Somebody smack me up-side the head, please!

[yertle]

Thanks for giving some clarification on that issue Kev. It was very much appreciated and I will think twice before running any auctions in the near future with an "as is/no return policy".

 

I'm not suggesting that you are unethical, but saying "no returns/as is" in the auction contract, but then being willing to take returns is somewhat contradictory isn't it? You've already played "your get out of jail free card" before the buyer gets their product from you.

 

Yes it is contradictory but I felt it was needed at the time when I ran those auctions. MOS's point about bait and switch might very well be the reason behind the way I ran those auctions a few years ago. I honestly can't recall but as stated above I will think twice in all future auctions.

 

Thanks again for the clarification.

 

-sam

 

[maven_johnson-migration]

Add me to the list of those who feel like the transaction that was performed by the seller was completed as promised.

 

You did receive the comic that was pictured. The Terms of Sale were not changed by the seller after the auction item was listed. I assume it was shipped timely.

 

Since you are experienced eBayer, these things should have flagged this auction as a potential lottery to bidders:

 

1) no grade given

2) relatively new seller

3) scan cropped at top and left edge

4) sold as is, no refunds

5) high ship cost

 

If those 5 items were not enough to scare you off, then you are playing the eBay lottery, my friend.

 

What would your feelings be if, say, the item was lost in the mail, yet you did not pay for nor request insurance. The auction clearly states that the seller isn't responsible for lost uninsured packages. Yes, that would suck, but would it warrant a negative on the seller?

 

I think you should chalk this one up as the "one that almost was", and either give the seller positive or no feedback. I think at this point even if the seller offered you a full refund, you would most likely never buy from him again. You have already slapped his name up on this board for all to know that at worst, he overcharges for shipping and maybe can't (or won't) grade comics. What would it benefit him to even try to satisfy you now?

 

If I were the seller and if you did give me negative feedback, then I would probably give it right back, and be 100 percent justified in that YOU were attempting to change the Terms of Sale after the sale was completed.

 

On a side note, and not that I have used it, but Paypal offers a buyer's assurance program, which for a transaction like this would be perfect. I don't know the details but it offers protection for the buyer. I think the seller must have a certain stature for this, so I would guess a seller of this caliber would not be eligible for this program.

 

This seller's listing reeks of "not buyer friendly" and if I were bidding I would either realize it beforehand, or simply stay away.

 

Steve

[Kevin Boyd]

I recall some awful examples where a buyer purchased a Hulk 181 from a seller only to receive a copy with the coupon clipped. The buyer then approached the seller about it only to be accused of the bait and switch method.

 

I still think it's an awful risk to sell high grade books unslabbed as it can attract that kind of mischief.

 

Kev

 

 

[supapimp]

that was our good forum member scottish, poor sap is now out of the hobby.

[JLA_ALL_THE_WAY]

Just woke up. Time to comment & make a decision:

 

Kev-

He promised you a nice book... that's it. And it's a completely meaningless statement.

You wouldn't make a very good lawyer. That statement is the crux of my complaint; The issue is who's definition of NICE to go by? Mine or the seller's? That's why I used the "VF+" example. I say the grade/description -given by the seller- must be agreed upon by the buyer or else he is dissatisfied.

However, my definition of "nice" as a condition is that the term is vague enough that all he had to deliver to you was a book that was somewhere between a VG- and a VF+,

See, right there! You equate his NICE to your own personal grade range. Which I do. Which everyone does. Don't say that statement is meaningless.

 

Gene-

Well, actually it DOES equal mine. I think it's a lovely book. Not what I collect, but lovely nonetheless.

There we go, using a 'positive' but vague term...lovely. The point is, I thought it was 'lovely' too...until I got it. You're just confirming my statement that NICE can mean anything: fair, ok, acceptable, good, great, lovely...But it wasn't NICE to me.

"was being deliberately vague about condition" As is his right to do so

Well if he has the right to be deliberately vague, then don't I have the right to let others know- via feedback- of his deceptiveness? Disagree? Should those not as sharp as you be taken and learn the hard way that NICE can mean KRAP?

Yes, but a $5 refund

NO, a $5 CREDIT! That means I have to buy from him again to get it. What do you think that "empty gesture" comment was referring to? And you do realize the only reason it was offered was because he got caught and doesn't want it mentioned in the FB? By the way, did you notice he has since lowered his s/h on subsequent listings?

His intentions are irrelevant and not necessarily deceptive.

Whaaa...??!! OK, Gene. I am finished with you. If everyone here thought the way you do, I'd have CI & Dungeon eating my dust. Fortunately some here think that ethics DO mean something when it comes to business. Yes, I messed up when deciding to "roll the dice" with this character. But that does not excuse his way of selling. Period.

 

Hammer-

Nice way of saying I fooked up by not thoroughly checking his restrictions. Thanx

 

cd4ever-

NICE could easily be a synonym for GOOD.

Or it could not. It's my decision since I'm the one dealing with him and I'm the one who is leaving him feedback.

