My understanding is that BBCE wont label or package individual packs as from a sealed case, only boxes. So unless you are planning on ripping the individual packs, not sure I can justify paying a premium on individual packs from a sealed case because once they leave BBCE there is no way I can substantiate or prove they were not searched, even tampered with, etc. should I ever need or want to sell later, unless BBCE can designate as such and seal. Maybe BBCE cant wrap individual packs, but maybe if they can wrap multiple packs? Any one have any thoughts on this?
Looks like some nice stuff regardless.
Steve has labeled individual racks FASC for past case breaks and I would assume he will do so again in this case.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Steve gets back to Indiana on Tuesday. I can call and ask him then about labeling the racks as FASC. He did it for the wax trays so I expect he would do it again for the racks.
Do not know about cello packs and wax packs, but I will ask.
Steve gets back to Indiana on Tuesday. I can call and ask him then about labeling the racks as FASC. He did it for the wax trays
so I expect he would do it again for the racks.
Do not know about cello packs and wax packs, but I will ask.
He also did it for 79 racks when we broke a sealed case last summer.
I know there is no issue with him doing it for rack packs as PSA does not grade them. I believe it's a bit more complicated for wax and cello packs due to his contract as pack authenticator for PSA.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
He has been willing to wrap wax & cellos packs in multiples together so that you can have authenticated packs. However, I think you lose part of the fun in being able to see who is on the back of a pack if you do that, or makes it more difficult to justify ripping, if you are of that school of thought.
Steve has always gone out of his way to be accommodating to the needs and requests from this community, and I am sure this time will be no different.
However, Tim is correct that with individual wax and cello packs there are some conflicts for him because of his relationship with PSA. I am sure he will do everything he can for our pack buyers as long as it also allows him to honor his commitments with PSA.
Would you be willing to add the pack / box prices to the "reservation thread" above the shipping and handling pricing so that all cost info is in one place?
Would you be willing to add the pack / box prices to the "reservation thread" above the shipping and handling pricing so that all cost info is in one place?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Would you be willing to add the pack / box prices to the "reservation thread" above the shipping and handling pricing so that all cost info is in one place?
Thanks for all your hard work. On my end, I had a separate window open for time.gov and posted at the +15 second mark. After that, I confirmed the time stamp on my post. Easy peezy.
Joe
Joe
IG: goatcollectibles23
The biggest lesson I've learned in this hobby, and in life, is that if you have a strong conviction, you owe it to yourself to see it through. Don't sell yourself, or your investments, short. Unless the facts change. Then sell it all.
In my case, I just opened the thread at 8:59, read all the early posts timestamped 8:59, waited a minute or two, then posted my request. Simplest thing I've ever done.
I rarely post on much, but I wanted to comment on this timing issue.
I relied upon timeanddate.com. Knowing that there may be a possible difference between the sites, I hit "reply to topic" at 10 seconds after 9, based upon on that site.
I'd like to take a moment to extend my appreciation to Dave for handling this matter as well as the group rip in a professional manner. That speaks volumes in my mind and others should take note.
Thanks for all your hard work. On my end, I had a separate window open for time.gov and posted at the +15 second mark. After that, I confirmed the time stamp on my post. Easy peezy.
Joe
Would have been nice if this was posted in the instructions.
As for Dave being "professional" he was actually quite rude to me about this whole matter with his contacts via PM. Very dismissive and insulting, but I can't be too surprised considering I called him out on all this.
Whatever, I hope you all do well with your break and I'm sad that I was not able to take part in it.
You post what you want and then check the time stamp of your post. If it says 8:59 you do it again. I can't fathom how this is anybody's fault but that of the poster, who didn't check the time stamp of his post.
You post what you want and then check the time stamp of your post. If it says 8:59 you do it again. I can't fathom how this is anybody's fault but that of the poster, who didn't check the time stamp of his post.
I will explain it to you in the simplest terms without defending, or hopefully, offending anyone.
I interrupted a family meal at precisely 6PM to sit down at the computer and submit my request. When I refreshed the site and opened the page, I IMMEDIATELY noticed that 6 people had already submitted early requests. At that moment, I decided NOT to submit my request because I saw this coming. Unfortunately, even if the expectation is that common sense should be used, it doesn't always work out that way. Even an experienced member such as djr admitted that he posted too early, but came back awhile later to whack his original post and replace it.
