How does this story grab you for sheer impertinence? I've bought quite a few comics from a company called 30th CENTURY COMICS over the last couple of years and, in the main, been fairly happy with them. A few recent comics however, weren't quite as described, and I let them know about it in a perfectly polite and pleasant manner. Surely they'd want to know in order to avoid such a situation in future? Not just with me, but with any other customers.
Two comics I bought in March were described as 'very good', but one had a piece torn off the back page, and the other had five faces on the cover defaced with a blue biro or felt tip pen. There were also rips on the last three pages, the back cover sporting two long rips. I contacted them about it, said they weren't really worth the bother or expense of returning, and asked for comment. They awarded me £2 credit, which I was perfectly happy with.
Oh, and given their cheek, I've just now decided I'm going to keep the refund. Why should I reward them for their incompetence and impertinence?
Ah, that explains it. I've just found out that Rod Rudderham is one of the two graders. Clearly just pays lip-service to the idea that grading can be subjective, and obviously felt insulted because I (a collector for more than 50 years) dared to question his grading in this instance. How very dare I?
Update: Rob Rudderham, in response to my review on 30th Century's Facebook page, says the following:
'For anyone reading this review, please note that asking a customer not to place further orders is a last resort we only employ with great reluctance when, after multiple experiences, the customer proves impossible to satisfy. We have only taken this step 3 times in 25 years.' (Emphasis mine.)
Well, I suppose that as two is a multiple of one, technically, it could be argued that he's correct. (I have queried grading on only two separate occasions, once in regard to two comics purchased simultaneously, the other in regard to one comic bought at the same time as another two. However, Mr. Rudderham is clearly being dis-ingenuous, as 'multiple experiences' suggests a far higher number than is actually the case. As for being 'impossible to satisfy', on my most recent purchase, I was satisfied with two out of three comics, only commenting on one of them. How this qualifies as 'impossible to satisfy' is beyond me. As for '3 times in 25 years', perhaps that's because other dissatisfied customers have simply not availed themselves of his shop's services after their first disappointment, thus taking the decision out of his hands?