New CGC collector with a few questions about some purchases and damage 3 3

[BmoGreen]

56 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Or, you could keep the book, since it's a very nice 9.8 double signed copy of a rather key X-Men book, and trade it for something you like better somewhere down the line.

Im gonna keep it and resell it. I will disclose the chipping and take reasonable photos of it and will probably get less money for it because of that, but hopefully not much more than 35$ less that 2 ways of shipping would cost. Maybe though, it is pretty ugly. I cant imagine many people who buy 9.8 books would knowingly buy a book with a chip and dent on the corner rather than a book of the same grade without it

In my "super blown up photos" I still included context. You can clearly see how big it is based on the xmen logo in the photo which is about the same size on any xmen comic from the era.

And your question about where I posted? Random cgc collecters groups around the internet. The posters credentials I dont know. Dont worry as with the post here I did not ever say who sold it to me. 

Sorry you got caught up in my first purchase. I now know to ask about chipping and will on purchases where the images dont make it clear that there is not any.

Again, I would like to ask all commenters on this thread if there are other flaws which are visually as noticeable as a bindery chip other than centering and color vibrancy which would not degrade a book past a 9.8 that I should ask about before purchasing. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by BmoGreen

[Semicentennial]

Instead of asking the seller to describe every flaw on a 9.8, why don't you just ask for close up shots of the book instead?  

[RockMyAmadeus]

23 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

Im gonna keep it and resell it. I will disclose the chipping and take reasonable photos of it and will probably get less money for it because of that, but hopefully not much more than 35$ less that 2 ways of shipping would cost. Maybe though, it is pretty ugly.

You bought the book for $289 shipped, which is $19 more than the lowest price this book in this grade has sold for since 2017. I think you'll do ok. As ugly as you think the flaw looks...and you have a perfect right to think that...comic collectors wouldn't have a problem with it. The continued implication that there was something deficient/wrong/unacceptable about the listing is the issue, here. 

Not meeting your standards doesn't mean there was anything inadequate, unprofessional, or deceptive about my listings. 

Quote

I cant imagine many people who buy 9.8 books would knowingly buy a book with a chip and dent on the corner rather than a book of the same grade without it

That's because those books have other flaws instead. And why do you keep repeating the false idea that there is a "dent" on the corner?

There is no dent on the corner.

23 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

In my "super blown up photos" I still included context. You can clearly see how big it is based on the xmen logo in the photo which is about the same size on any xmen comic from the era.

That's not context. If I show you this:

You're not going to get a good idea of how big the mintmark "S" really is in real life.

Context is showing it in a size that is relatively close to how big the book is in real life.

23 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

Random cgc collecters groups around the internet. The posters credentials I dont know. Dont worry as with the post here I did not ever say who sold it to me. 

The Facebook groups I have seen are infested with people who have no clue what they're talking about, and resent and remove anyone who challenges them. 

You got a lot of opinions from people who didn't know what they were talking about, who rubber stamped your opinion, rather than giving you neutral advice. That's why I suggested you go to the CGC board...not random "cgc collectors groups."

Edited February 9, 2020 by RockMyAmadeus

[BmoGreen]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's not context. If I show you this:

You're not going to get a good idea of how big the mintmark "S" really is in real life.

Context is showing it in a size that is relatively close to how big the book is in real life.

No. What you say/ask is impossible. We are talking screens here. You may have some giant monitor you are looking at and someone else might have a phone screen. Showing something that people understand the size of next to something they might not is what we call context.

When i look at the images i posted on my phone, they are actually smaller than in real life.

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

No. What you say/ask is impossible. We are talking screens here. You may have some giant monitor you are looking at and someone else might have a phone screen. Showing something that people understand the size of next to something they might not is what we call context.

When i look at the images i posted on my phone, they are actually smaller than in real life.

Then isn't it incumbent upon you to look at the listing where you can actually see the picture properly...?

I don't have "some giant monitor." I'm sitting here, on a cheapo HP laptop, with a standard laptop screen. When I scan, I scan to the size that, when you use eBay's "zoom" feature, you can see the book in as close to "life size" as I can get. Here's a picture of me, holding up an X-Men #213 in real life against the monitor to compare to the size of an X-Men #207 using eBay's zoom feature:

The scan is just a little bit smaller than what you would see in real life. That's the goal: to aim for life size, the way people will see it in real life. Not too small, not too big. That's how someone will see it using 100% "zoom" on their monitor, using a typical computer monitor.

If you're looking at pictures on a phone, how can you expect to see anything? And if you're just looking at pictures on a phone, how can you hold any seller responsible for things you can't see?

Edited February 9, 2020 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

Showing something that people understand the size of next to something they might not is what we call context.

That's correct, which is what I said. Your zoomed in photos don't do that, as countless examples posted here over the years demonstrate. 

[BmoGreen]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Then isn't it incumbent upon you to look at the listing where you can actually see the picture properly...?

 

I never said I didnt look at your comic on a screen larger than a phone. The problem is your image is bad and does not show anything more than what might be a scanner artifact. Your image will never show the damage no matter how big we blow it up. My image will no matter how small you shrink it down.

My response to you was about you saying my image was "blown up". My image simply shows the damage. If you cant extrapolate how "big" it really is based on the size of the standard xmen cover logo in the image then I dont think there is anything else I can do. There is no "standard computer monitor".

I have a hard time believing you are actually arguing this point....

 

[PunisherPunisherPunisher]

this is a good movie

[RockMyAmadeus]

36 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

The problem is your image is bad and does not show anything more than what might be a scanner artifact.

