PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[mschmidt]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

But isn't that exactly what Rupp did? He's not asking for a refund on the book. He asked for his grading fees to be refunded, because he would not have graded the book if he had known it was restored (and which the seller said it wasn't) He basically said "I screwed up, I'll take responsibility for that and eat the cost of the book, but I'd like a refund for grading."

 

You're missing my point. There's no question that Rupp's ask of a partial refund to cover the grading fees/postage is reasonable - and like I said earlier, I firmly believe that any seller worth his salt would most likely work with him to get this situation resolved amicably.

 

Where we disagree, however, is that I simply don't believe that a buyer can sit on a book for more than a year and automatically assume that if there's an issue the seller will be willing to help him out. Again ... I would hope that most sellers here would step up & do the right thing - but I don't assume that they will, nor do I believe they should be eligible for the PL if they don't.

[Bio-Rupp]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

The rules, as they currently stand, don't support your position.

 

What you're doing is using the absence of a specific rule in regards to how long a responsible buyer has to bring forward a claim to support your position that all sellers should be on the hook for a book coming back restored in perpetuity. Which, as I've said several times, is all fine & well if the seller explicitly offers such a guarantee, but doesn't grant you the right to assume they do.

 

Mschmidt, you are making this sound like some nefarious plan of mine to beat the system and force a seller to acquiesce to my unrelenting demands

 

If the seller in question had a problem with his nomination, why didn't he come forward and explain how his publically posted "no resto" copy of Batman # 19 ended up with a married cover?

 

Since this seller in question did offer an explicit guarantee of no restoration do you feel I am justified in my assumption that he should back up his word?

 

If you and I do business... which we have a few times in the past... and you had a problem with something I sold you... be it one month or two years... I wouldn't hesitate to make it right. Would you not afford me the same courtesy since we at least know each other on a business level. Or would it be caveat emptor concerning your sales based on the time frame you have placed upon your word?

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

[mschmidt]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

The rules, as they currently stand, don't support your position.

 

What you're doing is using the absence of a specific rule in regards to how long a responsible buyer has to bring forward a claim to support your position that all sellers should be on the hook for a book coming back restored in perpetuity. Which, as I've said several times, is all fine & well if the seller explicitly offers such a guarantee, but doesn't grant you the right to assume they do.

 

Mschmidt, you are making this sound like some nefarious plan of mine to beat the system and force a seller to acquiesce to my unrelenting demands

 

If the seller in question had a problem with his nomination, why didn't he come forward and explain how his publically posted "no resto" copy of Batman # 19 ended up with a married cover?

 

Since this seller in question did offer an explicit guarantee of no restoration do you feel I am justified in my assumption that he should back up his word?

 

If you and I do business... which we have a few times in the past... and you had a problem with something I sold you... be it one month or two years... I wouldn't hesitate to make it right. Would you not afford me the same courtesy since we at least know each other on a business level. Or would it be caveat emptor concerning your sales based on the time frame you have placed upon your word?

 

Again ... this has nothing to do with your return policy, nor mine, nor Bob Storms.

 

This discussion is about your assumption that every seller on this board automatically has a return policy that's as generous as the one you yourself offer. And if they fail to live up to the standards set by your return policy, they're then eligible for the PL.

 

I just don't agree with that :shrug:

[Bio-Rupp]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

The rules, as they currently stand, don't support your position.

 

What you're doing is using the absence of a specific rule in regards to how long a responsible buyer has to bring forward a claim to support your position that all sellers should be on the hook for a book coming back restored in perpetuity. Which, as I've said several times, is all fine & well if the seller explicitly offers such a guarantee, but doesn't grant you the right to assume they do.

 

Mschmidt, you are making this sound like some nefarious plan of mine to beat the system and force a seller to acquiesce to my unrelenting demands

 

If the seller in question had a problem with his nomination, why didn't he come forward and explain how his publically posted "no resto" copy of Batman # 19 ended up with a married cover?

