Hall of Shame and Probation Rules DISCUSSION 4 4

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

In my case due to the length of time involved, I only felt I deserved compensation for expenses I wouldn't have incurred had I known the true nature of the book.

 

The price of the house in Poltergeist was a steal until the family found out it was constructed over the angry spirits of a never relocated graveyard.

 

If they remodeled, added a two car garage and had Big John's landscaping totally redo their front yard right before all hell breaks loose and little Hokie is sucked into the TV set... I would like to think their lawyer might be able to get them some damages on top of the cost of the house. I feel they would be owed something for the non disclosure.

 

I feel like I'm owed something for the non disclosure ... even though I'm not asking for a return on the "house".

 

My opinion is you were due compensation because the item you agreed to purchase was not what you received. You did not deserve compensation for expenses you chose to incur after you had the book in hand.

 

Agreed.

What are you drinking?

[Dr Chaos]

If the point of the probation list is to protect the members of this board from bad sellers I think we need to keep that in perspective.

 

Sure if a buyer takes a year or two to look over their books maybe they were negligent in honoring their part of the deal and perhaps are unworthy of a refund even if the book they received had undisclosed flaws including those that could be considered restoration.

 

Putting pressure on a seller to provide a refund or other forms of restitution (in order to be removed from the probation list) is only small part of what the probation list is about. The much, much, more important reason that the seller is on the list in the first place is not because we want him to do something nice for the buyer that was wronged but to keep him from screwing the rest of us over by blocking him or her from selling additional books.

 

If a seller is selling books with color touch, trimming, and missing pieces on a regular basis without disclosing any of it I do not think that any of us wants to buy books from such a person. Sure on one book out of a hundred or a thousand perhaps they missed the restoration. If selling such books without disclosing the restoration is happening more frequently perhaps they are the ones doctoring the books in the first place.

 

Forcing sellers to post a return policy in their threads is not the solution for this problem. If a seller intent on passing off restored book were to put up a thread with a 30 day return period and the seller had the skill to subtly restore the books so that the average buyer will not spot the restoration., the seller will be able to hide behind the return policy when the books all come back from CGC a few months later.

 

A typical buyer seeing a return policy that states anything other than as is / no returns will still think that if they got a restored book that it would be such a big deal that the seller would have to make an exception.

 

No one is arguing that a buyer lacks any responsibility to inspect their purchases in a timely manner (we could discuss what this entails). The real question is are we more concerned about making sure that lazy buyers do not get away with sitting on their books for a couple months before asking for a return or are we more concerned about dishonest / irresponsible sellers passing off restored books without disclosure and being free to continue doing so without being held accountable?

 

Giving buyers on this forum six months to a year to nominate a seller for the PL if they sell a restored book without disclosure and either refuse to compensate the buyer for the loss or ignore them completely seems reasonable to me.

 

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

The thing is, what a seller's actual return policy is has nothing to do with the PL Rules. The PL would come into play if, for example, the seller stated a 2 week policy then refused, after a week, to make a refund.

 

So I again suggest adding this to the Usage Guidelines. For example, the Usage Guidelines state:

 

7. List scans or information about the grade of the offered books.

8. List estimated shipping costs, times, and methods.

9. List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal payment is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

Why not add:

10: List a return policy.

 

If a seller specifies No Returns, the buyer had better be very careful in communicating with the seller and save all PMs if an agreement beyond No Reeturns is reached. For example, over the course of PMing the buyer asks "OK - you say no return policy but what if there are coupons cut or missing pages?" The buyer responds, "then I will take the book back within x days."

 

Save that PM. If the book turns out to have missing pages etc. and the buyer tries to play the "No Return" card you can use the PMs as evidence to the contrary.

 

If the point of the probation list is to protect the members of this board from bad sellers I think we need to keep that in perspective.

 

Sure if a buyer takes a year or two to look over their books maybe they were negligent in honoring their part of the deal and perhaps are unworthy of a refund even if the book they received had undisclosed flaws including those that could be considered restoration.

