| Author |
 Replies: 34 / Views: 4,641 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
In general, I agree with what you stated basebal21. If the seller takes accurate pics and gets the coin to the buyer in the same shape then it isn't right for a buyer to return the item "due to buyer's remorse" and they should pay for the shipping, both ways, if they do return it under those pretexts.
But that isn't what we are talking about here and I've NEVER done that nor do I think it okay/kosher to do. I am talking about "no rev pic" or questionable/intentionally-deceptive ones and deceptive wording and/or outright lies in the descriptions.
Buyer's protection states that it covers "not as described", as well as being sent the wrong item or a broken/defective one. That is what I am saying OVERRIDES the "minus s&h and 10%" policy stated by some sellers. They are trying to trick buyers into letting them make a profit on transactions they know are sleazy.
IMO, it is an attempt to circumvent buyer's protection and make money off of a return because - THEY KNOW THEY ARE BEING DECEPTIVE - in their ads and business practices and are likely to have a lot of returns because of it! That aboncom seller states that policy and they advertise using all stock pics and scrub every coin. This seller won't provide a rev pic and yet wants to keep a 10% fee. Honest and forthright sellers don't resort to such garbage, and if they do then they are no better - is my point. Dont get me wrong I hate deceptive listings myself. And for high value coins definitely think that pictures of both sides should be there, really for all coins now since ebay gives you more than 1 image free now. But at the same time I still think its an instance where the buyer should know better. If you can only see one side I always assume the other side isn't being shown for a reason. You can only protect people so much and at some point the fault does have to start being put on the buyer for deciding to make the purchase. But personally I think the biggest issue with ebay is the doctored up photos which make things looks MUCH better than they really are. Its also one of the reasons I only buy slabbed on there and when I sell I just use my cell phone camera which makes the coins look worse then they look in hand, but no one could ever accuse me of posting a better image than it looks like. I appreciate good images, but there comes a point where you know theyve put so much effort into the image the coin probably doesn't look that good. Good quality coins will sell themselves and shouldnt need professional quality photographs to look good |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1840 Posts |
Auctions like this appeal to me. Only one side of the coin pictured means that buyers are driven away and the price drops significantly. A 10% restocking fee means another price drop as more buyers write this auction off. If it was a coin that I was interested in, I might be tempted to take a calculated risk if the price was right. It seems to me that you are getting hung up on people not selling their coins in a way you think is appropriate. The trick to ebay is learning which auctions are worth bidding on and which ones are not. Professional sellers with great pictures, free shipping and high ratings typically sell their coins for the highest prices. In some instances that is exactly what I am looking for. However, my best deals have come from the auctions that most other people would avoid. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
Well said, snowman! Sometimes I refuse to even bid if a sellers terms are not to my liking, but sometimes I might take a chance and I understand the risk I'm taking. Caveat Emptor!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2335 Posts |
Quote:It seems to me that you are getting hung up on people not selling their coins in a way you think is appropriate. The trick to ebay is learning which auctions are worth bidding on and which ones are not. Professional sellers with great pictures, free shipping and high ratings typically sell their coins for the highest prices. In some instances that is exactly what I am looking for. However, my best deals have come from the auctions that most other people would avoid.  If you are buying coins from auctions that have questionable and/or insufficient pics in the hopes of getting a great deal you are gambling. If the coin turned out to be a gem there wouldn't be a problem. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
500 Posts |
The germane question is do you think buyer's protection covers things like "no rev pic" as being "not as described"? If so, and I and several others who posted in this thread do, then their stated return policy is not consistent with buyer's protection and they should not be allowed to state they don't do returns or will keep certain fees when that isn't their RIGHT by ebay rules. If not, and anyone buying "blindly" from no pics ( or extrapolating that to BAD PICS ) must buy in to those stated policies and are not covered by buyer's protection when they do so, then ebay should state that "exception" to their buyer's protection! I understand that some of you claim to get bargains by bad pics and bad policy that scares away other bidders. I personally am not willing to take that risk UNLESS I have the option of returning for full refund if the bad pics etc. were indeed hiding major flaws ( which IMO is more than a rare occurance ). Sometimes it is just an inexperienced or "amateur" seller who doesn't have the skills or equipment to make good pics, and in those cases I'd agree with you that the risk can be worth the hassle of returning some of them. But I still don't think it justifies any sellers keeping part of the sale price in that case. The seller risks being out s&h when they don't post clear and complete pics and descriptions. Just as the buyer risks "return shipping" when they buy from less-than-perfect ads. That is the agreed-to and acceptable risks both take. But adding the seller's s&h ( plus a re-stock fee ) is not part of that "deal". Some think it should be or IS, but that is what I completely disagree