 

Since this seller in question did offer an explicit guarantee of no restoration do you feel I am justified in my assumption that he should back up his word?

 

If you and I do business... which we have a few times in the past... and you had a problem with something I sold you... be it one month or two years... I wouldn't hesitate to make it right. Would you not afford me the same courtesy since we at least know each other on a business level. Or would it be caveat emptor concerning your sales based on the time frame you have placed upon your word?

 

Again ... this has nothing to do with your return policy, nor mine, nor Bob Storms.

 

This discussion is about your assumption that every seller on this board automatically has a return policy that's as generous as the one you yourself offer. And if they fail to live up to the standards set by your return policy, they're then eligible for the PL.

 

I just don't agree with that :shrug:

 

I might agree with you if this was about a return.

 

Its not... and never has been.

[Dano]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

The rules, as they currently stand, don't support your position.

 

What you're doing is using the absence of a specific rule in regards to how long a responsible buyer has to bring forward a claim to support your position that all sellers should be on the hook for a book coming back restored in perpetuity. Which, as I've said several times, is all fine & well if the seller explicitly offers such a guarantee, but doesn't grant you the right to assume they do.

 

Mschmidt, you are making this sound like some nefarious plan of mine to beat the system and force a seller to acquiesce to my unrelenting demands

 

If the seller in question had a problem with his nomination, why didn't he come forward and explain how his publically posted "no resto" copy of Batman # 19 ended up with a married cover?

 

Since this seller in question did offer an explicit guarantee of no restoration do you feel I am justified in my assumption that he should back up his word?

 

If you and I do business... which we have a few times in the past... and you had a problem with something I sold you... be it one month or two years... I wouldn't hesitate to make it right. Would you not afford me the same courtesy since we at least know each other on a business level. Or would it be caveat emptor concerning your sales based on the time frame you have placed upon your word?

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

It's honestly good to know that you offer a life time guarantee! Thank you!

 

Dan

[Bio-Rupp]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

The rules, as they currently stand, don't support your position.

 

What you're doing is using the absence of a specific rule in regards to how long a responsible buyer has to bring forward a claim to support your position that all sellers should be on the hook for a book coming back restored in perpetuity. Which, as I've said several times, is all fine & well if the seller explicitly offers such a guarantee, but doesn't grant you the right to assume they do.

 

Mschmidt, you are making this sound like some nefarious plan of mine to beat the system and force a seller to acquiesce to my unrelenting demands

 

If the seller in question had a problem with his nomination, why didn't he come forward and explain how his publically posted "no resto" copy of Batman # 19 ended up with a married cover?

 

Since this seller in question did offer an explicit guarantee of no restoration do you feel I am justified in my assumption that he should back up his word?

 

If you and I do business... which we have a few times in the past... and you had a problem with something I sold you... be it one month or two years... I wouldn't hesitate to make it right. Would you not afford me the same courtesy since we at least know each other on a business level. Or would it be caveat emptor concerning your sales based on the time frame you have placed upon your word?

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

It's honestly good to know that you offer a life time guarantee! Thank you!

 

Dan

 

I thought you had me on ignore Dano... nice to see you are still reading so you can get your jabs in when you can

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[jaybuck43]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

But isn't that exactly what Rupp did? He's not asking for a refund on the book. He asked for his grading fees to be refunded, because he would not have graded the book if he had known it was restored (and which the seller said it wasn't) He basically said "I screwed up, I'll take responsibility for that and eat the cost of the book, but I'd like a refund for grading."

 

You're missing my point. There's no question that Rupp's ask of a partial refund to cover the grading fees/postage is reasonable - and like I said earlier, I firmly believe that any seller worth his salt would most likely work with him to get this situation resolved amicably.

 

 

Where we disagree, however, is that I simply don't believe that a buyer can sit on a book for more than a year and automatically assume that if there's an issue the seller will be willing to help him out. Again ... I would hope that most sellers here would step up & do the right thing - but I don't assume that they will, nor do I believe they should be eligible for the PL if they don't.

