BeatleBlueCat DEFRAUDING BUYERS with Massive SHILL BIDDING and Same old "Buy CGC graded 7.5, crack and sell as raw "NM" scam 10 10

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, FoggyNelson said:

Thank you for the excellent service you do around here for the comicommunity 👍👍😷

Tweren't nothing I'm warming up. A lot to go. And when I'm done here with this CGC cracking and photoshopping, overgrading flim-flammer, finding Jimmy Hoffa is next. I may even delve into who really threw those pies and why. 

[thehumantorch]

3 hours ago, october said:

He habitually buys graded books, cracks them, and sells them raw (and only raw) at higher grades. Zero CGC sales. You think that's because he believes his own grades and just wants to leave money on the table for the good of the hobby? Maybe he's on a quest to liberate as many comics as possible from their holders. The Che Guevara of eBay. 

Ding ding, we have a winner.

This is a seller who's business model is cracking books and selling them raw at higher grades.  Lots and lots of books.  We can all disagree with CGCs grade on a book but when you systemically inflate the grade you're misrepresenting the books.

And if this seller truly believed the grades of the books he's selling he'd get them graded.

[thehumantorch]

2 hours ago, sledgehammer said:

The guy has got great feedback.

That means nothing.  Easy to have perfect feedback if you quickly honor returns.  And by the time anyone gets a book graded it's too late to leave feedback.  

[thehumantorch]

21 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Tweren't nothing I'm warming up. A lot to go. And when I'm done here with this CGC cracking and photoshopping, overgrading flim-flammer, finding Jimmy Hoffa is next. I may even delve into who really threw those pies and why. 

Thanks for the time you spend researching and exposing these guys.

[Tedsaid]

10 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

Would it be poor practice for me to enter an obscenely high bid so I win, and then never pay but ensure that I make his life hell and somehow leave feedback that shares his nefarious practices?

I took time to send some messages and click on some ebay reports....if enough people do, maybe something will happen. Maybe not. 

I tried to report, but wasn't sure of the category.  I looked under "listing practices" and "fraudulent," but didn't see a sub-category that seemed to fit.  What category did you report this as?  I would like to report it too ... I've bought from this PoS in the past, and didn't realize until now he was lying to me about the grade.

[Tedsaid]

4 hours ago, shadroch said:

So he is damned for not answering people’s questions and damned for answering them, as well. He says he pressed the book. It looks like the book was pressed. What more do you need?

I'm pretty sure that book was not pressed.  Look at this picture, at spine dent in the middle of the spine.  A press won't fix the color break, but it would sure as hell fix that shallow finger-bend.

[shadroch]

47 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

Ding ding, we have a winner.

This is a seller who's business model is cracking books and selling them raw at higher grades.  Lots and lots of books.  We can all disagree with CGCs grade on a book but when you systemically inflate the grade you're misrepresenting the books.

And if this seller truly believed the grades of the books he's selling he'd get them graded.

Why? Not everyone is a fan of CGC. Some people remember how they set up an undisclosed pressing factory for select clients. Some remember the shadiness of the Ewert-Schmell affair. Some of us remember the same book being resubmitted multiple times and getting multiple grades.Some people realize a CGC grade is nothing more than an opinion.

I'm in the process of sending in $50,000  in consignments to MCS. Could I make more if I laid out tens of thousands  to grade them and waited six months to sell them? Perhaps, but the lost opportunities of having my money and goods tied up for the next six months simply doesn't do it for me.

I don't slab books.I don't press books. I buy slabbed books but I buy based on the book, not the label.I've unslabbed a few books over the past twenty years and if and when I sell them, I will grade them. I unslabbed  a TOS 52 in 1999, long before it broke out.  Does anyone think I should disclose that CGC once graded it a 4.5? How long must a book be free before its former grade is irreverent?

