I think the same guy posted on Sideshow Freaks forum saying he caught Randy Bowen in an outright lie about chroming rights of a statue. Was that true? If it wasn't I can see why he was banned. If it was what does that say?
Can you post a link to that?
If it is, it's just a disillusioned and very wrong assumption. The discussion was, it had been posted that Creations 'N Chrome MIGHT NOT chrome any more Bowen Action Surfer FS because C'nC won't blue chrome any Dreadnought MBs anymore. This was a discussion about a possibility. Randy said he believed that was the case but he would check for sure. It was later announced that the chroming of Action Surfers was still something C'nC would do. The problem was, there were a few pages of discussion and supposition about the topic and Oddball took the stance that Randy's original answer of (I'm paraphrasing) "No they won't be chroming them" as gospel and a binding contract by Randy.
Here are the posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TouchE22
Right, and weren't those the 20 that were offered in the previous vault auction?
Check with Gary from C 'nC, but since he did a run of 20 for BD, he might not accept these for chroming. I'm pretty sure I heard they won't chrome the Dreadnoughts anymore since they did the Blue Chrome run. So there's a possibility he might adopt this same policy with the Action Surfer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy bowen
1. That's correct- I just checked with the wife- We sold (5) and will make the other (15) available in upcoming auctions through the Vault.
2. That's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TouchE22
Thanks for confirming. I'm sitting here in the hospital OR waiting area so I'll be posting a lot today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oddball
would that apply to chroming the surfer FS too? i think it sucks that what was once a go to for chroming should have ANY restrictions. please correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't collectors get chroming done from gary BEFORE bowen designs ever did? not a fair business practice to exclude individuals from chroming whatever they like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oddball
i wonder how much chroming randy gets done with CnC to warrant exclusivity? maybe i can buy 20 statues, get them all chromed, and get exclusivity to prevent anyone else from chroming the same piece. that would surely make them rare and allow me to dominate the secondary market on that piece. hmmmm.
See, I remember this thread/posting quite well since I was trying to keep myself occupied in the hospital waiting area while my wife was having brain surgery to remove a cancerous tumor.
Randy said "True" to a multi part post. He might have meant "true" to the part about the Dreadnoughts. It was not 100% clear, but Oddball started going on his rant.
When the matter was cleared, Oddball took the whole thing as some huge lie by Randy and it was some sort of conspiracy. Hopefully, that helps clear up part of that. BUT, Oddball was banned for about 30 things all adding up and it came time. It was not a permanent ban......until he decided to blow up again in an e-mail to this sites administrators. I guess since Oddball was invited to join Statue Marvels he felt his presence here was a gift to us all and the rules did not apply to him. He forgets Al sent out hundreds if not thousands of invitations when he started this site.
Last edited by TouchE22; October 5th, 2012 at 11:46:57 AM..
In that thread we found out Randy has CnC exclusivity for the Blue Chromed Dreadnaught busts and a Gold Chromed Iron Man.
Two out of three were exclusive and one mistake makes him a lair? Wow. Until the debate started, initially, I thought he was talking about the dreadnaughts.
In that thread we found out Randy has CnC exclusivity for the Blue Chromed Dreadnaught busts and a Gold Chromed Iron Man. Two out of three were exclusive and one mistake makes him a lair? Wow. Until the debate started, initially, I thought he was talking about the dreadnaughts.
And I believe regular chromed Iron Man Buckethead Museum.
I believe the poster said that Randy Bowen attempted to block the chroming of the Action Silver Surfer because he was going to sell 20 he had chromed on an upcoming auction. Did Randy Bowen recently have an auction where he sold chromed Action Silver Surfer statues? I looked for a link for you but can't seem to find it. Perhaps deleted?
I believe the poster said that Randy Bowen attempted to block the chroming of the Action Silver Surfer because he was going to sell 20 he had chromed on an upcoming auction. Did Randy Bowen recently have an auction where he sold chromed Action Silver Surfer statues? I looked for a link for you but can't seem to find it. Perhaps deleted?
Disparaging remarks deemed inappropriate by either the Admins or Mods here at SM get deleted, if at all...otherwise, comments, especially comments provided by Randy Bowen himself have never been deleted for any reason.
Feel free to read everything. There was rational discussion through much of it, and many things were discussed as possibilites with no "absolute" answers until Gary from C'nC posted what the actual details were. Oddball was really the only one going off the deep end (which was par for the course with him).