 

This is the part I don't understand. Do you immediately send each book you get out to CGC as they come in? Do you expect everyone to? Some people like to wait to get together a few books to make it economically feasible on postage. Some need to wait till they have the money (CGC ain't cheap, especially on those big money books). There are many fair reasons why someone would wait a year to grade a book.

 

And yes, I do assume that sellers will step up and do the right thing. This is a customer service issue, and as a customer I assume that I will be treated fairly and taken care of long after the sale is completed, because you want to do right by your customer. The question is what do we mean by taken care of, and THAT is a sliding scale question.

 

I'll give you an example of what I mean. I went to a restaurant once and had a horrible experience. Vowed never to go back. Ended up going back a year or so later with a friend (who knew about my bad experience). When the waitress came over and asked if we had ever been there before I laughed and said "yea about a year ago, it was a pretty bad experience. (or something to that affect). She apologized for it and took our order. A few minutes later the manager came over and said he had heard about my past bad experience and wanted to know what happened. We chatted for a few minutes, he again apologized for the bad experience and said he would personally make sure everything went well. I thanked him for that. Food came out great, friend and I had a great time Manager came over to ask how everything was and said the meal and drinks were on the house, they wanted to make up for the bad previous experience. We were shocked (as this was of course not the reason I mentioned it.) I left a tip that was equal to the meal as we both felt that there was no reason not to pay for the meal (everything was perfect) and to this day I still go to that restaurant. In all honesty, comping the meal was excessive, all I really would have liked was a sorry to hear that, we will do better next time (and got that of course) in this case they went above and beyond.

 

I expect a seller to stand behind their sale, even if their way of doing that is to say "Hey sorry about that, I can't believe I screwed up and missed that, I'll learn from this and do better next time". Rupp is at fault too, no one is saying otherwise (he himself admits that). My question in all of this is WHERE IS THE SELLER? Not once has he come in and defended himself, not once has he requested to be removed from the PL, nothing, heck he has ducked Rupps PMs it seems.

[PovertyRow]

My question in all of this is WHERE IS THE SELLER? Not once has he come in and defended himself, not once has he requested to be removed from the PL, nothing, heck he has ducked Rupps PMs it seems.

 

Mikeggg's last board appearance from November 2013. A sales thread he created that didn't go too well at the end.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=318508&Number=7142956#Post7142956

[revat]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

But isn't that exactly what Rupp did? He's not asking for a refund on the book. He asked for his grading fees to be refunded, because he would not have graded the book if he had known it was restored (and which the seller said it wasn't) He basically said "I screwed up, I'll take responsibility for that and eat the cost of the book, but I'd like a refund for grading."

 

You're missing my point. There's no question that Rupp's ask of a partial refund to cover the grading fees/postage is reasonable - and like I said earlier, I firmly believe that any seller worth his salt would most likely work with him to get this situation resolved amicably.

 

 

Where we disagree, however, is that I simply don't believe that a buyer can sit on a book for more than a year and automatically assume that if there's an issue the seller will be willing to help him out. Again ... I would hope that most sellers here would step up & do the right thing - but I don't assume that they will, nor do I believe they should be eligible for the PL if they don't.

 

This is the part I don't understand. Do you immediately send each book you get out to CGC as they come in? Do you expect everyone to? Some people like to wait to get together a few books to make it economically feasible on postage. Some need to wait till they have the money (CGC ain't cheap, especially on those big money books). There are many fair reasons why someone would wait a year to grade a book.

 

And yes, I do assume that sellers will step up and do the right thing. This is a customer service issue, and as a customer I assume that I will be treated fairly and taken care of long after the sale is completed, because you want to do right by your customer. The question is what do we mean by taken care of, and THAT is a sliding scale question.

