Crush their woodgrains, drive a Hummer over their shop displays and hear the lamination of their women.... erm, Little Soldiers?

Ouch... Not quite as bad as that, perhaps, IMHO, but would've hoped that might've been spotted/noted by the seller even if the wording used in the auction just about weasels its way around the issue even if they did realise the lamination wasn't original. ("in" the book)

Return for refund sounds best since I'm also pretty much 100% certain these were never laminated "as sold".

stratochamp wrote:to me lamination means it is a reading copy only, i.e. poor condition....

Personally, I prefer my reading copies a bit better than "poor condition".

mbassoc2003 wrote:All that said, I have seen really professional laminants applied to 80's collectables, and I did sell a UK Basic with a fairly professionally applied laminate to the cover with no decernable drop in value...

Lamination on the GW PHB and MM is about the only way to obtain a really nice looking copy (/one that would look wonderful in a museum behind glass). Pretty much taken for granted on the original GW Basic book, too, and agreed re. value for that one in particular. A different matter on US product, admittedly.

mbassoc2003 wrote:The other question to ask is, are you more agrieved at losing percieved investment value than you are in having paid more than you would have paid had you known?

I once paid maybe $200 over the odds for a PoVQ, shelling out for a ziplock 1st print what I should have paid for a black foldered 1st. I subsequently sold it on at a $200 loss, but I chalked it up to my own inexperience, and in the grand scheme of things Somethimes I've lost a chunk, and sometimes I've made a big profit. Maybe if I didn't take the chances and lost occasionally, I wouldn't have the nerve to take the chances and win when I win big time.

Good attitude, Ian.
(Albeit the postal delivery worker will still fold that big-time win through the letter box as karmic revenge if you're feeling too happy about such wins ).

stratochamp wrote:while we are on the topic of grading, i do not agree with the acaeum grading parameters. while i of course see the need for an industry standard, i personally find the description used for fair, would be better applied to poor. in the good category there is a reference to mustiness: i would never allow a musty smelling item to co-mingle with my lovelies (even though all module sized items go in their own bag). not including magazines, i probably have only 10 items that are worse than VG by the acaeum standard (so yes David, i too like my reading copies better than poor; the point i was attempting to make was that from my perspective a laminated cover is a ruined cover).

Mustiness/Mold means worthless trash to me. Not even reading copies, and storing something like that can trasnfer mold spores. You don't want to be breathing that stuff. It is a pain in the ass to see something ruined, especially a well loved or valuable item, but sometimes it happens and the place for a book or game like that is the garbage.

Invincible Overlord wrote:You'd have to break them out of the shrink to have them be called... Reading Copies....   

*lol*

Does Bill not have the tech installed to read books and boxes inside their shrink? Would come in rather useful, that.

stratochamp wrote:while we are on the topic of grading, i do not agree with the acaeum grading parameters. while i of course see the need for an industry standard, i personally find the description used for fair, would be better applied to poor. in the good category there is a reference to mustiness: i would never allow a musty smelling item to co-mingle with my lovelies (even though all module sized items go in their own bag). not including magazines, i probably have only 10 items that are worse than VG by the acaeum standard (so yes David, i too like my reading copies better than poor; the point i was attempting to make was that from my perspective a laminated cover is a ruined cover).

Those laminated GW paperbacks would still look good in a museum context though.

Rather more than 10 below VG (to which items gravitate if graded /strictly/ by the Acaeum standards) here! Agreed re. grading parameters and also noted previously that overgrading in conjunction with valuation activities could easily drive down the market.
Personally I still prefer a "list all faults" approach: failing that, scoring and describing against a variety of categories (per old banknote grading schema or suchlike - fabric, faults, inscriptions, aging, etc.) and tallying to obtain an approximate overall grade sits better with me but I don't think anyone's overly bothered so long as the item they receive doesn't have too many (any?) nasty surprises!

JasonZavoda wrote:Mustiness/Mold means worthless trash to me. Not even reading copies, and storing something like that can trasnfer mold spores. You don't want to be breathing that stuff. It is a pain in the ass to see something ruined, especially a well loved or valuable item, but sometimes it happens and the place for a book or game like that is the garbage.

"Mustiness" is an open invitation to be used as a descriptor where "mold" is concerned. Avoid like the plague, agreed.
Persistent strong tobacco smells thankfully ain't quite as common nowadays but that's the sort of issue that would cause a downgrade or re-evaluation, IMO.