MM subsequently reposted with what amounted to a complaint and the expectation that it would suffice to earn him a spot in line. It apparently didn't work out that way for him.
Liken this to an Olympic false start. How appropriate in a time of Olympian proportions.
It is up to Dave to manage this event as he sees fit. That is really the bottom line. I hope those that are defending him understand that this machine did not operate perfectly. And someone was penalized for it. So it seems.
TT, by saw this coming you mean you saw that 6 people had posted early? Meaning each of those individuals could have seen the same thing and fixed the situation?
The rules were simple. It doesn't matter why people didn't follow them it just matters that they didn't. MM needs to stop making excuses and whining like he should get a participation trophy. His only legitimate argument is that his re-post did not put him in line for a 79 rack box. With that situation there are two legitimate sides to the discussion and I would agree with MM that he should be 4th in line for a 79 rack box. With the posting too early there are none. Those that posted early only have themselves to blame. If his computer had been 3 minutes slow would he get to whine that he posted at 9:03 and didn't get what he wanted because his system clock was out of sync?
The idea that it is the responsibility of the rip organizer to include how to make sure you post at 9:00 is ludicrous. We are all adults here, it is not like it is difficult to see what time you posted something to the forum.
I will say the one thing that is missing from the post starting the rip is a warning about the condition of the boxes in the sealed cases. I thought after the last forum rip, where people seemed to think it was Steve's responsibility that some of the boxes were not in pristine condition, it was decided a warning was going to be added for future rips. We had people complaining that their case fresh boxes were not pristine and we could certainly see the same thing happen with this rip.
Fergie, by "saw this coming" I meant that I anticipated a conflict. Again, the expectation is that common sense should be a mitigating factor here. And if MM was the ONLY guy to jump the gun, then fine, he blew it. But other people did the same thing, they just had the forethought to come back and check their homework. Good call for them. Don't let any opportunity slip by around here. Be alert and use common sense. Fine. Logic is defended.
As for condition and contents, everyone is at the mercy of the same potential result, good or not so good. I've got BBCE product that looks a little bit handled inside a wrapper. I crave the chance to someday see what's inside 'em. ;-)
I honestly couldn't care less who got what in this break since I wasn't one of the participants, but find the underlying problem ridiculous. For the non-techies out there, this could be resolved simply if CUs servers used NTP (Network Time Protocol). I can't believe they don't since pretty much every computer system in the world does, even your Windows PC by default, and it's been around since the mid-1980s. NTP keeps clocks synchronized to within a fraction of a second (10s of milliseconds even over the Internet). A stratum 16 system (device unsynchronized) on the Internet is virtually unheard of, but would have to be the case for the CU forum server to be off by even a full second.
Agreed Larkin. The CU servers are definitely off by a significant amount of seconds. And when thousands of dollars are at stake for impossible to come by items it does matter.
Quite simply the system is flawed and there are easy ways to inform first time participants so they can have as fair a chance as the experienced members.
As others have pointed out I should have that 4th slot in the '79 rack box line. I'm hoping at least I get treated fairly in that regard. As for those that say a box like this at this price will come around again, how about you let me have yours now and next time it does you can have mine?! LOL
Computers struggle with time, regardless of using NTP or PTP... and the older a computer or the cheaper the crystals used in its crystal oscillator, the more it will struggle. Many other factors also cause computers to have the wrong time. And believe it or not, when a computer syncs to a time server... by the time the request is returned and the clock is adjusted, it's already off by several fractions of a second. It actually takes a big investment to get very accurate time.
But the point here, which is why I don't understand how this is even an issue... is that the rules EXPLICITLY stated the exact time requests would be accepted (AFTER 8:59:59PM EDT Sunday August 7, 2016) and what determined that time (requests time-stamped). To say a request was "on time" despite a different source being used (mobile/desktop time vs timestamp) that cannot be verified by anyone other than the requester, and that completely goes against the rules laid out hours before it started... seems to be blatantly disrespectful to the individual running the break.
baz518, no one is saying mobile or desktop time so perhaps you should read through all of the posts if you haven't already.
