Chaseman210

I'm afraid not my friend. This has been discussed at length before. The buyer did not get what he paid for. I thought he was buying books? I agree that he got the books as described but if he was offered priority and didn't get that service then what did he pay for? For me the buyer should be happy with the books. I'm not the buyer. It seems the buyer was going to let it slide after hearing the seller's predicament after the first order. But then when the seller was allegedly buying more books and shipped the second order without using the method paid for, the buyer didn't want to let it slide.

I can't remember the last time one of these "nominee/nominator" combo's wasn't a two-fer on the personal list. Buyer needs to clarify if he only "paid for" priority/insured or they both "agreed to" priority/insured on that first shipment. If there's no specific agreement on services & this buyer just accepted paying a price that was "an amount that would cover priority/insurance" then buyer has no claim with regard to first shipment. If this is the case, then it's probably not PL worthy. I just wouldn't want to deal with the seller myself because that's still shady. On the other hand, if the buyer can provide proof that certain methods were discussed (which shouldn't be hard since he already said he specifically asked for priority/insurance), I think it is.

Going off of the buyer's word until he can/cannot provide the PMs: So you would be okay if you asked a seller to ship a certain method with insurance and then paying $50 for said method. Once the package arrives, you would be totally fine with finding out that he used a cheaper method WITHOUT insurance and it cost him HALF of what you paid? :shrug:

According the buyer, the only reason he did was because the seller said he needed money badly for bills or something like that. Then a few days later, the seller was buying more books. That's what I got from the story, but it would help if the buyer could show the PMs from when he specifically asked for insurance and a shipping method. Even though he left positive kudos, he bought from the seller, who AGAIN didn't ship using the method the buyer asked for. So this would still fall under a PL nomination, IMO. Again, we need to see the PMs.

Yeah, we need to see all of the PMs where the buyer DID ask for the certain shipping method. I was just saying that we should get all of the proof before brushing off the nomination.

I sort of feel this might be PL worthy, Justin. Look at it this way: The buyer asked for it to be shipped a certain way with insurance, and the seller agreed. The seller said that would cost $50. The buyer paid, and the seller pretty much stole almost $30 because he shipped with a cheaper method and shipped uninsured. I can maybe see charging $11 and it's only $8 or something. But saying you'll send it one way with insurance and then sending it using a method that costs half of what you charge and not even including insurance is a rip-off.

Seller owes you a refund of $28 ($24 on the first package and $4 on the second package, since he didn't ship them as specified). This is assuming the second package arrives to you safely. Is he charging for insurance that wasn't visible to the recipient? I know every time I get a USPS package from Sarasota, the label has an amount that is nowhere near what I paid. We don't know. The seller removed himself from the conversation. As It stands...the seller either owes money or an explanation. I'd definitely want a refund, and I would never deal with him again. Why would you tell somebody you're shipping it one way, charge them for that method, and then ship a different way for less?

I've been on the road for three hours. I had to get my say in.

Justin... do you think this really matters in this case? I can send you an immediate link to a "long-time respected seller" who not only blatently broke the rules... but contacted a friend in moderation to allow him to bypass the rules I'm not talking about board etiquette or personal opinions... I'm talking about a actual stated, written rule that was altered based on personal bias/preferential treatment to another member. The only reason this is allowed to happen is mainly because someone will say "hey you shouldn't mess with them... they are a long time respected member"... plus they have lots of friends on here that will bombard you with that simple statement... leaving the person who wants to do the right thing perplexed to say the least. Is it fair that a "long time respected seller" gets a pass and a n00b trying to get things right in his first three or four sales doesn't? Jawn believes he is in the right. Oceanavekid believes he is. There is no answer to this one I don't believe because it's been discussed ad nauseam. Perhaps the easiest way for us to try to find an answer is to PM sellers with threads that are one week and older to see if their threads are still open if they have no notation stating they are closed. Any one of us can get the answer from them via PM. If they imply it's closed by stating "that thread is a week old so I would assume it's closed" and we then post in their threads for books they still have listed for sale... are they still on the hook? What if they say "I think I sold half of those" and we then go place a on one that sold already. Can we hold that seller to the sale? Over the weekend, maybe we should randomly experiment... not to force a sale... but just PM some sellers with week or so old sales threads and ask them their opinion on whether or not their sales threads are closed or open But if was closed based on being a week old, why didn't Oceanavekid tell Jawn when Jawn was trying to negotiate a price? Instead of saying the thread was closed, Oceanavekid said "I think I'll hold onto it until I get pics" and "I might hold onto it because it's priced too low." The argument of the thread being closed down by default is moot. If it WAS closed, why would the seller continue to PM somebody who is trying to buy the book instead of saying the thread was closed and the books weren't for sale? Good question. So if oceanavekid had not politely continued answering jawn's questions and multiple PMs he would be off the hook? Is that what you are implying I mean the 'kid's first response to the direct sale/newsstand questions was "I'm going to to hold on to it"... which was before any perceived negotiation was taking place. I seriously think this has now officially been beaten to a slow and painful death. The easiest answer is just to ask the community to vote on whether or not the 'kid needs a second chance or not. If not that... then I guess we can go back to talking about new grading companies and pressing until something like this happens again But the bolded above is the problem. He DIDN'T say "I'm going to hold onto it." You keep leaving out the phrases after his statement. He said he "Thinks" he'll hold onto it "until he gets scans/pics." That doesn't mean it's not FS. EDIT: This is moot since he's been removed. The thing to take from this is to close sales threads and be 100% clear whether or not books are available. Don't leave anything up to interpretation.

