Comics UK

Richard S. wrote:nothing wrong with trying to make an honest buck as they say, but sometimes you can see some crazy prices sought for things on e-bay, here's my favourite at the moment

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Collection-8- ... 2a55386473

I have just put in offer for five hundred pence.

Yeah, £5 is much more realistic than £5000!

Ah well, my offer has expired. So obviously the eBay Seller was not impressed.

My offer also expired

I'm almost tempted to offer something outrageous like £50.

Almost.

SID wrote:

Richard S. wrote:nothing wrong with trying to make an honest buck as they say, but sometimes you can see some crazy prices sought for things on e-bay, here's my favourite at the moment

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Collection-8- ... 2a55386473

I have just put in offer for five hundred pence.

Be realistic! With #1 selling for £1.20, I think this collection is pushing the £6 mark. I suggest you resubmit your offer.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ADVENTURES-OF-T ... 1595931884

I offered 800 pence

I offered £3.50

My mate Steve just e-mailed me the latest newsletter from Phil-comics It contained this rather startling image from the Beano

SID wrote:

Richard S. wrote:nothing wrong with trying to make an honest buck as they say, but sometimes you can see some crazy prices sought for things on e-bay, here's my favourite at the moment

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Collection-8- ... 2a55386473

I have just put in offer for five hundred pence.

The offer got ignored. What a shame.

On the subject of Ebay I have had at least two items described by sellers as RARE.
One being tales of the gold monkey annual, the other Gotham Noir comic 2001 bought a couple of days ago.
Is this description a fanciful thought of the seller?Is it based on fact?who creates this information anyway?tune in next week(sorry).I can understand very old material being described so, but recent stuff being describe thus when thousands must have been printed I treat it with total scepticism.

I have seen this myself with comics from the 1970s and 1980s and I have to laugh. To describe issue 1 of Warlord as rare is a bit rich. However, if they have the free gift attached and unopened, then I can forgive the rare tag as that is rare to see.

But to see a random issue of a 1980's 2000AD described as rare is a joke. I know that half the time, you cannot give away late 1980s 2000AD issues due to how common they are.

Obviously dealers are trying to make money, but they are not going to make money by having spurious descriptions that will put people off buying their goods.

I dislike things on eBay being listed as rare in general. If somebody is looking for the particular comic you're listing then they'll know whether or not it's rare; they don't need the seller to remind them. It also just seems to be used as a way to fool unsuspecting people into paying higher prices for things that aren't worth more than a couple of quid or less.

On a similar note, I once saw several listings for Wham annuals, all of which advertised "Original Baxendale artwork inside" or something along those lines, despite the fact that I don't think Leo Baxendale contributed to any of the annuals, with the possible exception of the first. And at any rate, the presence of Baxendale artwork oughtn't to really be a reason to hoik up the price of a publication on its own. Thankfully the few things I have that do contain non-reprint Baxendale artwork (a Beano annual, four Beezer annuals, and possibly some assorted early 70's Busters and Valiants) were all very reasonably priced.

As far as comic collecting on eBay goes for me, I really only use it for job lots of older comics; my annual collection is comprised of newly bought, and market/car boot sale/charity shop/second hand bookshop finds, as are the majority of comics in my collection.

Old Freddy wrote:.

On a similar note, I once saw several listings for Wham annuals, all of which advertised "Original Baxendale artwork inside" or something along those lines, despite the fact that I don't think Leo Baxendale contributed to any of the annuals, with the possible exception of the first.

Not even that one. Leo didn't draw anything for any of the Odhams Wham, Smash, or Pow annuals. People either assume he did, or they confuse his work with that of Graham Allen and other cartoonists.

I used to point this out to dealers but every one of them I contacted either ignored it or insisted they were right. If they're intent on deception there's not a lot one can do, apart from counter such claims on blogs or forums such as this.

Can you not inform E.Bay dept that seller(s) are advertising with inaccurate statements?