Disparaging remarks deemed inappropriate by either the Admins or Mods here at SM get deleted, if at all...otherwise, comments, especially comments provided by Randy Bowen himself have never been deleted for any reason.
Feel free to read everything. There was rational discussion through much of it, and many things were discussed as possibilites with no "absolute" answers until Gary from C'nC posted what the actual details were. Oddball was really the only one going off the deep end (which was par for the course with him).
As you recommended I read the thread. This appears to be the post #42 where Randy Bowen says that Creations and Chrome will not do chroming on an Action Silver Surfer. His answer to question 2 was that's true. Why did oddball think he could do the chroming when Randy Bowen had a deal? Seems pretty clear to me that a deal was in place. I'm glad a guy like that was banned.
I was just messaged from a guy here that said a deal was not in place. Can anyone clear this up. Very confusing.
Re-read the whole thread, I'm sure you'll see. Randy answered "that's true" in post 42. It could be (like member northpole2 mentioned) that he might have answered that's true to the blue chrome dreadnoughts. OR he answered "that's true" to the post saying "they MIGHT NOT CHROME". Rocky Bowen handles much of the business of Bowen Designs. How much? I don't know nor is it my business. I know she handles almost all of Rocky's Vault dealings and this Chrome Surfer deal with C n'C was clearly a Vault deal. Randy said more than once in that thread, that he wasn't sure and even said "sorry, I should've gotten all the facts before posting." Funny thing is, that whole thread discussion took place in one day. It's not like people were fed misinformation for months only to find out the truth later. That's conspiracy type talk. No, it was all dealt with and panned out in under 12 hours. The thread opened the evening of 6/7/12. The chroming discussion/confusion started around noon that day. By 4:59PM EST, Randy posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy bowen
Exactly- Sorry for any confusion I caused with my unclear answers.
Sorry Gary
So, again that chroming issue was blown way out of proportion AND settled in less than 5 hours. Only one member went way overboard and then later went on to accuse Randy of being a liar and screwing his customers. That member is no longer here nor will he be welcomed back. Ever.
Last edited by TouchE22; October 5th, 2012 at 05:06:06 PM..
This may be the Friday margaritas talking, but it strikes me as really bad form that this thread is still open. Several of the forums I frequent forbid discussing banned members, and now I see why:
1) it's really not fair to strip somebody of the ability to defend themselves, then talk about them.
2) it encourages them to try and sneak back in under a different account.
Lord knows I ran afoul of Oddball, but this doesn't seem right. This thread should be locked, IMO.
This may be the Friday margaritas talking, but it strikes me as really bad form that this thread is still open. Several of the forums I frequent forbid discussing banned members, and now I see why:
1) it's really not fair to strip somebody of the ability to defend themselves, then talk about them.
2) it encourages them to try and sneak back in under a different account.
Lord knows I ran afoul of Oddball, but this doesn't seem right. This thread should be locked, IMO.
You'll see in post 19 I mentioned that very same thing. A new member has brought up an issue that was very wrong and hopefully explaining it to him will help him understand what happened with that particular issue. Not Oddball's banning. Again, that was done for a number of reasons that I'm not discussing. Unfortunately, he was the main instigator in the thread member the_redbaron had a question about.
This may be the Friday margaritas talking, but it strikes me as really bad form that this thread is still open. Several of the forums I frequent forbid discussing banned members, and now I see why:
1) it's really not fair to strip somebody of the ability to defend themselves, then talk about them.
2) it encourages them to try and sneak back in under a different account.
Lord knows I ran afoul of Oddball, but this doesn't seem right. This thread should be locked, IMO.
Actually I think sometimes the discussion is good as long as it's civil. Some of the forums that block conversations about banning don't want want truths to come out as well so it serves a double purpose.
I applaud this forum for letting discussions go because at least almost of all us are civil.
I will say this. I thought Oddball crossed the line probably at least a 100 times and this forum had great patience with him. Oddball is a love/hate forum relationship. Hate that he was so snarky all the time, but sometimes I miss the rest of his posts
I know much of this recent discussion is just to correct assumptions and provide answers to simple questions, but Peeps does have a point.
It seems a little counter-productive to me to discuss a member that has been banned.
I know much of this recent discussion is just to correct assumptions and provide answers to simple questions, but Peeps does have a point.
It seems a little counter-productive to me to discuss a member that has been banned.
Since you've just echoed my sentiments from post 19, I see no reason why we need to keep this thred open any longer. I'm going to close it pending review.
Linear Mode