Justin... do you think this really matters in this case? I can send you an immediate link to a "long-time respected seller" who not only blatently broke the rules... but contacted a friend in moderation to allow him to bypass the rules I'm not talking about board etiquette or personal opinions... I'm talking about a actual stated, written rule that was altered based on personal bias/preferential treatment to another member. The only reason this is allowed to happen is mainly because someone will say "hey you shouldn't mess with them... they are a long time respected member"... plus they have lots of friends on here that will bombard you with that simple statement... leaving the person who wants to do the right thing perplexed to say the least. Is it fair that a "long time respected seller" gets a pass and a n00b trying to get things right in his first three or four sales doesn't? Jawn believes he is in the right. Oceanavekid believes he is. There is no answer to this one I don't believe because it's been discussed ad nauseam. Perhaps the easiest way for us to try to find an answer is to PM sellers with threads that are one week and older to see if their threads are still open if they have no notation stating they are closed. Any one of us can get the answer from them via PM. If they imply it's closed by stating "that thread is a week old so I would assume it's closed" and we then post in their threads for books they still have listed for sale... are they still on the hook? What if they say "I think I sold half of those" and we then go place a on one that sold already. Can we hold that seller to the sale? Over the weekend, maybe we should randomly experiment... not to force a sale... but just PM some sellers with week or so old sales threads and ask them their opinion on whether or not their sales threads are closed or open But if was closed based on being a week old, why didn't Oceanavekid tell Jawn when Jawn was trying to negotiate a price? Instead of saying the thread was closed, Oceanavekid said "I think I'll hold onto it until I get pics" and "I might hold onto it because it's priced too low." The argument of the thread being closed down by default is moot. If it WAS closed, why would the seller continue to PM somebody who is trying to buy the book instead of saying the thread was closed and the books weren't for sale?

\ The more he posts, the more you can see why this incident took place. That is why I think past actions and attitudes are relevant because it shows a pattern. OK, so without going right to "the thread was still open & he bought it" - explain how jawn's actions make him the blameless victim in this. Keep in mind, PM content however vague, his comprehension of PM content from his early May posts (price & holding the book), his (IMHO) mistaken impression that another $10 was all the seller wanted out of the book. If you still find him innocent, then explain why he said he kept checking to see if the thread was open before he posted the "takeit" - who does that if they don't feel they are putting one over on someone & taking advantage of the situation. The high road is still possible for the seller but the buyer's actions made it a pretty steep climb. Where is that post that said he kept checking the thread to see if it was closed? I remember reading it, but I can't find it anywhere. Anybody know what page? I thought that was something JC just made up or assumed. Was it part of an actual pm or statement? Here's the link to the original post by jawn. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7659442#Post7659442 I linked it & pasted it the text bolded in my post early this morning - just open up the second spoiler to see it. here. (thumbs u Ahh thanks. I took Jawn's statement to mean more that when he made the offer, the thread wasn't closed. Then when he agreed to the asking price, the thread still wasn't closed. I didn't think he meant he kept checking to see if it was closed just so he could pull a sketchy move.

\ The more he posts, the more you can see why this incident took place. That is why I think past actions and attitudes are relevant because it shows a pattern. OK, so without going right to "the thread was still open & he bought it" - explain how jawn's actions make him the blameless victim in this. Keep in mind, PM content however vague, his comprehension of PM content from his early May posts (price & holding the book), his (IMHO) mistaken impression that another $10 was all the seller wanted out of the book. If you still find him innocent, then explain why he said he kept checking to see if the thread was open before he posted the "takeit" - who does that if they don't feel they are putting one over on someone & taking advantage of the situation. The high road is still possible for the seller but the buyer's actions made it a pretty steep climb. Where is that post that said he kept checking the thread to see if it was closed? I remember reading it, but I can't find it anywhere. Anybody know what page?