[shadroch]

36 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

I tried to report, but wasn't sure of the category.  I looked under "listing practices" and "fraudulent," but didn't see a sub-category that seemed to fit.  What category did you report this as?  I would like to report it too ... I've bought from this PoS in the past, and didn't realize until now he was lying to me about the grade.

Can you elaborate on this? You bought a book from him and were happy with your purchase but now you aren't?  Why?

[kav]

1 hour ago, Tedsaid said:

I'm pretty sure that book was not pressed.  Look at this picture, at spine dent in the middle of the spine.  A press won't fix the color break, but it would sure as hell fix that shallow finger-bend.

Case closed.
We're done here.

[Tedsaid]

5 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Can you elaborate on this? You bought a book from him and were happy with your purchase but now you aren't?  Why?

I will provide more details, as I'm looking for old pictures now.  But here is the shorter version: I bought four books from this guy a year and a half ago.  The big one was X-Men 101, listed as a 9.2.  I sent to a reputable presser, then to CGC.  It came back a 7.0.  Grader notes:

"light spine stress lines to cover
light staining to cover
small staple tear top of spine
very light rusted staples to cover"

I complained to the seller, who replied "I am not responsible for CGC grades" and "You altered the comic by sending it to a presser."  So then I opened a case with eBay.  I was VERY fair, bending over backwards to assume he sold it in good faith, and only missed the rust on the staples and the stains.  (I didn't look carefully myself.  I hardly knew what to look for then.)  But I was adamant - he should not be selling a 7.0 comic at a 9.2 grade.  I can see being a difference of opinion by one or perhaps two grade points ... but five?  That's too much.

Ultimately, eBay agreed with me and gave me the partial refund I asked for.  Not enough to cover my costs, especially given the same story on the other three books.  And certainly not enough to cover the lost value.  I think I ended up being a couple hundred down.  But I got some of it back.

But now I'm really pissed, because it seems like he did it on purpose.  If he cracked this one out, too, then he KNEW about the stains and did not disclose them.  It is one thing to hold a dealer responsible for "missing" a stain or rust that brings a grade down from a 9.2 to a 7.0; but it is a whole 'nother matter to lie about these things.

[kav]

6 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

"I am not responsible for CGC grades" and "You altered the comic by sending it to a presser." 

Case further closed.  We are further done here.

[Tedsaid]

50 minutes ago, kav said:

Case further closed.  We are further done here.

Oh, it was worse than that.  After I brought up the issue with the X-Men #101 grade, I said, "Obviously, a 7.0 is a large discrepancy from the 9.2 advertised. How would you like to handle this?"

The subsequent conversation:

beatlebluecat: "Hi, I can't guarantee grades from CGC."

Me: "Sure, but you can get close, right? I mean, what else are you talking about, when you advertise a comic as a 9.2?"

beatlebluecat: "It looked better than a 7.0 when I had it."

Me: "Well, it did to me, too, certainly. It sounds like the stain and the rusty staples - which weren't disclosed in the ad - are what really brought down the grade. Did I already send you the grader's notes? I think I did. I'm sorry this happened. I know it's a real bummer - it sure is for me. [..edited for brevity..]  Let's call it $300, okay? How does that sound?"

beatlebluecat: "I think the guy you sent to get it pressed and cleaned switched the book."

Me: "I will ask. The book will arrive tomorrow also, and I will be able to compare to the pictures. If it isn't the same book it will be pretty obvious.  And if it is the same book?"

beatlebluecat: "It matters not. You had it altered and you bought it six months ago. It didn’t look like it needed to be pressed or cleaned when I had it." [Note: it was less than five months, not six]

Me: "I didn't have it altered. Cleaning and pressing is a standard - very standard - procedure to improve the structure and quality of a comic, using non-restorative techniques. There is no way cleaning and pressing could introduce rust in the staples, or stains to the cover. Are you disputing this? Cleaning and pressing also can not remove rust or stains. Which is why they were still on the comic, according to CGC.