with! Many times the bad/no pics are intentional and aimed to "trick" and cheat buyers. It is those cases where I most object to having the seller allowed to keep ANYTHING or try to cheat 10% out of "suckers" who take their bait. And just because I may not "fall for it", that doesn't mean I don't object to it in principle. IMO, that is what aboncom and this seller and many others are attempting. IMO, it is no coincidence that the same ones that scrub and use stock pics or won't show both sides are the ones trying a "10% re-stocking" scam. That is what it is! Sellers who don't rip off others don't, and shouldn't, resort to such tactics and tricks. If the seller had responded by both posting a rev pic AND removing their policy from the ad then I would have considered that coin. Instead, they futher revealed themselves as the "expletive deleted" awful seller they are by their reply and not amending the ad. They, and others, are very obviously trolling for marks and suckers. IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:The germane question is do you think buyer's protection covers things like "no rev pic" as being "not as described"? If so, and I and several others who posted in this thread do, then their stated return policy is not consistent with buyer's protection and they should not be allowed to state they don't do returns or will keep certain fees when that isn't their RIGHT by ebay rules. I just dont see how that can be considered that. If it has an ugly tone and they say it looks great toned its all subjective. Some people like toned, some only like some tones, some dont at all. Using doctored or fake pics is one thing, but not having a pic everything is subjective really. If they just have a front pic and dont describe the back at all I also dont see how that would fit not as described since it wasnt described at all |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1840 Posts |
Quote:
The germane question is do you think buyer's protection covers things like "no rev pic" as being "not as described"? No. The buyer needs to have some common sense. If a seller does not show a picture of the reverse then they are either lazy, deceptive or inexperienced. That much should be clear to any collector. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
500 Posts |
bb, I consider the picture(s) and every single word in the ad to be "part of" the description. Not just the title and description alone. Thus any of it that doesn't "match", or isn't consistant, with the coin that I get is a nad. As someone mentioned, it is reasonable to expect that the rev will be consistent with the obv when no pic is provided. I personally NEVER BUY without both sides pictured. But I don't think that those that do are forfeiting their right to return for nad. Quote:
No. The buyer needs to have some common sense. If a seller does not show a picture of the reverse then they are either lazy, deceptive or inexperienced. That much should be clear to any collector. snowman, that is a given. But that also is counter to what you posted about liking ads that "turn-off" others as they produce bargains for you. Do you then feel you have to EAT IT if sent a clunker by one of those sellers? Or just that you agreed to let them keep 10% and thus are willing to "pay for your gambles"? And while you may be willing to agree to that exposure, should EVERYONE? I say NO! But the question at hand is what/which of ebay's policies and rules apply in that case. They do not require both sides to be pictured, unless it is a certified coin. So if a collector buys a raw coin w/o both sides pictured, do they forfeit their right to return it as "not as described" if the coin's 2nd side isn't consistent with the one pictured? I say NO. Some seem to think they do. I think part of it comes down to interpreting NAD. Some sellers INTENTIONALLY don't state a grade and tapdance around anything other than the date and mintmark and type in their verbiage. Are they "successfully" covered if their pics are deceptive or even of a different coin than they send? I say NO WAY. The pics are PART of the description and if they are not accurate then that qualifies as NAD. And that applies to all ads - not just coins BTW. ebay probably should clarify that "question" but they also are more about turnover/fees, first and foremost. Otherwise they'd boot all the unscrupulous sellers AND buyers more effectively. Edited by BuffalosRock
07/11/2012 11:12 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2254 Posts |
Quote:But the question at hand is what/which of ebay's policies and rules apply in that case. They do not require both sides to be pictured, unless it is a certified coin. So if a collector buys a raw coin w/o both sides pictured, do they forfeit their right to return it as "not as described" if the coin's 2nd side isn't consistent with the one pictured? I say NO. Some seem to think they do. You don't forfeit your right to return it NAD unless you don't like something that wasn't described. I'm failing to see why it is so hard to grasp this concept. Here are my thoughts: 1. There are unscrupulous sellers all over ebay. Unless you know what you are doing, be prepared to learn lessons the hard way. it is what it is, sorry. We can report the obvious scumbags as someone like Scubu does when they are breaking rules, but others just have no morals but do nothing wrong as far as the rules. 2. If I am buying a car on ebay and the only pictures are on one side of the car, with absolutely no description except that it runs and drives great, what should I do? Buy it and expect that both sides look the same? What happens if the other side is dented and damaged once I receive it? Your position is that I should be able to return it? IMO, absolutely not. I don't care if it was my dream car and I just got screwed over, if I didn't ask for pictures of everything I was buying, it's my fault, period. To me, this is a "no if's, and's, or but's" type scenario. Don't like it or think it's wrong, don't bid on it. Please don't take my post as harsh or coming across the wrong way, but it is YOUR responsibility for protecting yourself. Relying on ebay to do it with any of their rules/policies is just naive, sorry. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2335 Posts |
