• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

How good of a deal is too good of a deal?
1 1

373 posts in this topic

20 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

This +1000.  A bunch of my lights on my dashboard started flashing and coming on.  I took it in to the garage I trust and he told me that it was that the gas cap wasn't on tight.  With the oil change and replacing a tail light that was out he charged me $150.  I didn't research it, but I know the mechanic and trust him.  I'm sure he could have made more money off me telling me my flabbergaster was out and it would cost me $800, but he values me as a customer.  In much the same way there are a few dealers on the boards that I trust and have let my kids know that if I pass unexpectedly and they decide to unload my collection they should contact them.  I trust those dealers will let them know how best to unload the collection, either through direct sale to them or through selling through them.

Actually bro, it's true.  If your gas cap is not locked on you can get a check engine light...  just saying...  check engine almost always means stupid emissions problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes.

No. There is nothing in "this is what I'd be willing to pay" that implies that that is at, or near, my best offer.

The interesting thing about negotiation is that it's dynamic, not static. What may be my position at the beginning of negotiation may not be my position at the end. Being willing to pay more doesn't mean being able to pay more. Of what value is offering $500,000 if I don't have it? I'm absolutely willing to pay $500,000 for a "NM" Detective #27, right now, no questions asked, please take my money. 

I don't have $500,000 to spend. 

Am I willing to pay $500,000? Oh, you bet, without a doubt. Am I able? Nope.

No. It's only "sneaky" to those who judge by the appearance, rather than the substance.

I know some people are screaming muh feelings; likewise, if it comforts them, they are free to think that.

True. It is only when people virtue signal that it equals virtue signalling.

One thing people are forgetting - not EVERY dealer has One Million Dollars on hand to pay for an expensive collection. 

Sometimes things are tight  

So if someone comes into a shop in Paducah, KY and the dealer just got done with quarterly taxes and paid for that week’s Diamond Comics Shipment and made a big down payment on his kids braces and some guy comes into the store and says I have these 8 (nice condition Silver Age) Amazing Spider-man books and the dealer says, “I’d be willing to give you $200 for them”:..

Nothing unethical about it. That’s what he’s willing to pay right there and then. 

Edited by Chuck Gower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Karl Liebl said:

Actually bro, it's true.  If your gas cap is not locked on you can get a check engine light...  just saying...  check engine almost always means stupid emissions problem...

Yep.  That one cost me $100 once.  First thing I tell people now when engine light comes on -check the gas cap.  Dealer could have also told me that but.....easy $100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

CGC boards:

"If a dealer buys a Hulk #181 for $5 from someone it's unethical!"

BUT...

"I found a Hulk #181 for $5... tough luck for the dealer!"

Suddenly 'ethics' aren't in the discussion.

Pure hypocrisy. 

And I noticed none of the naysayers have gone anywhere near replying to this post...

Because the truth is not a single person here would return it. 

Yet it’s the dealers who are unethical. 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:
12 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

CGC boards:

"If a dealer buys a Hulk #181 for $5 from someone it's unethical!"

BUT...

"I found a Hulk #181 for $5... tough luck for the dealer!"

Suddenly 'ethics' aren't in the discussion.

Pure hypocrisy. 

And I noticed none of the naysayers have gone anywhere near replying to this post...

Because the truth is not a single person here would return it. 

Yet it’s the dealers who are unethical. 🤔

I got no beef with this.  If you don't lie/manipulate and don't care about your reputation, I got no judgment for you.  If the dealer ends up with a reputation for low-balling or not being a nice guy, that might be bad for business though.  But ethics-wise, no judgment here.

I think some people are blurring the line between doing the nice thing or the best thing as the same thing as doing the ethical thing.  I get that most of it comes to subjective morals, but where does one draw the line with how much you owe to your fellow man? 

If you have something of value (in this case knowledge), how much should you be REQUIRED to give to a complete stranger to act ethically, especially if they haven't even asked for that thing of value. 

If you're eating a truly delicious dish at a restaurant, should you offer it to a stranger at the table next door if he hasn't ordered the same dish?    "We are both here at this restaurant to enjoy food, and you have willingly ordered your food with an intent to pay a specific price for that food, but THIS FOOD IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT FOOD, I want you to eat half of my portion." 

Now I agree it would be NICE of you to make a recommendation if you know better and they're about to order a bad dish, but do you have any responsibility to do so?  Even more than that, is it an ethical requirement to share your dish with them unsolicited?