The issue, which I have clarified repeatedly, is how does one get closest to 9 PM. Well, it appears you have to wait 10-15 seconds after 9 PM. I used the same universal time site that many have mentioned using. I saw my post first then a bunch of others after mine at the same time 8:59. I didn't see any corrections so I figured it was fine, that there was some nuance built into the break that allowed for this. And by the time I considered posting again there was already a 9 PM request for the 1979 rack box.
So because I didn't know about this 10-15 second lag I missed out. If this was (easily) addressed in the OP I would have simply waited a few seconds more before doing my initial post and then done repeated posts until I was satisfied. Then I could have just deleted ones I didn't want I guess.
I brought this all to the attention as soon as the list started getting populated and he could have easily restarted the whole thing so it was fair but he refused. Nothing I could do but explain by opinion. Others have agreed and supported me and that's not enough for him. So be it, nothing I can do, he wants to run a break like this so I guess that's how it is.
So what about my 4th place slot for the '79 rack box? Will at least that be fixed? Many others have agreed it should be fixed. I know the OP has been monitoring this all as he has made many replies to comments and PMs. I'm hoping he can save at least some face with this break by making good with this 4th place slot so I at least still have a (extremely slim) chance.
This break will end up causing a thread of 15 pages with 14 of it being complaints by one person about a 15 second delay. Pretty sure after you insulted Dave and called him out as you say that your pack/rack/box is poof. Just some friendly advice.
I don't see any advice in the prior post. Just an elbow to the ribs.
MM, if you check the main thread, you'll find that Dave posted at the top of the hour and essentially committed spot #4 to you, with the updating to be done later. I think we could all sleep better knowing that justice has been served.
Originally posted by: MantlesMantra baz518, no one is saying mobile or desktop time so perhaps you should read through all of the posts if you haven't already.
The issue, which I have clarified repeatedly, is how does one get closest to 9 PM. Well, it appears you have to wait 10-15 seconds after 9 PM. I used the same universal time site that many have mentioned using. I saw my post first then a bunch of others after mine at the same time 8:59. I didn't see any corrections so I figured it was fine, that there was some nuance built into the break that allowed for this. And by the time I considered posting again there was already a 9 PM request for the 1979 rack box.
So because I didn't know about this 10-15 second lag I missed out. If this was (easily) addressed in the OP I would have simply waited a few seconds more before doing my initial post and then done repeated posts until I was satisfied. Then I could have just deleted ones I didn't want I guess.
I brought this all to the attention as soon as the list started getting populated and he could have easily restarted the whole thing so it was fair but he refused. Nothing I could do but explain by opinion. Others have agreed and supported me and that's not enough for him. So be it, nothing I can do, he wants to run a break like this so I guess that's how it is.
So what about my 4th place slot for the '79 rack box? Will at least that be fixed? Many others have agreed it should be fixed. I know the OP has been monitoring this all as he has made many replies to comments and PMs. I'm hoping he can save at least some face with this break by making good with this 4th place slot so I at least still have a (extremely slim) chance.
8 minutes ago in the other thread Dave posted about the subject of your positioning. EDITED to add: Travis t beat me too it. Now I'm gonna go cry.
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
Originally posted by: baz518 Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
Along those lines I think the last Group sub was run by EagleEyeKid and someone gave him such a hard time he left the forum. There was more to the story but the bottom line I think was he was fed up with the ordeal it all became because of unhappy people. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd offer you a hanky, but we're doing a group Kleenex break tonight at 9. You can reserve up to 2 slots with full box rights going to those with runny noses.
Originally posted by: baz518 Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
No worries baz. I won't be leaving and I will continue to be an advocate for this community and be happy to keep volunteering to do these breaks when we can get material (which may be less frequently than in the past, but is far more available than a certain person thinks as long as you know where to look for it).
As for MM, he can think what he wishes. I was neither rude nor dismissive of his situation. Enough of you guys know me by now (and have dealt with me) to know my "style" is anything other than that. One would think from his posts that I had called him an unflattering name and told him to go somewhere unpleasant and warm. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I won't post the PMs publicly as to avoid breaking CU rules.