 

Putting pressure on a seller to provide a refund or other forms of restitution (in order to be removed from the probation list) is only small part of what the probation list is about. The much, much, more important reason that the seller is on the list in the first place is not because we want him to do something nice for the buyer that was wronged but to keep him from screwing the rest of us over by blocking him or her from selling additional books.

 

If a seller is selling books with color touch, trimming, and missing pieces on a regular basis without disclosing any of it I do not think that any of us wants to buy books from such a person. Sure on one book out of a hundred or a thousand perhaps they missed the restoration. If selling such books without disclosing the restoration is happening more frequently perhaps they are the ones doctoring the books in the first place.

 

Forcing sellers to post a return policy in their threads is not the solution for this problem. If a seller intent on passing off restored book were to put up a thread with a 30 day return period and the seller had the skill to subtly restore the books so that the average buyer will not spot the restoration., the seller will be able to hide behind the return policy when the books all come back from CGC a few months later.

 

A typical buyer seeing a return policy that states anything other than as is / no returns will still think that if they got a restored book that it would be such a big deal that the seller would have to make an exception.

 

No one is arguing that a buyer lacks any responsibility to inspect their purchases in a timely manner (we could discuss what this entails). The real question is are we more concerned about making sure that lazy buyers do not get away with sitting on their books for a couple months before asking for a return or are we more concerned about dishonest / irresponsible sellers passing off restored books without disclosure and being free to continue doing so without being held accountable?

 

Giving buyers on this forum six months to a year to nominate a seller for the PL if they sell a restored book without disclosure and either refuse to compensate the buyer for the loss or ignore them completely seems reasonable to me.

 

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

Will sellers return policy trump restoration detected after the return period has expired? Is this in the best interest of the community?

 

Seller offers a VG bats #123 with an unconditional 30 day guarantee, no mention of restoration. Day 31 CGC finds restoration. Buyer wants to return book. Seller refuses. Buyer files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

 

[jimjum12]

The thing is, what a seller's actual return policy is has nothing to do with the PL Rules. The PL would come into play if, for example, the seller stated a 2 week policy then refused, after a week, to make a refund.

 

So I again suggest adding this to the Usage Guidelines. For example, the Usage Guidelines state:

 

7. List scans or information about the grade of the offered books.

8. List estimated shipping costs, times, and methods.

9. List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal payment is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

Why not add:

10: List a return policy.

 

If a seller specifies No Returns, the buyer had better be very careful in communicating with the seller and save all PMs if an agreement beyond No Reeturns is reached. For example, over the course of PMing the buyer asks "OK - you say no return policy but what if there are coupons cut or missing pages?" The buyer responds, "then I will take the book back within x days."

 

Save that PM. If the book turns out to have missing pages etc. and the buyer tries to play the "No Return" card you can use the PMs as evidence to the contrary.

 

If the point of the probation list is to protect the members of this board from bad sellers I think we need to keep that in perspective.

 

Sure if a buyer takes a year or two to look over their books maybe they were negligent in honoring their part of the deal and perhaps are unworthy of a refund even if the book they received had undisclosed flaws including those that could be considered restoration.

 

Putting pressure on a seller to provide a refund or other forms of restitution (in order to be removed from the probation list) is only small part of what the probation list is about. The much, much, more important reason that the seller is on the list in the first place is not because we want him to do something nice for the buyer that was wronged but to keep him from screwing the rest of us over by blocking him or her from selling additional books.

 

If a seller is selling books with color touch, trimming, and missing pieces on a regular basis without disclosing any of it I do not think that any of us wants to buy books from such a person. Sure on one book out of a hundred or a thousand perhaps they missed the restoration. If selling such books without disclosing the restoration is happening more frequently perhaps they are the ones doctoring the books in the first place.

 

Forcing sellers to post a return policy in their threads is not the solution for this problem. If a seller intent on passing off restored book were to put up a thread with a 30 day return period and the seller had the skill to subtly restore the books so that the average buyer will not spot the restoration., the seller will be able to hide behind the return policy when the books all come back from CGC a few months later.

 

A typical buyer seeing a return policy that states anything other than as is / no returns will still think that if they got a restored book that it would be such a big deal that the seller would have to make an exception.