 

I'm not sure if this analogy quite made sense... but my point is to take your point of view, boil it down to its basics, and run it through to its logical conclusion. 

 

I have a thing of value (knowledge and experience, time, inherited wealth, a processing machine I invented, welding skills, a cute dog), and it allows me to profit more from this transaction than you do.  This is literally the basis of business and economics.  But ethically, based on some nebulous undefinable calculation I should be required to UNSOLICITED give up some or all of my thing of value so that I can get less value and you can get more? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, revat said:

I have a thing of value (knowledge and experience, time, inherited wealth, a processing machine I invented, welding skills, a cute dog), and it allows me to profit more from this transaction than you do.  This is literally the basis of business and economics.  But ethically, based on some nebulous undefinable calculation I should be required to UNSOLICITED give up some or all of my thing of value so that I can get less value and you can get more? 

Two points:  one, if you explain something to someone, you are not 'giving up' anything.  The information does not permanently leave your brain and enter the other person's, leaving you SOL.

Also I at least was talking about SOLICITED information-eg someone asks 'how much will you give me for this?' or 'how much is this worth?'.  I've seen dealers reply to 'how much is this worth?' with 'you want to sell it?' thereby consciously redirecting the conversation into 'I'll give you $5', never answering the 'how much is this worth'.  

I can even see being overwhelmed with desire seeing a stack of high grade PCH books and the person just asks how much will you give me and offering some nominal amount to get the books, knowing the seller has no clue about the value.  I can see possibly doing that.  I'm only human.  What I couldnt do is justify it to myself and think I did nothing wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kav said:

Two points:  one, if you explain something to someone, you are not 'giving up' anything.  The information does not permanently leave your brain and enter the other person's, leaving you SOL.

Also I at least was talking about SOLICITED information-eg someone asks 'how much will you give me for this?' or 'how much is this worth?'.  I've seen dealers reply to 'how much is this worth?' with 'you want to sell it?' thereby consciously redirecting the conversation into 'I'll give you $5', never answering the 'how much is this worth'.  

I can even see being overwhelmed with desire seeing a stack of high grade PCH books and the person just asks how much will you give me and offering some nominal amount to get the books, knowing the seller has no clue about the value.  I can see possibly doing that.  I'm only human.  What I couldnt do is justify it to myself and think I did nothing wrong.  

The knowledge has value, the fact that you have it and the other person doesn't has value.  Sharing the knowledge dilutes the value of your knowledge (not that one should never share knowledge).

I would say if a person is deliberately misleading or steering a conversation to avoid answering a question, that would be unethical manipulation.  I think most people would agree. 

But I would also say that's not the same as walking up to a yard sale with a $5 price tag on a stack of comics, handing the seller a $5 bill, then walking away with the comics.  Its the same to me if the comics are worth $3, $5, $10, $100 or $9000. 

Or the same thing as going to a craigslist ad, looking over 15 boxes you know to be worth $40,000 at least (but still a lot of work), then offering him just the $800 in your pocket hoping he'll take it because that's literally all the money you have to spare.

Now if they ask questions and you lie, that's wrong.  But otherwise what other ethical responsibility do you have to that person?  And if you have other ethical responsibilities to that person, where do you draw the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, revat said:

The knowledge has value, the fact that you have it and the other person doesn't has value.  Sharing the knowledge dilutes the value of your knowledge (not that one should never share knowledge).

I would say if a person is deliberately misleading or steering a conversation to avoid answering a question, that would be unethical manipulation.  I think most people would agree. 

But I would also say that's not the same as walking up to a yard sale with a $5 price tag on a stack of comics, handing the seller a $5 bill, then walking away with the comics.  Its the same to me if the comics are worth $3, $5, $10, $100 or $9000. 

Or the same thing as going to a craigslist ad, looking over 15 boxes you know to be worth $40,000 at least (but still a lot of work), then offering him just the $800 in your pocket hoping he'll take it because that's literally all the money you have to spare.

Now if they ask questions and you lie, that's wrong.  But otherwise what other ethical responsibility do you have to that person?  And if you have other ethical responsibilities to that person, where do you draw the line?

Pretty good thoughts on the matter.  I would say if you are enriching yourself greatly due to another person's ignorance, over a sale, you have an ethical obligation.  Offering them your food does not fall under this category and you have no such obligation.  You have no obligation to give, I believe, but you do have an obligation not to take.

