bclarkie wrote:Stephen, Looking at the scans, they appear to be different copies. A couple of the stress marks appear to be angling in different directions on your copy versus the disputed one. Also, the staples look different in the two scans as well. Additionally, there seems to be some chips in the cover on TFM's scan that do not appear to be on your copy and the damage at the bottom left hand corner of the front cover seems to be worse on TFMs versus yours. Just my $.02.
chromaticknight wrote:I agree with BTB on this one:But if you want to continue to drive away members new and old have at it.Mike
bombadil wrote:After looking again at this, which is the ST1 that was pulled down because of questions of provenance and frankensteinizationCan anyone tell me whether the ST1 I bought from Paul's Jeff Perren benefit auction might be the same one? Here's mine:Any thoughts?
bclarkie wrote:If me posting about the shady workings of these "highly respected" members of this community is bad, then maybe I should really rethink whether or not I want to be a meber of this community at all.
bombadil wrote:Can anyone tell me whether the ST1 I bought from Paul's Jeff Perren benefit auction might be the same one?
deimos3428 wrote:I think this thread should be locked, and the key thrown away. It is no longer living up to it's intended purpose.
The Collector's Trove wrote:It is not the same one.
bclarkie wrote:You ask for a buy it now, great, Someone bids before you can complete the deal, tough shit, you lose and you let the auction run to its completion, your loss. I personally have done it on several occasions. The fact that he pulled the rug out on 61 individual auctions that had multiple bidders on it makes it even far worse.
Kingofpain89 wrote:I agree that the thread has moved off course. I don't want to see anyone leave the forum over a disagreement such as this. What happened with TFM was unfortunate. The decision to pull the auctions wasn't the smartest thing to do in my opinion but it was done. TFM left the forum for his own reasons and I wont attempt to speculate but it created a rift that I assumed was closed.There are more constructive things to talk about anyway...like how cougarrinard sucks the big one.
mbassoc2003 wrote:If this topic should be locked, do you propose we ban all discussion about eBay on the forum? Or just discussion about dodgy practaces on eBay?
mbassoc2003 wrote:I don't think this thread should be locked.
mbassoc2003 wrote:I think this is exactly WHY this thread is here. It shouldn't be locked just because one topic happens to be being discussed more prevelantly than an other. Nothing objectionable is being said.This is meant to be an open forum in which D&D related topics are discussed. We are all collectors and dealing on eBay is the primary means by which most of us earn our livings or amass our collections. You cannot sensor a discussion about any single dealer in a 'shady seller' section solely because he is a big player in the community. Titan Games and Cougar are both 'big players' and their trading practices are often the subject of major debate.If this topic should be locked, do you propose we ban all discussion about eBay on the forum? Or just discussion about dodgy practaces on eBay?
deimos3428 wrote:I think this thread should be locked, and the key thrown away. It is no longer living up to it's intended purpose."Shady Dealers" are subjective in most cases. Most of us make up our own minds, so going into extensive detail as to why you feel someone is shady is completely pointless. Better to simply list the individuals you've had trouble with, and let the pattern of evidence do the rest. Let people learn who to believe the hard way, if they must.Now behave back there, or I'll pull the car over.