Even though it hasn't been 30 days, I would be worried as well. Reading PMs and not responding is reason enough to get a little but then removing yourself from the topic puts it over the top. It takes a little effort to remove yourself from the topic, so while it MAY have been a mistake, I'm thinking more likely than not.

So let me get this straight, this dickwad buyer actually got ocean on the PL for his own stupid behavior? Really? Therein lies the crux. But did this actually get ocean put on the PL? If so, then the PL is officially a joke in my book. I assumed ocean got put there for his cross-listing practices. I hear you. Maybe it was for lying and telling Jawn that he was going to keep it, while simultaneously listing it on Ebay. This whole discussion wouldn't even be happing if I had taken the book down or closed the thread.

I would use the 1095/1092 boxes for slabs. Their cost is comparable to a medium flat rate and protects the books better. These work great with raws and bubble wrap: http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-9851/Literature-Mailers/11-1-8-x-8-3-4-x-1-1-4-White-Literature-Mailers

I'd bet real money that if we ran a poll within the general public, whereby he/she is trying to buy a product from an individual, and the seller told them: "I think I will keep it" Does that mean: a) the seller wants to keep it b) the seller doesn't want to keep it c) the seller wants more money There is no question that a) would win the poll, as that's the most logical assumption based on the English language. Due to their own biases and experience, some would chose b) or c) but not in majority numbers. I speak like this all the time: "I think I'll go to the store" "I think I'll go out for a drive and look for new houses on sale" "I think I'll order pizza tonight" I'm not negotiating, I'm stating what I am going to do starting with "I think". But Ocean followed up the "might" and "think I might" with phrases that clearly show the book was still for sale. His first "Think" said he thinks he would hold onto it until he got picture. Then once Jawn made an offer, the second "might" was "I might just hold onto it because IT'S PRICED TOO LOW." You're only looking at the words, not the phrases that followed. How can think and might not mean the books are still for sale? No need for pics and price if it was off the market.

But when he FIRST stated he "might hold onto it," the reasoning was because he needed to get pics. That's not being clear at all that he wanted to hold onto it and not sell it.

Hold not keep. No one is arguing that the seller wanted the book for anything but resale at a higher price. Which is exactly what he got when the buyer agreed to pay the asking price :shrug: No matter how this whole situation turns out, it's clear that sellers need to specifically state their intentions. If you're keeping the book, say "I'm holding onto it." Instead of saying "It's priced too low as it is," say "I'm listing it on eBay. I can get more there." The seller controls the asking price. If they want more, ask more.

This is what I read. So where is the definitive keeping of the book? For realz? The guy suggested twice that he was going to keep the book. If the buyer perceived it differently by the sellers syntax, tough titties. I'm still not understanding where the transgression was? Was he not literal enough? Honestly this is ridiculous. But if he was going to keep the book, why would he list it on eBay?

Guy buys book, seller claims isn't restored. Submits to cgc, comes back restored. Seller offers refund in time payments. (Like the book was paid for). Payments from seller stopped. If I understand the narrative correctly, the seller made no payments other than an m.o. with the wrong name, which had to be returned. This is true but I think a point that should not be over looked that the plan was that the original seller was making time payments for the refund, which means he acknowledged fault. So him not giving a full refund and now saying "oh well what about my personal issues" is total cry baby stuff. We get it, your wife cheated on you and there was a messy divorce lost half your assets, whatever - the mayor of my city smokes crack - none of these things matter. The seller agreed to a refund and didn't go through with it. The seller is so wrong its not funny. And on top of that, still has the book as well as the $1500. Well.. we know he HAD the book. No idea if he still has it. Could have resold it or cracked and resold it. Yeah, I meant more along the lines of the seller not refunding the money and still getting the book.

Guy buys book, seller claims isn't restored. Submits to cgc, comes back restored. Seller offers refund in time payments. (Like the book was paid for). Payments from seller stopped. If I understand the narrative correctly, the seller made no payments other than an m.o. with the wrong name, which had to be returned. This is true but I think a point that should not be over looked that the plan was that the original seller was making time payments for the refund, which means he acknowledged fault. So him not giving a full refund and now saying "oh well what about my personal issues" is total cry baby stuff. We get it, your wife cheated on you and there was a messy divorce lost half your assets, whatever - the mayor of my city smokes crack - none of these things matter. The seller agreed to a refund and didn't go through with it. The seller is so wrong its not funny. And on top of that, still has the book as well as the $1500.

I feel for you, man. I'd definitely go the court route. He's had plenty of time to at least respond to you and work something out.

Awesome!

Saw three new posts and thought there was some good news about NWM