Quote:
snowman, that is a given. But that also is counter to what you posted about liking ads that "turn-off" others as they produce bargains for you. Do you then feel you have to EAT IT if sent a clunker by one of those sellers? Or just that you agreed to let them keep 10% and thus are willing to "pay for your gambles"? And while you may be willing to agree to that exposure, should EVERYONE? I say NO! This quote says it all. There are a bunch of auction items that are not presented well enough to make an informed buying decision. A prudent buyer passes. A gambler might take a shot & risk a loss. Someone with no sense of responsibility for their purchasing decisions buys it & expects a full refund when the item is junk, but expects to keep it if it's a gem. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
bb, I consider the picture(s) and every single word in the ad to be "part of" the description. Not just the title and description alone. Thus any of it that doesn't "match", or isn't consistant, with the coin that I get is a nad. As someone mentioned, it is reasonable to expect that the rev will be consistent with the obv when no pic is provided. I personally NEVER BUY without both sides pictured. But I don't think that those that do are forfeiting their right to return for nad. No offense but I actually dont find it reasonable to assume both sides will match. A large amount of coins have very different looking sides. Furthermore NAD doesn't cover youre assumptions which is what you are basically asking it to do by saying well the one side looked good so I assumed the other did so the item isn't as I assumed it would have been described. People that buy with one 1 side pictured arent forfeiting their right to NAD protection, but they also arent gaining the right of having NAD applied to their assumptions or subjective descriptions. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1840 Posts |
Quote:
snowman, that is a given. But that also is counter to what you posted about liking ads that "turn-off" others as they produce bargains for you. Do you then feel you have to EAT IT if sent a clunker by one of those sellers? Or just that you agreed to let them keep 10% and thus are willing to "pay for your gambles"? And while you may be willing to agree to that exposure, should EVERYONE? I say NO! No contradiction here. The lazy or inexperienced sellers are the ones that I focus in on. Many times they are the ones that are looking to unload grandpa's collection for a quick buck and could care less about accurate descriptions or good photographs. I have actually offered advice to sellers twice in the past on how to better list their coins. In both instances they responded that it wasn't worth the effort to them. One seller all but gave away a substantial collection of higher grade coins from the German States. Do I always come out ahead? No. Have I had to "eat" some bad purchases? Yes. Was the cost worth the education? Absolutely! One thing that I have never dose, however, is try to manipulate ebay policy to negate the clearly stated terms of sale that I knew was risky. |
|
Valued Member
United States
240 Posts |
I have blocked bidders that disputed terms or made any negative comment whatsoever. The ebay DSR system is faulty and a 1 or 2 rating is worse than a negative feedback. If you do not like the terms or the pictures, do not bid. ebay makes it hard enough for sellers with out buyers making it worse. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
500 Posts |
Again, if the terms are not allowed, or are counter to their stated rules - then they cannot be "enforced" and shouldn't be stated or allowed.
It is like those businesses that post "Not responsible for ..." signs that are totally BS and not in compliance with laws. The law overrides whatever some guy puts up on a sign. They do it to "trick" customers into THINKING THE SIGN IS BINDING so they can avoid some disputes. But they are just completely bogus as far as enforcement.
You can say anything you want in the ad, but it shouldn't contradict the rules - nor violate them!
If you state "no returns" and then send out a broken item or the wrong item does having stated "no returns" then cover you? OF COURSE NOT!
I think too many of you are assuming the buyer is at fault and the seller is getting treated badly by lots of bogus "buyer's remorse" returns. IMO, that happens A LOT LESS than seller's scamming buyers with deceptive tactics and tricks like intentionally deceptive pics and descriptions. How many returns are really made? And how many thousands of coins are sold as genuine by scrubbers or pictured to hide major flaws?
This idiot refused to post a rev pic. Most legit sellers will add a pic - or better pics - if requested, in my experiences. Those trolling for suckers are the ones that object to such requests!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
It is like those businesses that post "Not responsible for ..." signs that are totally BS and not in compliance with laws. The law overrides whatever some guy puts up on a sign. They do it to "trick" customers into THINKING THE SIGN IS BINDING so they can avoid some disputes. But they are just completely bogus as far as enforcement. Thats not entirely true, you can waive your rights to whatever you want to if you sign contracts. You have the right to remain silent when arrested but dont have to remain silent or get a lawyer. Make sure you read what you sign Quote:
If you state "no returns" and then send out a broken item or the wrong item does having stated "no returns" then cover you? OF COURSE NOT! If its listed as broken then you got what you paid for. But no one is saying you arent covered for the wrong item being sent. Just that not posting a pic of the full item doesn't mean you got the wrong item because you assumed what it would look like or be like |
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 34 / Views: 4,641 |
Page 3 of 3
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 07/09/2012 7:54 pm