 

No one is arguing that a buyer lacks any responsibility to inspect their purchases in a timely manner (we could discuss what this entails). The real question is are we more concerned about making sure that lazy buyers do not get away with sitting on their books for a couple months before asking for a return or are we more concerned about dishonest / irresponsible sellers passing off restored books without disclosure and being free to continue doing so without being held accountable?

 

Giving buyers on this forum six months to a year to nominate a seller for the PL if they sell a restored book without disclosure and either refuse to compensate the buyer for the loss or ignore them completely seems reasonable to me.

 

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

Will sellers return policy trump restoration detected after the return period has expired? Is this in the best interest of the community?

 

Seller offers a VG bats #123 with an unconditional 30 day guarantee, no mention of restoration. Day 31 CGC finds restoration. Buyer wants to return book. Seller refuses. Buyer files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

 

..... the buyer, after accepting the book and paying for it has agreed to the terms. The time to negotiate the contract is before you sign it, not after. I think most of us would still honor the return after only one day's difference..... I know I would...... but if the return policy is not acceptable, don't buy. It's really not that complicated. As for nominating the buyer to PL....... ? After breaking the terms of the agreement by forcing a "return" after the expiration ?.....I'd vote for inclusion. I'd like to be warned about a buyer like that. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Bio-Rupp]

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

In my case due to the length of time involved, I only felt I deserved compensation for expenses I wouldn't have incurred had I known the true nature of the book.

 

The price of the house in Poltergeist was a steal until the family found out it was constructed over the angry spirits of a never relocated graveyard.

 

If they remodeled, added a two car garage and had Big John's landscaping totally redo their front yard right before all hell breaks loose and little Hokie is sucked into the TV set... I would like to think their lawyer might be able to get them some damages on top of the cost of the house. I feel they would be owed something for the non disclosure.

 

I feel like I'm owed something for the non disclosure ... even though I'm not asking for a return on the "house".

 

My opinion is you were due compensation because the item you agreed to purchase was not what you received. You did not deserve compensation for expenses you chose to incur after you had the book in hand.

 

Agreed.

What are you drinking?

 

Kerosene I think... with red Kool-Aid

 

Koolsene? Kero-Aid?

[skypinkblu]

If the point of the probation list is to protect the members of this board from bad sellers I think we need to keep that in perspective.

 

Sure if a buyer takes a year or two to look over their books maybe they were negligent in honoring their part of the deal and perhaps are unworthy of a refund even if the book they received had undisclosed flaws including those that could be considered restoration.

 

Putting pressure on a seller to provide a refund or other forms of restitution (in order to be removed from the probation list) is only small part of what the probation list is about. The much, much, more important reason that the seller is on the list in the first place is not because we want him to do something nice for the buyer that was wronged but to keep him from screwing the rest of us over by blocking him or her from selling additional books.

 

If a seller is selling books with color touch, trimming, and missing pieces on a regular basis without disclosing any of it I do not think that any of us wants to buy books from such a person. Sure on one book out of a hundred or a thousand perhaps they missed the restoration. If selling such books without disclosing the restoration is happening more frequently perhaps they are the ones doctoring the books in the first place.

 

Forcing sellers to post a return policy in their threads is not the solution for this problem. If a seller intent on passing off restored book were to put up a thread with a 30 day return period and the seller had the skill to subtly restore the books so that the average buyer will not spot the restoration., the seller will be able to hide behind the return policy when the books all come back from CGC a few months later.

 

A typical buyer seeing a return policy that states anything other than as is / no returns will still think that if they got a restored book that it would be such a big deal that the seller would have to make an exception.

 

No one is arguing that a buyer lacks any responsibility to inspect their purchases in a timely manner (we could discuss what this entails). The real question is are we more concerned about making sure that lazy buyers do not get away with sitting on their books for a couple months before asking for a return or are we more concerned about dishonest / irresponsible sellers passing off restored books without disclosure and being free to continue doing so without being held accountable?

 

Giving buyers on this forum six months to a year to nominate a seller for the PL if they sell a restored book without disclosure and either refuse to compensate the buyer for the loss or ignore them completely seems reasonable to me.