 

I'll give you an example of what I mean. I went to a restaurant once and had a horrible experience. Vowed never to go back. Ended up going back a year or so later with a friend (who knew about my bad experience). When the waitress came over and asked if we had ever been there before I laughed and said "yea about a year ago, it was a pretty bad experience. (or something to that affect). She apologized for it and took our order. A few minutes later the manager came over and said he had heard about my past bad experience and wanted to know what happened. We chatted for a few minutes, he again apologized for the bad experience and said he would personally make sure everything went well. I thanked him for that. Food came out great, friend and I had a great time Manager came over to ask how everything was and said the meal and drinks were on the house, they wanted to make up for the bad previous experience. We were shocked (as this was of course not the reason I mentioned it.) I left a tip that was equal to the meal as we both felt that there was no reason not to pay for the meal (everything was perfect) and to this day I still go to that restaurant. In all honesty, comping the meal was excessive, all I really would have liked was a sorry to hear that, we will do better next time (and got that of course) in this case they went above and beyond.

 

I expect a seller to stand behind their sale, even if their way of doing that is to say "Hey sorry about that, I can't believe I screwed up and missed that, I'll learn from this and do better next time". Rupp is at fault too, no one is saying otherwise (he himself admits that). My question in all of this is WHERE IS THE SELLER? Not once has he come in and defended himself, not once has he requested to be removed from the PL, nothing, heck he has ducked Rupps PMs it seems.

 

but what if they didn't apologize? or even acknowledge it? Should they be denied the right to operate a restaurant? Or just live with the fact that you and everyone who will listen to you won't give them their business anymore?

 

There's a difference between levels of good/bad customer service and misrepresenting an item that was sold.

 

That being said, I'm not sure about the right answer for this specific case. A year seems like a LOOOONG time. But a guarantee without a time limit seems pretty encompassing....

 

And the probation rules do seem vague....

 

But the ignoring/removing plus the prior transgressions makes me say....NO to PL. But YES to HALL OF SHAME!!!!!

[seanfingh]

My question in all of this is WHERE IS THE SELLER? Not once has he come in and defended himself, not once has he requested to be removed from the PL, nothing, heck he has ducked Rupps PMs it seems.

 

Mikeggg's last board appearance from November 2013. A sales thread he created that didn't go too well at the end.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=318508&Number=7142956#Post7142956

 

What a train wreck.

[paperheart]

My question in all of this is WHERE IS THE SELLER? Not once has he come in and defended himself, not once has he requested to be removed from the PL, nothing, heck he has ducked Rupps PMs it seems.

 

Mikeggg's last board appearance from November 2013. A sales thread he created that didn't go too well at the end.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=318508&Number=7142956#Post7142956

 

so he could already be on the probation list?

[HarveySwick]

[Doktor]

well this just got interesting

[PovertyRow]

well this just got interesting

 

Yeah. My eyes widened a bit as I was reading it.

[thehumantorch]

Yes, a year is a long time but for me this passes the probation list,dirty underwear sniff test. Historic pattern of poor behavior, book misrepresented, (and most alarming to me) absolute failure to communicate when told there's a problem.

 

This guy is the poster child for the probation list, borderline HOS. Clearly he can't be trusted.

[porcupine48]

dirty underwear sniff test!?good grief Dave!

[thehumantorch]

dirty underwear sniff test!?good grief Dave!

 

[porcupine48]

[Iceman399]

dirty underwear sniff test!?good grief Dave!

 

 

Oh Davey

[HighRadArt]

My question in all of this is WHERE IS THE SELLER? Not once has he come in and defended himself, not once has he requested to be removed from the PL, nothing, heck he has ducked Rupps PMs it seems.

 

Mikeggg's last board appearance from November 2013. A sales thread he created that didn't go too well at the end.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=318508&Number=7142956#Post7142956

 

All this over someone that should already be on the probee list? Also, is he still alive? He hasn't posted any feedback on feebay in over a year.

Edited June 17, 2015 by highradart