If the image was, in your opinion, "bad", it was "bad" when you first encountered it. At that time, you should have asked for pictures that would have been more to your liking, rather than simply assuming that everything was acceptable. You did not. You made an offer, and accepted a counter-offer, based on a picture that you already considered "bad", but which you never notified me you had a problem with before making and accepting said offers.

36 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

If you cant extrapolate how "big" it really is based on the size of the standard xmen cover logo in the image then I dont think there is anything else I can do.

As has been demonstrated on this board hundreds, if not thousands, of times, especially in the "Buddy can you spare a grade...?" forum, things printed on a comic aren't going to provide anchors to context. If you had put a dime or nickel next to it, that would have provided context.

36 minutes ago, BmoGreen said:

There is no "standard computer monitor".

I didn't say there was. "typical" is not the same thing as "standard." You can substitute the word "average" if you like. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, PunisherPunisherPunisher said:

this is a good movie

Quiet, you! 

[RockMyAmadeus]

This buyer has left negative feedback for this transaction...our first in years...out of spite. 

Here, then, are all the facts: 

1. He made a relatively lowball offer on the book...30% off my initial asking price (that was already marked down 10%.) 

2. Claims here that my "picture was bad", but bought it anyway, without saying a word about his concerns.

3. Received the book....a typical 9.8 in a 9.8 slab...and sees that it has a bindery chip in the upper right corner.

4. Without bothering to contact me....the seller...the buyer apparently opens several discussions all over the internet, admitting that this was his "first slab purchase" and showing super blown up pictures of the chip, claiming that the flaw was "hidden." Posts several zoomed-in closeup shots of the flaw, purposely making it look much worse than it did in hand, because he was looking for confirmation of his opinion...not neutral advice. Then, because people are people, and looking at a flaw zoomed in without context always makes it seem worse than it is, agreed with him. He lied in the dispute, claiming he had "never had so much as one return in hundreds of transactions over the past couple of years on eBay", leaving out the fact (in the dispute) that this was the first slab he had ever purchased.

5. The buyer then....again, without contacting me first...opens a "Not As Described" case, even though what he got was perfectly as described: a 9.8 graded X-Men #221 signed by Claremont and Silvestri, fraudulently using the eBay returns system so he wouldn't have to pay the shipping costs either way.

6. Buyer then continues to justify his unreasonable expectations, despite have zero experience with CGC, CGC grading, graded comics, and the like. He expects 9.9s and 10s in 9.8 slabs. Buyer was offered the opportunity to return the book, but refused, because the buyer would rather have a weapon to wield.

Buyer received exactly what they bought: a typical 9.8 in a 9.8 slab. Book was not damaged post-slabbing. Bindery chips are common on newsprint books.

I would recommend blocking him as soon as you can. Buyers with unreasonable expectations can cause tremendous damage to sellers.

Edited February 10, 2020 by RockMyAmadeus

[Semicentennial]

Unbelievable...bmogreena has been added to my blocked buyer listed.  I don't need to be dealing with unreasonable buyers.  Sorry you had to deal with this RMA.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, 50 Fiddy said:

Unbelievable...bmogreena has been added to my blocked buyer listed.  I don't need to be dealing with unreasonable buyers.  Sorry you had to deal with this RMA.

Yeah...it's funny what spite can do to people. I know full well that I should have left it alone after he closed the fraudulent "Not As Described" dispute, but the guy was relentless on dragging me and my business practices through the mud. and...well, it's just not in my nature to sit back and let someone smear me like that.

Guy buys his very first slab, doesn't like it, even though it's a typical example of the grade, and expects the seller to pay for his learning curve...?

Well, hey, he got his petty, vindictive, spiteful revenge. 

[MetalPSI]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yeah...it's funny what spite can do to people. I know full well that I should have left it alone after he closed the fraudulent "Not As Described" dispute, but the guy was relentless on dragging me and my business practices through the mud. and...well, it's just not in my nature to sit back and let someone smear me like that.

Guy buys his very first slab, doesn't like it, even though it's a typical example of the grade, and expects the seller to pay for his learning curve...?

Well, hey, he got his petty, vindictive, spiteful revenge. 

It's alright though, we are all whiny jerks. So it washes out

[boatfund]

BmoGreen is probably going to get a few surprises on ebay in the next year or so... and not in the books he buys but in the surprises he gets when he goes to bid.  I'm certain he has joined many Blocked Bidder Lists that he is unaware of... until he tries to bid.

The seller offered to refund you on on a graded comic CGC 9.8 -  that was fair enough.  Didn't matter that it was RMA.  (who has a good rep)

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by boatfund

[boatfund]

12 minutes ago, 50 Fiddy said:

Unbelievable...bmogreena has been added to my blocked buyer listed.  I don't need to be dealing with unreasonable buyers.  Sorry you had to deal with this RMA.

I was typing my reply as you responded

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, boatfund said:

Didn't matter that it was RMA.

Thank you for sayiHEY!!!

[ThothAmon]

Is this the type of thing that could get the OP nominated to the naughty list?  Leaving a negative after the discussion here is outrageous and worthy of scorn. 

[MetalPSI]

4 minutes ago, ThothAmon said:

Is this the type of thing that could get the OP nominated to the naughty list?  Leaving a negative after the discussion here is outrageous and worthy of scorn. 

He's paddling the douchecanoe, but I am not sure it has to be that harsh.

[boatfund]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Thank you for sayiHEY!!!

I edited the post as it might not have been clear.