I do not believe he did anything wrong

According to his wording, no he didn't. NICE is my main problem; otherwise, I agree. Let me say this again, My feedback will warn others what to look for..and what to watch out for. I'm an experienced ebayer who got taken, and I want it to be as difficult as possible for it to happen to the next buyer.

 

maven johnson-

you did not pay for nor request insurance.

I'm not going to blame the seller for not buying insurance; but I always request delivery confirmation or some other form of tracking.

 

 

OK, All that being said, I have decided to...

 

At the very least leave a neutral. I respect the forum members here. You are all articulate, intelligent funny-book collectors. That's why I exposed myself here (shut up greggy) with this embarrassing situation. And your comments have swayed me.

But while the common "just avoid" tag line is being adopted here, I prefer to let those "less in the know" what to expect with this seller.

 

Rick

[OldGuy]

"at worst, he overcharges for shipping"

 

That's all I need to know to add him to my sh*t list. People that overcharge on shipping (more then $1) are just as pathetic as people that post pics of books they don't own and try to get some sucker to bite.

 

If every seller I bought from over charged on shipping by $4.00 like this scumbag then I would have been overcharged over $800 in my time on E-bay. If this peckerwood has been overcharging $4.00 on all his sales then he's made a small fortune by doing it.

[scottish]

Yep, that would have been me. From the seller's point of view they had no way of knowing *I* didn't switch the book upon receipt. They pointed the blame more toward CGC (that it's something they would do) and wanted me to take it out of the slabbed and send it back to them so they could look at it.

 

Too much hassle to me and not worth the effort.

[delekkerste]

Rick,

 

Just because the seller is not trying to win any J.D. Power Customer Service awards does NOT make him an unethical seller. Many of us feel the seller has done nothing wrong. He laid out his terms of sale in advance and complied with them to the letter. It is wrong for you to be criticizing his marketing tactics, etc. ex post facto. You knew full well in advance what you were getting into. Sometimes you just have to stop feeling/acting like a victim and take responsibility for the consequences of your actions (or inaction, in this case).

 

An efficient capitalist system relies on buyers and sellers following through on agreed-upon contracts and terms of sale. Frankly, as someone who has actually taken a semester-long class in business ethics, I think the only person acting unethically here is you for not honoring your end of the bargain and for failing in your duty to do adequate due diligence in advance of the sale.

 

Again, sorry if this seems harsh, but it needs to be said.

 

Gene

[FlyingDonut]

damned double post! see below

[scottish]

Sap eh supa? I'd say that title fits as I was silly enough to not check for the frickin' MVS before sending the book off to CGC.

 

Not out of the hobby totally. Still have a sizeable collection...just not very active buying (and probably never will be again) though that isn't soley due to bad ebay decisions.

[FlyingDonut]

According to his wording, no he didn't. NICE is my main problem; otherwise, I agree. Let me say this again, My feedback will warn others what to look for..and what to watch out for. I'm an experienced ebayer who got taken, and I want it to be as difficult as possible for it to happen to the next buyer.

 

Again, I don't see how you can possibly say you got taken. Everything you're complaining about was clearly spelled out in his listing. What can you possibly be negging him for? Not selling you the book he promised? His definition of "NICE" is so vague as to be meaningless. Overcharging you for shipping? He made a $4 profit on the shipping, yes, and that's a thing to do, but he listed the $6 fee in the listing. Not offering you a refund? Again, he clearly stated up front that all sales were final and you were getting the book in "as-is" condition.

 

Lets reverse it. Say he just put the book up there in NM/M, you bought it, and he came back and said "hey, wait a minute, I just found out the book is worth $100 more than I sold it to you for, and I want it back. I'll send you your money." Would you, for even a second, consider it? Its the exact same thing.

 

If your statement the issue is who's definition of NICE to go by? Mine or the seller's? That's why I used the "VF+" example. I say the grade/description -given by the seller- must be agreed upon by the buyer or else he is dissatisfied is in fact the crux of the matter, you can't possibly neg him. By buying the book, and, therefore, implicitly agreeing to his terms (as-is condition, no returns), you did agree on the grade and condition of the book.

 

Hammer is right. The error here was with you, in that you spun the eBay wheel and it came up Black Zero for you. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Clearly, we all now have somebody to avoid, but by negging him you open up a serious can of worms. You will be negging him for your perceptions of the deal, not for the actual deal itself - where the seller followed everything he said he would do to the exact letter of his listing.

[14 of spades]

hey delek

 

i thought your posts here were excellent. reflected my opinions exactly. 5 stars.

[Kevin Boyd]

You wouldn't make a very good lawyer. That statement is the crux of my complaint; The issue is who's definition of NICE to go by? Mine or the seller's? That's why I used the "VF+" example. I say the grade/description -given by the seller- must be agreed upon by the buyer or else he is dissatisfied.

 

Not that I would want to be a lawyer. But you removed the other part of my statement about what I felt were the key descriptors.

 

In the case of this auction the key statement regarding condition was not "NICE" (which was only mentioned in the title of the auction - NOT in the text describing the item and defining his terms of sale). No, the key statement regarding condition was:

 

"CAREFULLY LOOK AT SCAN FOR DETAILS".