 

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

I agree that "bad" sellers who know that a book is restored should be held accountable...that guy who was micro-trimming books knew what he was doing, he performed the destruction.

 

No grading company is perfect, at least not when they have people doing the grading. They don't back up their product with a forever guarantee, if you open the slab, the "guarantee" is void.

 

I don't think any of us are perfect either, sometimes an error is just an error.

 

It's unfortunate that all of this came up because of Rupp's issue, because his guy obviously had other issues, but that's this case. Most missed resto, is just missed, not passed off deliberately. It's not performed by the person on the boards selling.

 

I'm not saying never...but most.

 

My problem is with someone who sells a book and just misses something that someone else missed when they sold to them. Someone who made an error that the next (3rd) buyer did not pick up either.

 

Sometimes even CGC misses stuff. I submitted a book recently that I was sure had replaced staples. The seller who sold it to me thought they were replaced, the people in the PGM thread thought they were replaced. It came back with a blue label. I STILL think they were replaced. There was damage around the staple holes, the staples were vastly different from other books I have from the same company, the same year, they looked as if they had been pried open, they were too short, etc, etc.

 

It works the other way, too.

 

Deliberately deceiving someone such as what Ewart was doing, well maybe that's HOS material. Honest errors that both parties or more than just the 2 missed...well, that should have a time frame.

[skypinkblu]

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

Why would someone want to return a book for a reason "other than restoration" 6 months later.?

 

Please remember that most of us are not Macy's, Bloomingdale's or professional dealers;)

[EC ed]

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

Please remember that most of us are not Macy's, Bloomingdale's or professional dealers;)[/color]

 

amen

[Doktor]

I agree that a return policy doesn't entirely negate the problem. But it does at least take part of the problem away that this case illustrated. There were really 2 problems here & we're trying to solve them as if they're a single one. 1 problem being the found resto & the other being the lack of a return policy that would make the issue a little less complicated.

 

Requiring a return policy to be stated won't get rid of problem sellers that want to pass off known restored books that they personally trim or can do a bang-up job on masking color touch or whatever. But it can help make the problem be less complex & by eliminating the question of "what is/should be the default return period or return policy if one isn't stated?"

[jimjum12]

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

Please remember that most of us are not Macy's, Bloomingdale's or professional dealers;)[/color]

 

amen

 

..... and this is where case by case would come in. Most of us here are decent at spotting resto..... both buyers and sellers. Luckily, I 've only had a couple of books come back purple where I missed it AND the buyer missed it. Both occurred outside the 6 month period. I went ahead and issued refunds anyway BECAUSE I happened to have the funds available. That isn't always the case. Most people sell because they want to SPEND the money. 6 Months or there about is plenty of time for a motivated and responsible buyer to get an expert opinion on resto. For a buyer to be "too busy" to hold up their share of the responsibility within 6 Months is not OK and not really a customer Id want anyway. It would certainly not be a failure or transgression on the seller's part. That's why I expect a "Done Deal" point to exist....... that's what a sale IS. A sale. Naturally, if we're talking high dollar transactions of raw books, terms really should be more flexible.... and more thoroughly discussed prior to the sale. To assume a book is automatically unrestored begs the question "why submit at all ?"........ it is because that(unrestored) is NOT the true assumption. That's why I don't list books "as is". It wouldn't be fair to the customers I've come to like and respect...... but I expect the like and respect to be a two way street, and at some point the agreement(and sale) is made and final. Metro offers a refund for the first 30 days and full credit for undisclosed resto after 30 days..... I always thought that was cool. Bob Storms, Richard Evans, Ted, and many others have fantastic long term guarantees that they have the means to honor, as professional dealers. They're the best bet for those unsure of their own discernment skills and who still insist on rolling the dice with raw books..... and rolling the dice with raw books, as Spock would say, is most stimulating. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Edited June 21, 2015 by jimjum12

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

Will sellers return policy trump restoration detected after the return period has expired? Is this in the best interest of the community?

