a commitment needed to be honoured the minute payment terms and details were exchanged, but I wanted to offer a different perspective on why I think there's a level of transparency that needed with the "I'll take it" that should be considered.

I guess in a perfect world but most of the time when there is tomfoolery going on, someone is outed at some point or that info makes it's way out at some point.

[Gotham Kid]

So I guess seller didn't honor the sale nor make things right ? Good to know. Scratch one off the list.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Gotham Kid