Buying things specifically to sell for a profit.

[Jimimck]

Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought he was saying it was wrong to sell things for profit. My bad.

[WeDealInLead]

If that's all you got out of what he was saying, that's cool.

I didn't see him mention selling personal pieces for under market value though. If he paid $1000 for Carrie, why should he sell it to you for issue price?

[Jimimck]

He shouldn't. I'm on the side of the fence with the opinion there is nothing wrong with selling for a profit, no matter what the intent behind the sale is.

[biomieg]

Personally I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other. But I would feel far less taken advantage of if the 'flipper' were someone who at least loves books (but is pragmatic enough to make a profit when the opportunity presents itself), rather than someone who couldn't care less about the stuff he sells.

[jhanic]

Personally I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other. But I would feel far less taken advantage of if the 'flipper' were someone who at least loves books (but is pragmatic enough to make a profit when the opportunity presents itself), rather than someone who couldn't care less about the stuff he sells.

Well said, Michaël.

John

[Frankie]

Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought he was saying it was wrong to sell things for profit. My bad.

Really? That's what you got out of all this?

[Jimimck]

Out of all of it? No, I didn't read all of it as it was people spouting the same old complaint that has been around for years. Yes I get it. People have an issue with others buying stuff with the deliberate intent to sell at a profit, when people who want the book/PS4/concert ticket to actually enjoy, and end up having to pay more.

I don't have a problem with people doing that, regardless of their initial intent, and was being deliberately obtuse to make a bit of a light hearted remark to get that point across.

[Frankie]

Out of all of it? No, I didn't read all of it as it was people spouting the same old complaint that has been around for years. Yes I get it. People have an issue with others buying stuff with the deliberate intent to sell at a profit, when people who want the book/PS4/concert ticket to actually enjoy, and end up having to pay more.

I don't have a problem with people doing that, regardless of their initial intent, and was being deliberately obtuse to make a bit of a light hearted remark to get that point across.

Heh, I didn't recognize the deliberately obtuse part. Maybe because I'm currently undeliberately obtuse, due to being deliberately half in the bag.

[divemaster]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

[Randall Flagg]

Praise for cleverness, and no derision, just envy that I am not that smart.

[Patrick]

Person B is clever but I still think he's an asshole.

[ELazansky]

Person B should have expanded his program to buy all 200 copies and cornered the market.

[DoctorZaius]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

If I missed out and wanted the book, I would buy from either of them, no problem.

[Frankie]

Person B is clever but I still think he's an asshole.

I'm not even sure he's that clever, tbh. Depends how the publisher's page is setup.

[Dano]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

If I missed out and wanted the book, I would buy from either of them, no problem.

Yup. Me too.

Dan

[Frankie]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

If I missed out and wanted the book, I would buy from either of them, no problem.

You have "no problem" paying a 100% markup to someone that cheated the system in order to secure an enormous percentage of the available copies? Wow.

[Dano]

If I wanted the book and missed the book AND had the funds I would pull the trigger with no hesitation.

Dan

[Jimimck]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

If I missed out and wanted the book, I would buy from either of them, no problem.

You have "no problem" paying a 100% markup to someone that cheated the system in order to secure an enormous percentage of the available copies? Wow.

Is your issue he "cheated the system" to buy them? Or that he is selling them at a profit? Or both?

Do you see a difference to the person who logs in with two different accounts/cards/address and buys two copies to the guy who buys 70 copies in regard to "cheating the system"?

[bdwyer19]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

If I missed out and wanted the book, I would buy from either of them, no problem.

You have "no problem" paying a 100% markup to someone that cheated the system in order to secure an enormous percentage of the available copies? Wow.

As a buyer, you have no way of knowing if/how the seller cheated the system. So it's a moot point.

[Br!an]

Person B should have expanded his program to buy all 200 copies and cornered the market.

Fucking slackers. You teach them how to hack and all they do is slack.

[ELazansky]

Person B should have expanded his program to buy all 200 copies and cornered the market.

Fucking slackers. You teach them how to hack and all they do is slack.

[ELazansky]

You have "no problem" paying a 100% markup to someone that cheated the system in order to secure an enormous percentage of the available copies? Wow.

So let's step back for a second from your views of flippers, etc. Let's look at this from solely a book collector's perspective. If a S/L hit the market at $400 and you missed the chance to buy one the day or release, what would you do?

1) Buy the book for $800 from the person who "cheated" the system
2) Wait 6-12 months and hope to find a copy for between $400-$800
3) Not buy a copy

I agree that giving the seller the extra $400 would leave a bad taste in my mouth, but if I wanted the book and didn't want to roll the dice on trying to find one in the future, I just might cave in and buy it. Some folks who missed out on the IT S/L are now looking to pay more than twice the issue price. Some books, like the Legacies S/L, immediately were going for twice the price after initial sale, but then came back down to around to a more reasonable level. Each book requires a different response.

On California Book Day, a Gaiman book was published and sold for $20 only available on that day. Immediately, copies were on eBay for $150, more than seven times the list price. No way was I going pay that much of a premium. A week later, I got a copy for $40, which was twice the list price. I was satisfied with that. Certainly not the same as a book worth hundreds or even thousands, but the principle is the same. You wither pay the premium, wait it out, or skip the book completely.

[tippy4]

Just as an intellectual (and hypothetical) exercise,

Publisher offers a S/L edition of 200 copies; first come, first serve once the order page goes live.

Let's say person A uses three credit cards and three addresses to order three S/L books, with the intent to flip two immediately at a 150% markup to offset the cost of the one to be kept and collected.

Person B develops a computer program that is able to immediately purchase 75 copies at time of sale, using various suite numbers or boxes (and purchase order accounts). Person B then sells all 75 copies on eBay at a 100% markup.

Both have "initial intent" of flipping for a profit. Both are gaming the system; just to a differing matter of degree.

Are both A and B worthy of derision? Or praise for cleverness, for that matter? Or is one somehow ok and the other not?

If I missed out and wanted the book, I would buy from either of them, no problem.

You have "no problem" paying a 100% markup to someone that cheated the system in order to secure an enormous percentage of the available copies? Wow.

Nor do I.

If I want something, and can afford the purchase, I buy it.

We all have our lines I suppose, I am not going to buy Nazi gold, or clothing I know was made in a horrible sweatshop, but I have no qualms buying something from someone who bought it to flip.

If someone bought a copy of the Grant S/L Gunslinger direct from the publisher in '82 (with the intention of selling it at a later date), and offered it for sale at $3,000 (that would be 50X the cover price), I would buy it in a heartbeat.

[Iwritecode]

Just as long as there are people willing to take advantage of others, there were will people willing to be taken advantage of. It’s really as simple as that.

[erxbooks]

So is the reverse true? If as a buyer you pay $10 for a book you know is worth $200, is that wrong as well?

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...l=1#post850832