 

Seller offers a VG bats #123 with an unconditional 30 day guarantee, no mention of restoration. Day 31 CGC finds restoration. Buyer wants to return book. Seller refuses. Buyer files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

 

..... the buyer, after accepting the book and paying for it has agreed to the terms. The time to negotiate the contract is before you sign it, not after. I think most of us would still honor the return after only one day's difference..... I know I would...... but if the return policy is not acceptable, don't buy. It's really not that complicated. As for nominating the buyer to PL....... ? After breaking the terms of the agreement by forcing a "return" after the expiration ?.....I'd vote for inclusion. I'd like to be warned about a buyer like that. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we see an influx of sellers of $200 restored $1000 raw 30 day guarantee books from ebay where a buyer would have additional protection?

 

[jimjum12]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you clarify ? I don't use eBay much.... usually for slabs only..... or the occasional cheap raw where resto is unimportant. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[EC ed]

So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we see an influx of sellers of $200 restored $1000 raw 30 day guarantee books from ebay where a buyer would have additional protection?

 

I'm confused.

 

Here, on the boards, if you purchase a book from a seller...here, on the boards...and you pay them via regular PayPal, you are fully covered by PayPal's buyer protection program for 180 days for an "item not as described." The PayPal buyer protection doesn't suddenly vanish if someone posts some different return policy in their sales thread rules. All it means is that buyer wouldn't have an enforcement mechanism through the boards, per se.

[Dr Chaos]

In the absence of restoration I would think that we could use the same limit as Paypal unless the majority has other ideas.

 

 

Why would someone want to return a book for a reason "other than restoration" 6 months later.?

 

Please remember that most of us are not Macy's, Bloomingdale's or professional dealers;)

 

Nor should they. Paypal (60 days?) should be plenty of time for the sale of an unrestored book).

 

Edit - I forgot Paypal extended it, I meant the old time frame.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Dr Chaos

[InvstmntComcSuply]

ebay accepts other payment methods, although I concede that they don't make much difference considering the behemoth that is paypal. I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

 

It has been my contention that the industry has always considered the delivery of a restored book to not meet the standard of fulfilling the original contract, when no restoration was mentioned in the original offer. I don't have a problem with a seller;s return policy trumping this consideration. However, I think there will be confusion with short return times that do not state any policy regarding undisclosed restoration. But, caveat emptor.

 

[EC ed]

I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

 

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit?

 

So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

 

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit?

 

So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern?

 

Tweaking my earlier example:

Seller offers a VF/NM bats #123 with "no returns" on ebay, no mention of restoration. Buyer finds restoration, files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

[EC ed]

I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

 

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit?

 

So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern?

 

Tweaking my earlier example:

Seller offers a VF/NM bats #123 with "no returns" on ebay, no mention of restoration. Buyer finds restoration, files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

 

Got it.

 

[rodan57]

I'd have no difficulty with coming to an agreement if a book I sold turned out to be restored. I probably wouldn't have a personal time limit on it. If I sold someone something that wasn't what it was supposed to be -- I'll fix it.

 

However I wouldn't be too comfortable with a Board return policy predicated upon the possibility that the buyer plans to submit a book to the CGC.

 

If plans to submit are important to a purchase, and there needs to be an extended period wherein the sale is not truly finalized, this should be a matter of pre-purchase negotiations.

[crassus]

I guess it is just a perception thing to me, in that we would be instituting a policy that would allow unscrupulous sellers of restored books a stick (PL) against buyers, where none exists in ebay or elsewhere.

 

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit?

 

So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern?

 

Tweaking my earlier example:

Seller offers a VF/NM bats #123 with "no returns" on ebay, no mention of restoration. Buyer finds restoration, files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL....

 

Got it.

 

 

I think this brings us back to the question whether a blanket "no returns" policy here or anywhere is a blanket pardon for a seller. I do not believe it is. If you do not deliver the product advertised you are not protected by a "no returns" policy, if that were otherwise, any kind of fraud would be immediately permitted, encouraged and pardoned by a seller's own clever wording of their "return" policy.

 

They might as well write, more clearly:

 

"Please note: Once I have your money, I am not responsible for anything else".

 

I am not sure that is what most people understand by "no returns".