Anyway, hopefully the unnecessary drama is over and we can get back to focusing on the cards again
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
IMO it's completely unfair to suggest that David organized this break simply to go after product. After all, he was at The National and could have purchased product direct from Steve, in the first place. He organized this break to bring some of the National experience to CU members and he should be commended for that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dave - don't sweat it man, he's just one of those guys that complains. You have dealt with it...now lets move on.
So back to what this thread is all about....
Who is going to bust open some racks?! Im still debating on ripping open mine as I still have the one from last years breaks. I just know a psa 10 nolan is going to be hiding in my 78 rack......
I see both perspectives, but I also see the rules... and the point of the rules are to set guidelines and for the time rule specifically, to be transparent. Basing the time on something that isn't documented would have been a disaster, look at the issues stemming from a clear set of rules. I think everyone understands the importance of having requests posted in public view (rather than PMs), I just don't understand how anyone could be upset with rules that apply those same standards to the time of request. Upset with yourself? Yes, definitely. Upset with the rules or with the organizer? Not so much.
Originally posted by: Grimster Dave - don't sweat it man, he's just one of those guys that complains. You have dealt with it...now lets move on.
So back to what this thread is all about....
Who is going to bust open some racks?! Im still debating on ripping open mine as I still have the one from last years breaks. I just know a psa 10 nolan is going to be hiding in my 78 rack......
I'm ripping everything except for the cellos. I'm hoping to land one with a star on top to have it slabbed.
Does anyone here do bulk submissions I could piggyback on?
Originally posted by: baz518 Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
IMO it's completely unfair to suggest that David organized this break simply to go after product. After all, he was at The National and could have purchased product direct from Steve, in the first place. He organized this break to bring some of the National experience to CU members and he should be commended for that.
Appreciate your comments Tim, but the real person who should be commended is Steve Hart! He pulled product from his booth that he could easily have sold at the show in order to set it aside for members of this community.
As usual, Steve went above and beyond for us. He is BY FAR one of the classiest and upstanding professionals in the hobby!
It's like that person who clocks into work late according to the time clock on the wall but says to the boss they're actually on time because their watch says an earlier time. When I worked at Goodwill all the employees knew to go by the time clock - and they set their watches and/or phones accordingly.
Very popular boxes that sold out at the 9PM mark. Not allowing any of those guys to get a box would be just wrong.
I was thinking when this break was materializing just how well it is being run. Kudos to 70Topps for putting it together professionally and putting his foot down on the time stamp issue.
My only complaint is that there is no Hockey
Best of luck to all who are participating and to those ripping please post some scans.
To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Yes, the organizer usually goes after one, or all, of the product(s) in a rip. Doing so is not a conflict of interest. Rules were set and he followed them.
To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
I disagree with this. Dave is not doing this to profit or benefit from it. He should have the same chance at getting packs or boxes an any other member. As has already been mentioned, he could have bought what he wanted in Atlantic City
Originally posted by: doubledent To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
I disagree with this. Dave is not doing this to profit or benefit from it. He should have the same chance at getting packs or boxes an any other member. As has already been mentioned, he could have bought what he wanted in Atlantic City James
I could not agree more with James. The thought that the organizer should not be allowed to participate is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Why in the world would someone organize a rip and not partake? Or organize a rip for product they are not interested in? If anything, the organizer should be able to pencil in his name at #1 for any product he wants. Let's face it, Dave could have easily contacted 6-10 people via IM that would have gladly taken the rack boxes and none of us would have been the wiser, but instead he tried to give everyone an opportunity.
This is so silly. Of course dave should be able to participate. The rules were clear. One member gets his nose all out of joint because he missed out on a box (fairly missed out I might add) I for one, would be ashamed to whine on and on about missing out on a box of baseball cards like a certain member has. Lick your wounds, like an adult, stop complaining and try again during the next break. This entitlement culture just drives me nuts.
Comments
I would like to say that I am interested in buying any and all Red Sox on top cellos or racks.
My understanding is that BBCE wont label or package individual packs as from a sealed case, only boxes. So unless you are planning on ripping the individual packs, not sure I can justify paying a premium on individual packs from a sealed case because once they leave BBCE there is no way I can substantiate or prove they were not searched, even tampered with, etc. should I ever need or want to sell later, unless BBCE can designate as such and seal. Maybe BBCE cant wrap individual packs, but maybe if they can wrap multiple packs? Any one have any thoughts on this?