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be fair if you bought Action #1 at a yard sale for $1, sold it, then slipped 1/2 the proceeds under their door.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kav said:

I think it would be fair if you bought Action #1 at a yard sale for $1, sold it, then slipped 1/2 the proceeds under their door.  

what if you found it in a house you bought?

what if it was bill gates' yard sale? or Hilary Clinton's?  Or Trump's?  Or the yard sale of some known criminal (non-comic crimes only!)

I'm not saying there aren't some circumstances where it wouldn't be better (or best) to give a piece back or offer more, etc. I also think most boardies would actually give something similar in these insane extreme cases. BUT I'm just saying that by declaring it AUTOMATICALLY UNETHICAL FOR NOT OFFERING MORE OR GIVING SOME MONEY BACK is an unnecessarily broad brush to paint with and traps one in an ethical rabbit hole.

Edited by revat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, revat said:

what if you found it in a house you bought?

what if it was bill gates' yard sale? or Hilary Clinton's?  Or Trump's?  Or the yard sale of some known criminal (non-comic crimes only!)

I'm not saying there aren't some circumstances where it wouldn't be better (or best) to give a piece back or offer more, etc. I also think most boardies would actually give something similar in these insane extreme cases. BUT I'm just saying that by declaring it AUTOMATICALLY UNETHICAL FOR NOT OFFERING MORE OR GIVING SOME MONEY BACK is an unnecessarily broad brush to paint with and traps one in an ethical rabbit hole.

Well you can say it's wrong to punch people in the throat without finding all the exceptions like What if it was a serial killer?  What if it was someone laying in wait to attack someone? etc.

The essential meaning is clear, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kav said:

Well you can say it's wrong to punch people in the throat without finding all the exceptions like What if it was a serial killer?  What if it was someone laying in wait to attack someone? etc.

The essential meaning is clear, I believe.

Its not as extreme as you might think given how likely it is that any one of us is actually put into this already extreme scenario.  Do you think you're more likely to find an underpriced Action 1 at your local flea market or some old rich people's estate sale?  Its not unreasonable to think that a decent amount of us fall into the middle class.  What if you the yard sale was in a nicer neighborhood than your own?  Reasonably likely.  Would that affect how compelled you feel to inform them or pay them more after the fact?  I certainly would be more likely to offer more if it was a rundown neighborhood and there were a bunch of kids around.  But I'd also be inclined not to offer more if I had just lost my job. 

Again, its nice to be nice, but the pure ethics most reasonably and consistently applied here are not to harm.  Any thing above and beyond that is a credit to you and your generosity (which is great and we should strive for!), but not a moral imperative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as finding valuables in house you bought, I found this info on the internet.  I am not a lawyer and cannot vouch for it but it's said that you do not own that comic-not sure what the state by state rules are but I found a few interesting replies.

https://www.elderlawanswers.com/500000-found-in-house-walls-belongs-to-estate-not-homeowners-9905

Screenshot 2019-07-02 at 5.17.01 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, revat said:

Its not as extreme as you might think given how likely it is that any one of us is actually put into this already extreme scenario.  Do you think you're more likely to find an underpriced Action 1 at your local flea market or some old rich people's estate sale?  Its not unreasonable to think that a decent amount of us fall into the middle class.  What if you the yard sale was in a nicer neighborhood than your own?  Reasonably likely.  Would that affect how compelled you feel to inform them or pay them more after the fact?  I certainly would be more likely to offer more if it was a rundown neighborhood and there were a bunch of kids around.  But I'd also be inclined not to offer more if I had just lost my job. 

Again, its nice to be nice, but the pure ethics most reasonably and consistently applied here are not to harm.  Any thing above and beyond that is a credit to you and your generosity (which is great and we should strive for!), but not a moral imperative.

I guess its best to at least if you succumb to temptation, at least admit what you did, to yourself.  Justifying stuff is never good, IMO.  Anyone can justify anything.  Not comparing to any boardies but just an interesting historical note, ted bundy justified his murders by saying 'there's lots of young women-I only took a few-'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Karl Liebl said:

What if you bring in 25000 in books and the LCS offers 500 in store credit and you both know what the value is?

Then you say "only if you reduce all store credit items to 1/40th of listed price-"

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
1 1