Gem_Mint

It's not an eCheck, right?

Someone just got a bad one from him.

Wish I didn't sell my first set of 1-5...

But then again, glad I didn't miss out on the Boba hype... I don't mind not having one since I don't have the others anymore.

packers1181 eBay Buyer/Bidder History

what about that comic lot for $7k

Not a rumor.

 

Batman and Joker die in Batman #40 and Gordon takes in some kind of bat armor suit.

Yup thats what it was.

Still can't preorder on midtown? What's up with that?

 

I wonder where you heard this rumor : )

The rumor about the deaths or about not being able to purchase on Midtown?

Anyone ever deal with user packers1181?

 

Are you having a non payment issue?

 

Something is "up" with this eBayer. Buying and only paying for some things, never responding to messages, sometimes responding to NPB cases opened, and now not shipping out things he/she sold:

 

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=packers1181&_trksid=p3984.m1559.l2776

 

My eCheck is still pending.

 

 

Email received today that the bank declined the eCheck.

 

Unless you like your items being bought and put in limbo, add packers1181 to your lists.

 

 

packers1181 BINed a book on 04/03/2015.

 

No payment, no communication, I opened NPB case on 04/15/2015.

 

 

I am having the same issue with him.

Just got my seller's fees back from this dude.

Jeez, what's up with this guy. Check out his 9 negs as a seller.

Still can't preorder on midtown? What's up with that?

Hearing rumors of Batman and Joker being killed off in Batman 40...

So.... I've noticed that a lot of the problem n00bs generally got started on Instagram/Facebook comic selling and then somehow ended up here. Any idea why they seem to think that what they are used to in their one environment applies EVERYWHERE?

 

I can't speak for Facebook, as I'm not on there. But there's a lot of younger and/or newer collectors on Instagram, and some of them fancy themselves as big time dealers. And when you're dealing with other younger or newer collectors who may not know any better, you can get away with a more flippant attitude towards customer service.

 

This place, on the other hand, is filled with a bunch of cagey ol' cats who are too smart to get over by a kitten. I've never bought from Gem Mint before, but I've seen the guy have a lot of problem-free transactions on IG, and he always carries himself as a solid citizen there. I imagine he'll chalk this up as a learning experience, and become an even better seller because of it.

 

Thanks Jam

No problem. Now follow me (nosaj80) back, you self-centered .

Done.

Bought Avengers 1 from Warren. He responded to my WTB thread. Super easy to deal with, packed and shipped same day. I got the book 2 days after purchase.

Couldnt be happier.

So.... I've noticed that a lot of the problem n00bs generally got started on Instagram/Facebook comic selling and then somehow ended up here. Any idea why they seem to think that what they are used to in their one environment applies EVERYWHERE?

 

I can't speak for Facebook, as I'm not on there. But there's a lot of younger and/or newer collectors on Instagram, and some of them fancy themselves as big time dealers. And when you're dealing with other younger or newer collectors who may not know any better, you can get away with a more flippant attitude towards customer service.

 

This place, on the other hand, is filled with a bunch of cagey ol' cats who are too smart to get over by a kitten. I've never bought from Gem Mint before, but I've seen the guy have a lot of problem-free transactions on IG, and he always carries himself as a solid citizen there. I imagine he'll chalk this up as a learning experience, and become an even better seller because of it.

Thanks Jam

Also, I understand that it's Friday and it's fun to ride the wave and all but....

But I've said my piece. I'm no longer going to add fuel to the fire.

I'm sorry that I backed out of our deal.

I don't think he's going to get it.

 

He PMed me last night for advice and my thoughts since I asked him and the nominator to remove their comments from the Probation List thread. I tried explaining that he unilaterally cancelled a deal in which he agreed to the conditions without any notice. I advised that he should work out something privately with the buyer and avoid this because he won't end up looking good in the end.

 

He responded with "Thanks for your time" and

 

"Gem_Mint has removed themself from this topic."

 

 

What's wrong with that?

 

I closed the PM because the convo was over.

 

You let me know that I was in the wrong and i said...damn.

 

We couldn't work it out. I understand why he wouldn't want to at this point. I wouldn't either.

 

I apologize to him.... I'm sorry. When I first told him what happened I apologized profusely.

 

But you came in here guns ablazing digging a deeper hole for yourself.

 

Your apology and admitting that you made a mistake seems like it was forced out of you and seems questionable that it is genuine.

 

I think the Facebook comment is pretty bad. And the comments you made here regarding "this place is strict" as an explanation of how you handle your business differently here since it is monitored rather than in other venues doesn't really paint the picture that you're a solid seller I want to start sending my money to.

I'm sorry you feel that way Harv, there would be many that would disagree.

I don't think he's going to get it.

 

He PMed me last night for advice and my thoughts since I asked him and the nominator to remove their comments from the Probation List thread. I tried explaining that he unilaterally cancelled a deal in which he agreed to the conditions without any notice. I advised that he should work out something privately with the buyer and avoid this because he won't end up looking good in the end.

 

He responded with "Thanks for your time" and

 

"Gem_Mint has removed themself from this topic."

 

What's wrong with that?

I closed the PM because the convo was over.

You let me know that I was in the wrong and i said...damn.

We couldn't work it out. I understand why he wouldn't want to at this point. I wouldn't either.

I apologize to him.... I'm sorry. When I first told him what happened I apologized profusely.