 

Meaning he doesn't want to take any responsibility for describing the condition of the book. He left it entirely up to potential buyers.

 

The other key statement was:

 

"PRODUCTS ARE "AS IS" IF HAVE QUESTIONS EMAIL BEFORE BIDDING"

 

Kev

 

 

[scottish]

This is a tough one. As a seller who offers a 'No questions asked refund for 7 days,' I almost always stay away from other sellers that don't offer one at all (including CGC books).

 

If I happened to be the seller in this instance I would have refunded Rick's money ASAP, but then that's me. I provide 110% satisfaction to whoever buys from me from the perfect buyer to Mr. Jerk. I don't do it to get repeat customers (though that does happen), but more so to feel good about myself. I always put myself in the buyer's position and ask, "Would I want to be treated this way?" This is all moot since I wouldn't have graded the book as 'nice' to begin with, overcharged for shipping OR indicate no refunds.

 

If I was in Rick's shoes? I'd be more disappointed than pissed and probably not leave any feedback at all or maybe a neutral. I tend to side with the other members that are saying the seller spelled out his terms in the auction description. In addition the amount is relatively small and not worth my time. I realize that certainly doesn't apply to everyone. I hate contentiousness. I just like everyone to be happy.

 

Bottom line: Ebay is a frickin' crapshoot. On rare occasion you come out ahead, most of the time you are satisfied, and then you get taken.

 

Rick you're a stand-up guy and it's a shame this happened to you. I hope it turns out to your satisfaction.

[JLA_ALL_THE_WAY]

He laid out his terms of sale in advance and complied with them to the letter

Show me again where he stated "I'm charging you $6 but will only use $1.75"?

 

only person acting unethically here is you for not honoring your end of the bargain

I paid the correct amount in a timely manner. THAT is my end of the contract.

 

sorry if this seems harsh, but it needs to be said

What are you apologizing for, Gene? You've said nothing even close to offensive; except maybe this comment. You obviously see yourself as "giving me a well-deserved verbal thrashing." I see it as you giving your opinion which I obviously disagree with. Don't try to add emotion to this. You just cheapen your image as an otherwise decent debater.

 

He made a $4 profit on the shipping, yes, and that's a thing to do

In your book, FD; in my book I call it outright stealing.

 

And Donut, really, trying to reverse the situation and call it the same thing? Give me a break; my issue has nothing to do with the dollar amount involved. It's condition, and it's up to him to set what he wants for it initially. The same thing? Uh, no...

 

 

You guys really want to see this guy get off scott-free.

 

Ain't gonna happen.

 

You sit on your hands while I play Big Brother.

 

As a matter of fact, I'm starting to lean towards negging again.

Thanx guys for bringing up the s/h rip-off (yet again) and saying he did nothing wrong.

 

Rick

[supapimp]

rick,

 

just neg the fooker and move on, forum members only gave you their opinion(s) on your post. now the seller charging $6 for S&H and only used $1.75 for it is a BIG pet peeve of mine, almost as bad as pro war mongering . not to mention the fact he could not scrounge up $18 to refund you, he knew what he was doing the whole time. just reread his item description, no refunds, all sales final, the book is in NICE condition, please view scan, etc. the trash needed cash, and it was obvious, neg the fooker!

 

i rest my case,

 

pimpy

[JLA_ALL_THE_WAY]

Kev,

 

First of all, I apologize for the lawyer crack. A cheap shot that I am ashamed of. You're a formidable debater (as is Donut and Gene, among others). I guess it was just disregarding NICE that got to me. But that's no excuse.

 

That being said, you can not disregard NICE. Yes, it was in the header. So? It's a descriptive term no matter where it's found. So it does apply. Info in the headline is just as significant as in the body of the description.

 

As for removing the other part, i don't believe I was taking you out of context...? But hey, I wouldn't make a very good lawyer!

 

To Kev and the others, I hope no one takes anything I say as personal. There has not been any flaming (hi greggy), nor should there be. This may become a heated discussion, but I'm glad everyone's sticking to the topic (hi Darth). Everyone could be against me and that's all right; I've been in the minority before- odd since I'm a typical not-quite- middle-aged white man.

 

Rick

[FlyingDonut]

How can you say its stealing when he listed the $6 fee upfront? I hate to keep coming back to this, but, by agreeing to his auction terms, you agreed to everything in them.

[yertle]

How can you say its stealing when he listed the $6 fee upfront?

 

He only paid $1.75 on s/h not the $6 stated. The sellers response to charging $6 was for packaging supplies and gas to drive to and from the Post Office. I think that's a bunch of crock if you ask me.

 

-sam

 

[supapimp]

How can you say its stealing when he listed the $6 fee upfront? I hate to keep coming back to this, but, by agreeing to his auction terms, you agreed to everything in them.

 

didn't you just recently charge a buyer $40 for S&H per your item description as a joke and the buyer paid it? and didn't you contact the buyer stating that you'll refund her the majority of the S&H? why didn't you just keep it then if it was in your auction terms?