I will also check with CGC, once I have the comic back and can examine it. It is possible they made an input / labeling error.

If everything checks out, and it turns out you accidentally sold me a 7.0 comic that you thought was a 9.2, will you try to make it right?"

beatlebluecat: "No, I would have refunded within 30 days not 6 months later after you altered the merchandise"

 

And obviously the conversation ended there, with a hard "no" on any attempt to make it right.  It was at this point that I opened a case with eBay.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Tedsaid

[Lightning55]

SOLD - for $1212.01

[Tedsaid]

The listing has ended ... $1,212.01.  That SOB made $500 bucks off his lies. 

[kav]

6 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

Oh, it was worse than that.  After I brought up the issue with the X-Men #101 grade, I said, "Obviously, a 7.0 is a large discrepancy from the 9.2 advertised. How would you like to handle this?"

The subsequent conversation:

beatlebluecat: "Hi, I can't guarantee grades from CGC."

Me: "Sure, but you can get close, right? I mean, what else are you talking about, when you advertise a comic as a 9.2?"

beatlebluecat: "It looked better than a 7.0 when I had it."

Me: "Well, it did to me, too, certainly. It sounds like the stain and the rusty staples - which weren't disclosed in the ad - are what really brought down the grade. Did I already send you the grader's notes? I think I did. I'm sorry this happened. I know it's a real bummer - it sure is for me. [..edited for brevity..]  Let's call it $300, okay? How does that sound?"

beatlebluecat: "I think the guy you sent to get it pressed and cleaned switched the book."

Me: "I will ask. The book will arrive tomorrow also, and I will be able to compare to the pictures. If it isn't the same book it will be pretty obvious.  And if it is the same book?"

beatlebluecat: "It matters not. You had it altered and you bought it six months ago. It didn’t look like it needed to be pressed or cleaned when I had it." [Note: it was less than five months, not six]

Me: "I didn't have it altered. Cleaning and pressing is a standard - very standard - procedure to improve the structure and quality of a comic, using non-restorative techniques. There is no way cleaning and pressing could introduce rust in the staples, or stains to the cover. Are you disputing this? Cleaning and pressing also can not remove rust or stains. Which is why they were still on the comic, according to CGC.

I will also check with CGC, once I have the comic back and can examine it. It is possible they made an input / labeling error.

If everything checks out, and it turns out you accidentally sold me a 7.0 comic that you thought was a 9.2, will you try to make it right?"

beatlebluecat: "No, I would have refunded within 30 days not 6 months later after you altered the merchandise"

 

And obviously the conversation ended there, with a hard "no" on any attempt to make it right.  It was at this point that I opened a case with eBay.

This pretty well puts a stake in the heart of any defense of the guy's selling practices-and here's one extremely dissatisfied customer so that puts a stake in the heart of 'the guy has good feedback' argument.

[WPPJames]

14 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

beatlebluecat: "No, I would have refunded within 30 days not 6 months later after you altered the merchandise"

If his return policy is 30 days and he truly honors that (I have no way of knowing) then what's the main issue? You had 30 days to do due diligence after you received it. A seller can't be expected to have a "unlimited days" refund policy.

EDIT: That was a tad harsh. If the book had defects not shown in the scans or disclosed verbally, then yes he sold in bad faith. My statement above applies to refund time periods in general, not specifically to your case.

Edited December 19, 2020 by WPPJames
Slight change of heart?

[D2]

1 hour ago, shadroch said:

Why? Not everyone is a fan of CGC. Some people remember how they set up an undisclosed pressing factory for select clients. Some remember the shadiness of the Ewert-Schmell affair. Some of us remember the same book being resubmitted multiple times and getting multiple grades.Some people realize a CGC grade is nothing more than an opinion.

I'm in the process of sending in $50,000  in consignments to MCS. Could I make more if I laid out tens of thousands  to grade them and waited six months to sell them? Perhaps, but the lost opportunities of having my money and goods tied up for the next six months simply doesn't do it for me.