Looks like some nice stuff regardless.
Steve has labeled individual racks FASC for past case breaks and I would assume he will do so again in this case.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
so I expect he would do it again for the racks.
Do not know about cello packs and wax packs, but I will ask.
Dave
Steve gets back to Indiana on Tuesday. I can call and ask him then about labeling the racks as FASC. He did it for the wax trays
so I expect he would do it again for the racks.
Do not know about cello packs and wax packs, but I will ask.
He also did it for 79 racks when we broke a sealed case last summer.
I know there is no issue with him doing it for rack packs as PSA does not grade them. I believe it's a bit more complicated for wax and cello packs due to his contract as pack authenticator for PSA.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
However, Tim is correct that with individual wax and cello packs there are some conflicts for him because of his relationship with PSA. I am sure he will do everything he can for our pack buyers as long as it also allows him to honor his commitments with PSA.
Dave
Would you be willing to add the pack / box prices to the "reservation thread" above the shipping and handling pricing so that all cost info is in one place?
Thanks!
Dave,
Would you be willing to add the pack / box prices to the "reservation thread" above the shipping and handling pricing so that all cost info is in one place?
Thanks!
He has done so.
https://forums.collectors.com/...7297&enterthread=y
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dave,
Would you be willing to add the pack / box prices to the "reservation thread" above the shipping and handling pricing so that all cost info is in one place?
Thanks!
He has done so.
https://forums.collectors.com/...7297&enterthread=y
My bad, I see them now by the actual "lists".
Dave
Dave
Thanks for all your hard work. On my end, I had a separate window open for time.gov and posted at the +15 second mark. After that, I confirmed the time stamp on my post. Easy peezy.
Joe
IG: goatcollectibles23
The biggest lesson I've learned in this hobby, and in life, is that if you have a strong conviction, you owe it to yourself to see it through. Don't sell yourself, or your investments, short. Unless the facts change. Then sell it all.
or two, then posted my request. Simplest thing I've ever done.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I relied upon timeanddate.com. Knowing that there may be a possible difference between the sites, I hit "reply to topic" at 10 seconds after 9, based upon on that site.
I'd like to take a moment to extend my appreciation to Dave for handling this matter as well as the group rip in a professional manner. That speaks volumes in my mind and others should take note.
Dave,
Thanks for all your hard work. On my end, I had a separate window open for time.gov and posted at the +15 second mark. After that, I confirmed the time stamp on my post. Easy peezy.
Joe
Would have been nice if this was posted in the instructions.
As for Dave being "professional" he was actually quite rude to me about this whole matter with his contacts via PM. Very dismissive and insulting, but I can't be too surprised considering I called him out on all this.
Whatever, I hope you all do well with your break and I'm sad that I was not able to take part in it.
You post what you want and then check the time stamp of your post. If it says 8:59 you do it again. I can't fathom how this is anybody's fault but that of the poster, who didn't check the time stamp of his post.
I will explain it to you in the simplest terms without defending, or hopefully, offending anyone.
I interrupted a family meal at precisely 6PM to sit down at the computer and submit my request. When I refreshed the site and opened the page, I IMMEDIATELY noticed that 6 people had already submitted early requests. At that moment, I decided NOT to submit my request because I saw this coming. Unfortunately, even if the expectation is that common sense should be used, it doesn't always work out that way. Even an experienced member such as djr admitted that he posted too early, but came back awhile later to whack his original post and replace it.
MM subsequently reposted with what amounted to a complaint and the expectation that it would suffice to earn him a spot in line. It apparently didn't work out that way for him.
Liken this to an Olympic false start. How appropriate in a time of Olympian proportions.
It is up to Dave to manage this event as he sees fit. That is really the bottom line. I hope those that are defending him understand that this machine did not operate perfectly. And someone was penalized for it. So it seems.
The rules were simple. It doesn't matter why people didn't follow them it just matters that they didn't. MM needs to stop making excuses and whining like he should get a participation trophy. His only legitimate argument is that his re-post did not put him in line for a 79 rack box. With that situation there are two legitimate sides to the discussion and I would agree with MM that he should be 4th in line for a 79 rack box. With the posting too early there are none. Those that posted early only have themselves to blame. If his computer had been 3 minutes slow would he get to whine that he posted at 9:03 and didn't get what he wanted because his system clock was out of sync?