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

 

Well, as long as you're taking personal responsibility and not trying to shift the focus to make yourself the victim....hey waitaminutenow....

haha

Guys, in all seriousness. I understand why it was wrong.

I am sorry to Voodoo. I should not have agreed to the terms if I didn't want to wait.

I should have communicated better before selling the book from underneath him.

I am sorry. This has never happened to me before. It won't happen again.

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

But the witch hunt continues

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed.

 

Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done.

 

So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed.

 

However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it.

 

In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended.

 

 

This is why I was nominated.

 

No.

 

You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon.

 

So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer?

 

I told him I didn't mail the book yet and I would sell it to him, he declined.

 

And why did he decline?

 

He clearly said why: because selling the book to him now would involve doing to someone else what you were going to do to him.

 

What you've done with this transaction is put yourself in the unenviable position of having two buyers who have equal legitimate claim to the same book.

 

If you pull the book back and sell it to the first buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the second buyer.

 

If you go ahead with your deal with the second buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the first buyer.

 

You've claimed that the second buyer would be understanding if you couldn't fulfill your commitment to him. But you also assumed that the first buyer would be understanding about breaking your deal with him - without discussing it with him first. As it turns out, he wasn't. Are you sure your second buyer will be understanding, especially if you haven't discussed it with him yet? And even if he is, should he have to be? He didn't create this situation, you did.

 

Here's a suggestion:

 

In one of your snarky, dismissive responses you mentioned that there are several of these on eBay.

 

Why not buy one of those copies and send it to one of your buyers? That way you can fulfill your commitments to both of your buyers.

 

Of course, you won't make in money on the deal. You might even loose some. But you can chalk that up to a learning experience: don't agree to extended payment terms when what you really need is immediate payment and don't break or alter an agreement without discussing it with the other party first.

 

That's just a suggestion. And since it sounds like the first buyer is dropping the nomination, there's nothing in terms of the Probation process obligating you to come up with a solution.

 

It depends on how much your reputation as a seller on these boards is worth to you.

 

 

Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.

Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.

What kinda of monster do you think I am?

Gem_Mint,

 

I've written some constructive critizism below. It's not intended as a pile-on, more like a wake-up call. Feel free to read it or ignore it, but know that you have work to do.

 

 

You are going about this completely incorrectly. Your sales practices don't make good business sense and you're coming off as very immature in this thread.

 

It's been said before and I'll say it again...communication is KEY! Like someone else posted, you should have contacted the original buyer before selling to a second buyer. Before it even got to that point, if it seems like an extended period of time to pay is going to put you in a tight spot, either don't agree to it or take a non-refundable deposit. All options are much better than what you did. I hope you take some time to reflect that you're not innocent in this matter.

 

I'll give you another example. I bought a few books from you earlier this year and they had been damaged due to improper packaging. I pointed it out to you and you just apologized and stated that you packed like that all the time. A great seller would have asked for pictures as a learning tool, offered a partial refund to compensate for the damage, offered an incentive on a future sale, offered and exchange, sent out a freebie, or any number of things to make the buyer feel like he didn't just get hosed. In our case, what you did wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either.

 

I hope you don't take this as just bashing you; instead, take this as the constructive criticizism it's meant to be. As a seller, you're in the "below average" to "average" range and you can easily change that. Lose the attitude, be open to suggestions, and treat your word like it has value. If you tell someone you are going to sell something to them, follow through. It's not different than buying something and not paying.

Thanks for your input.

Ever since our deal, I have doubled up the amount of cardboard used for 1-3 books.

So i have learned from that experience.

I run an Instagram page with 3k followers. I buy and sell ALL the time. I average about 5 sales a day. Deals fall through ALL the time too.

I can see where I treated this more like Instagram than the forum which tends to be much more strict.

I won't make that mistake again.

I take responsibility. I agreed to the deal and I backed out. I should have never agreed to hold a book for that long and I won't be doing that again.

The #1 rule in that group is no snitching....

Ok, thanks.

 

I am sorry... I honestly didn't think it was a big deal.

 

To you no, but for me I was expecting it.

 

I'm not gonna fight against another transaction you completed with someone else after the fact to get that comic back.

 

 

It's not worth it. I would rather not send my business your way.

 

 

 

I feel the same way brother.

 

Maybe you can explain to all of us why he's your "brother" in here yet at the same time you choose to call him a "ball-less " on Facebook.

Oooh check out the instigator.

I was P/Oed that I was nominated.

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed.

 

Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done.

 

So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed.

 

However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it.

 

In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended.

 

 

This is why I was nominated.

 

No.

 

You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon.

 

So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer?

I told him I didn't mail the book yet and I would sell it to him, he declined.

I actually don't think your expectation is unreasonable, but you two had agreed to proceed with the sales on different terms than "claim, pay, and ship". I too would be impatient if I had a sale go for as long as you did, but if I had a buyer that was going to take a while to pay for a book, unless its a high dollar book, I'd probably decline the sale.

If he would have told me "dude I can't buy the book, something came up", which happens all the time when I sell on Facebook or Instagram, I wouldn't have nominated him for probation.

I would have been frustrated, but I would have told him "no worries bro, next time."

I guess that's why I never expected this.

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed.

 

Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done.

 

So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed.

 

However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it.

 

In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended.

 

This is why I was nominated.

Perhaps I have been underestimating spider monkeys.

That was your first mistake.