I don't slab books.I don't press books. I buy slabbed books but I buy based on the book, not the label.I've unslabbed a few books over the past twenty years and if and when I sell them, I will grade them. I unslabbed  a TOS 52 in 1999, long before it broke out.  Does anyone think I should disclose that CGC once graded it a 4.5? How long must a book be free before its former grade is irreverent?

Sorry, but this all sounds like justification to me. All of it. 
 

I don’t buy anything you wrote. Just like I don’t buy anything Beatle Blue Balls sells

[kav]

2 minutes ago, WPPJames said:

If his return policy is 30 days and he truly honors that (I have no way of knowing) then what's the main issue? You had 30 days to do due diligence after you received it. A seller can't be expected to have a "unlimited days" refund policy.

It's a bit of a loophole tho-takes longer than 30 days to get the real grade back from CGC.  

[Tedsaid]

1 minute ago, WPPJames said:

If his return policy is 30 days and he truly honors that (I have no way of knowing) then what's the main issue? You had 30 days to do due diligence after you received it. A seller can't be expected to have a "unlimited days" refund policy.

Doesn't have to be "unlimited."  But someone who is a dealer, who sells tens of thousands of dollars worth of comics every week?  I expect them to grade better than that, and stand by it when they don't.

And that is BEFORE we knew he was cracking and "up grading" comics to sell fraudulently. 

[KCOComics]

11 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

Oh, it was worse than that.  After I brought up the issue with the X-Men #101 grade, I said, "Obviously, a 7.0 is a large discrepancy from the 9.2 advertised. How would you like to handle this?"

The subsequent conversation:

beatlebluecat: "Hi, I can't guarantee grades from CGC."

Me: "Sure, but you can get close, right? I mean, what else are you talking about, when you advertise a comic as a 9.2?"

beatlebluecat: "It looked better than a 7.0 when I had it."

Me: "Well, it did to me, too, certainly. It sounds like the stain and the rusty staples - which weren't disclosed in the ad - are what really brought down the grade. Did I already send you the grader's notes? I think I did. I'm sorry this happened. I know it's a real bummer - it sure is for me. [..edited for brevity..]  Let's call it $300, okay? How does that sound?"

beatlebluecat: "I think the guy you sent to get it pressed and cleaned switched the book."

Me: "I will ask. The book will arrive tomorrow also, and I will be able to compare to the pictures. If it isn't the same book it will be pretty obvious.  And if it is the same book?"

beatlebluecat: "It matters not. You had it altered and you bought it six months ago. It didn’t look like it needed to be pressed or cleaned when I had it." [Note: it was less than five months, not six]

Me: "I didn't have it altered. Cleaning and pressing is a standard - very standard - procedure to improve the structure and quality of a comic, using non-restorative techniques. There is no way cleaning and pressing could introduce rust in the staples, or stains to the cover. Are you disputing this? Cleaning and pressing also can not remove rust or stains. Which is why they were still on the comic, according to CGC.

I will also check with CGC, once I have the comic back and can examine it. It is possible they made an input / labeling error.

If everything checks out, and it turns out you accidentally sold me a 7.0 comic that you thought was a 9.2, will you try to make it right?"

beatlebluecat: "No, I would have refunded within 30 days not 6 months later after you altered the merchandise"

 

And obviously the conversation ended there, with a hard "no" on any attempt to make it right.  It was at this point that I opened a case with eBay.

I never trust the stated grade for raw books on eBay because I know sellers embellish. And I wouldn't even be mad about missing slightly rusty staples because that's easy to over look.

But to find out he sold you a book he knew was a 7.0 and represented it as higher, then tried to pin it on you like you did something wrong would infuriate me! 

I'm glad eBay resolved in your favor. 

 

I'm sorry, but there is no way to rationalize this.