The idea that it is the responsibility of the rip organizer to include how to make sure you post at 9:00 is ludicrous. We are all adults here, it is not like it is difficult to see what time you posted something to the forum.
I will say the one thing that is missing from the post starting the rip is a warning about the condition of the boxes in the sealed cases. I thought after the last forum rip, where people seemed to think it was Steve's responsibility that some of the boxes were not in pristine condition, it was decided a warning was going to be added for future rips. We had people complaining that their case fresh boxes were not pristine and we could certainly see the same thing happen with this rip.
Robb
As for condition and contents, everyone is at the mercy of the same potential result, good or not so good. I've got BBCE product that looks a little bit handled inside a wrapper. I crave the chance to someday see what's inside 'em. ;-)
Quite simply the system is flawed and there are easy ways to inform first time participants so they can have as fair a chance as the experienced members.
As others have pointed out I should have that 4th slot in the '79 rack box line. I'm hoping at least I get treated fairly in that regard. As for those that say a box like this at this price will come around again, how about you let me have yours now and next time it does you can have mine?! LOL
But the point here, which is why I don't understand how this is even an issue... is that the rules EXPLICITLY stated the exact time requests would be accepted (AFTER 8:59:59PM EDT Sunday August 7, 2016) and what determined that time (requests time-stamped). To say a request was "on time" despite a different source being used (mobile/desktop time vs timestamp) that cannot be verified by anyone other than the requester, and that completely goes against the rules laid out hours before it started... seems to be blatantly disrespectful to the individual running the break.
The issue, which I have clarified repeatedly, is how does one get closest to 9 PM. Well, it appears you have to wait 10-15 seconds after 9 PM. I used the same universal time site that many have mentioned using. I saw my post first then a bunch of others after mine at the same time 8:59. I didn't see any corrections so I figured it was fine, that there was some nuance built into the break that allowed for this. And by the time I considered posting again there was already a 9 PM request for the 1979 rack box.
So because I didn't know about this 10-15 second lag I missed out. If this was (easily) addressed in the OP I would have simply waited a few seconds more before doing my initial post and then done repeated posts until I was satisfied. Then I could have just deleted ones I didn't want I guess.
I brought this all to the attention as soon as the list started getting populated and he could have easily restarted the whole thing so it was fair but he refused. Nothing I could do but explain by opinion. Others have agreed and supported me and that's not enough for him. So be it, nothing I can do, he wants to run a break like this so I guess that's how it is.
So what about my 4th place slot for the '79 rack box? Will at least that be fixed? Many others have agreed it should be fixed. I know the OP has been monitoring this all as he has made many replies to comments and PMs. I'm hoping he can save at least some face with this break by making good with this 4th place slot so I at least still have a (extremely slim) chance.
MM, if you check the main thread, you'll find that Dave posted at the top of the hour and essentially committed spot #4 to you, with the updating to be done later. I think we could all sleep better knowing that justice has been served.
Back to the regularly scheduled programming.
baz518, no one is saying mobile or desktop time so perhaps you should read through all of the posts if you haven't already.
The issue, which I have clarified repeatedly, is how does one get closest to 9 PM. Well, it appears you have to wait 10-15 seconds after 9 PM. I used the same universal time site that many have mentioned using. I saw my post first then a bunch of others after mine at the same time 8:59. I didn't see any corrections so I figured it was fine, that there was some nuance built into the break that allowed for this. And by the time I considered posting again there was already a 9 PM request for the 1979 rack box.
So because I didn't know about this 10-15 second lag I missed out. If this was (easily) addressed in the OP I would have simply waited a few seconds more before doing my initial post and then done repeated posts until I was satisfied. Then I could have just deleted ones I didn't want I guess.
I brought this all to the attention as soon as the list started getting populated and he could have easily restarted the whole thing so it was fair but he refused. Nothing I could do but explain by opinion. Others have agreed and supported me and that's not enough for him. So be it, nothing I can do, he wants to run a break like this so I guess that's how it is.
So what about my 4th place slot for the '79 rack box? Will at least that be fixed? Many others have agreed it should be fixed. I know the OP has been monitoring this all as he has made many replies to comments and PMs. I'm hoping he can save at least some face with this break by making good with this 4th place slot so I at least still have a (extremely slim) chance.
8 minutes ago in the other thread Dave posted about the subject of your positioning.
EDITED to add: Travis t beat me too it. Now I'm gonna go cry.
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
Along those lines I think the last Group sub was run by EagleEyeKid and someone gave him such a hard time he left the forum. There was more to the story but the bottom line I think was he was fed up with the ordeal it all became because of unhappy people. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Now I'm gonna go cry.
I'd offer you a hanky, but we're doing a group Kleenex break tonight at 9. You can reserve up to 2 slots with full box rights going to those with runny noses.
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
As for MM, he can think what he wishes. I was neither rude nor dismissive of his situation. Enough of you guys know me by now (and have dealt with me) to know my "style" is anything other than that. One would think from his posts that I had called him an unflattering name and told him to go somewhere unpleasant and warm. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I won't post the PMs publicly as to avoid breaking CU rules.
Anyway, hopefully the unnecessary drama is over and we can get back to focusing on the cards again
Thanks to the many of you who PM'd
Dave
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
IMO it's completely unfair to suggest that David organized this break simply to go after product. After all, he was at The National and could have purchased product direct from Steve, in the first place. He organized this break to bring some of the National experience to CU members and he should be commended for that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
So back to what this thread is all about....
Who is going to bust open some racks?! Im still debating on ripping open mine as I still have the one from last years breaks. I just know a psa 10 nolan is going to be hiding in my 78 rack......
Dave - don't sweat it man, he's just one of those guys that complains. You have dealt with it...now lets move on.
So back to what this thread is all about....
Who is going to bust open some racks?! Im still debating on ripping open mine as I still have the one from last years breaks. I just know a psa 10 nolan is going to be hiding in my 78 rack......
I'm ripping everything except for the cellos. I'm hoping to land one with a star on top to have it slabbed.
Does anyone here do bulk submissions I could piggyback on?
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
IMO it's completely unfair to suggest that David organized this break simply to go after product. After all, he was at The National and could have purchased product direct from Steve, in the first place. He organized this break to bring some of the National experience to CU members and he should be commended for that.
Appreciate your comments Tim, but the real person who should be commended is Steve Hart! He pulled product from his booth that he could easily have sold at the show in order to set it aside for members of this community.
As usual, Steve went above and beyond for us. He is BY FAR one of the classiest and upstanding professionals in the hobby!
Dave
Dave
Very popular boxes that sold out at the 9PM mark. Not allowing any of those guys to get a box would be just wrong.
I was thinking when this break was materializing just how well it is being run. Kudos to 70Topps for putting it together professionally and putting his foot down on the time stamp issue.
My only complaint is that there is no Hockey
Best of luck to all who are participating and to those ripping please post some scans.
To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Yes, the organizer usually goes after one, or all, of the product(s) in a rip. Doing so is not a conflict of interest. Rules were set and he followed them.
To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
I disagree with this. Dave is not doing this to profit or benefit from it. He should have the same chance at getting packs or boxes an any other member. As has already been mentioned, he could have bought what he wanted in Atlantic City
James
Dave doesn't need any support from me - he's a "big boy" in our forum.
Just want to say he's a thoughtful and generous person and cares about our community.
Years ago, he was generous enough to send me a Super Bowl cushion which I proudly display.
We worked together on some projects and his integrity is beyond reproach.
This is intended for the newer people here - I'm proud - with respect to our forum - to call him a friend.
To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
I disagree with this. Dave is not doing this to profit or benefit from it. He should have the same chance at getting packs or boxes an any other member. As has already been mentioned, he could have bought what he wanted in Atlantic City
James
I could not agree more with James. The thought that the organizer should not be allowed to participate is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Why in the world would someone organize a rip and not partake? Or organize a rip for product they are not interested in? If anything, the organizer should be able to pencil in his name at #1 for any product he wants. Let's face it, Dave could have easily contacted 6-10 people via IM that would have gladly taken the rack boxes and none of us would have been the wiser, but instead he tried to give everyone an opportunity.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.