Hi Folks,

I've been going through eBay for about 10 years now and for the most part, it's been pretty great. What I like about eBay is you can find pens you can't find here locally. How many retailers do you know still sell Dunhill-Namiki Maki'e fountain pens? You certainly can't find them at Wal Mart!

Before I got into buying fountain pens online, I bought them from my local shop, but it required burning gas, and sometimes inflated retail costs. You can find some great buys from eBay, but half of the fun is just looking for that special item.

There's been some bad experiences too, I am sure for many of you as well. I've only had three, which is a great for the number of transactions I've done over the years.

So what are your experiences with eBay? Have you been a buyer or seller or both? Did you have any problems with customers or merchants? Share it with us!

This seems to be a good topic all of us in one way or another know about. Being honest and helpful in the FPN could really help a lot of newbies and effectively promote the good and right with each other too.

Cheers,

John

I've given up buying on eBay for years now. It stopped being a pleasure when the raiders started slipping in last-minute bidding and won auctions away within the last 30 seconds. I gave up when I couldn't win anything. I'll use Buy It Now, or the marketplace at eBay that lets you buy something now. The auctions were too maddening. Garage sales are much better around here.

I permanently gave up after I lost $44 on two music CDs. The package came torn and empty since the seller had jammed the two in there so tightly. He insisted that as he had delivery confirmation his job was done. We went to eBay arbitration, they took my statement, and then... no response. I was out the money. I ended up downloading the music from iTunes.

I don't think I'd ever have a prayer of buying a fountain pen from eBay. Too stressful, too expensive, and... well, I like the marketplace here a lot better and a few online vendors I'm come to trust.

I've slowly discovered some wonderful sellers and acquired some wonderful pens from some wonderful people. I have to concur that the sniping took a lot of the fun out - bad tempered people more intent on "winning" than the process of getting there.

But I still get deals, especially on the "make an offer" items. Haggling when both parties know what something should go for is almost as much fun as the REAL auctions used to be.

Sniping is not bad or suspect behavior, it is simply using Fleabay's rules in one's own favor. Fleabay is not an on-line replica of the traditional auction. The traditional live auction is primarily bid limited, it continues on until no one ups the bid at the required increment. Fleabay is primarily time limited, any bid a fraction of a second after the set auction closing time is disregarded. In order to thwart sniping and replicate the traditional live auction, Fleabay could institute a new rule that any bid placed within the last, say, fifteen minutes of the auction will extend the auction closing time another fifteen minutes from the time of that bid. The the auction would primarily become bid limited, not time limited. Of course, the auction could go on for quite some time in near fifteen minute increments, and this would cost Fleabay some "time is money" (but perhaps more than made up for by the increase in the sale price). As it is now, only the final five seconds count, sniper quick draw, last man standing. But if you've ever experienced a "chisler" sawing away on your early bid in one dollar increments, then you become a born again sniper with no guilt. Well, JMO.

I've not had a bad experience on E-bay really. On one occasion I didn't get the item but Master Card took it off my bill. Twice something arrived broken but insurance took care of it. All the few hundred other times it's worked out just fine.
I tend to bid at the last minute but do it manually. I don't see anything unscrupulous about it. Of course I've been sniped on things that I really really wanted but then again I realize that the person who sniped, his bid could have been a hundred dollars over mine. If I'd wanted it as badly as he did I would have bid more.
All in all E-Bay had allowed me access to a lot of things I never wouldhave seen before.

cheers
skyp

Whilst i certainly am in favor of folks buying pens from good sellers here in FPN's marketplace, i am confused by what seems to be the pejorative notion of "raiders" in the context of the above quote. How else should one bid but in a way that maximizes opportunity to win item that interests him?

regards

david

While I of course defer to each individual his choice of how to pursue fun in most settings including that of the online auction, i do not understand the linkage above between "sniping" and " bad tempered people more intent on "winning" than the process of getting there".

I've know of no linkage between sniping and any particular temper.

I don't object to anyone having fun in the process of bidding however he sees fit, certainly when bidding as sanctioned by the auction house. If nibbling or sniping makes one happy, well he should just go for it.

I admit i generally bid in auctions with the goal of procuring an item of interest at an appealing price, vs bidding just for the process of bidding. But, when i do occasionally have fun bidding for its own sake without the goal of winning, i am not upset when... i don't win.

regards

david

I absolutely agree. I've lost more than I've won,and that's because I wasn't willing to pay the ethereal prices that some people are willing to pay. I did a review on ebay about fountain pen collecting,and one of my last points was that if one pays way too much for a certain pen,the chances are good,nay VERY good that they won't recoup all the money that they spent on that pen. That's why I always have a limit in mind on what I'm willing to spend. And if I lose,there will always be another pen auction that I will be interested in.

John

I guess people get into a bidding war over an item and if they believe they have been cheated out of a deal, it's easy to say they dragged their feet too long, sure, but it's better to think about the consequences too. If someone has the option for a "second chance" from the seller, they might want to go for that too. Still, it depends upon what you are looking for too.

As a seller, I always try as much as I descriptively can to make sure the details of the item is as possible for I think, if I was interested in purchasing an item, I want it to be exactly what I paid for and nothing more. You got to have a heart for the customer because not only are they helping to cover the costs of shipping, eBay fees, etc., but there's an opportunity they might want to bid again on one of your items for sale. What ticks me off is some sellers have a abhorrent lack of integrity that they either ignore questions prospective bidders might ask, or they sell an item and it turns out to be completely flawed, regardless of what the item is, or they refuse to refund your money in any case. This gives not only eBay a bad name, but it makes us look bad too. These guys think sometimes the site is a place to make a quick buck for junk and idiots out there are blind to their own desires. Gosh, it just makes me sick.

If I was bidding on an item and I wanted to know all about it, it's vital to ask detailed, informed questions on it. The seller has a perfect obligation to answer as best as he can not only so he can give a satisfied answer to the bidder, but it could potentially increase the value of the item too. But everyone's different, so sometimes people make mistakes when they bid on an item they didn't want. Because of this, you need to be patient if you are sure this is the item you want before you bid.

Buyers remorse is a common part of eBay. If you go to a store and purchase a pen and the only option is exchange, then the seller must make sure of course nothing is changed or damaged on the item. It's different for eBay. If a buyer wants to exchange an item or possibly ask for a refund, they have a certain amount of days to do so. Some sellers prefer one week or seven days, or even longer. It depends on the seller considering if you bought the item and don't like it, state a full reasonable case. But as I said, bidding on an item is a contractual agreement, and any agreement must be clearly noted in the item description.

The worse case I think is taking the agreement to court. Thankfully, with all the sellers I've conversed with, this has been a very rare case and usually are resolved before it gets to that level. We don't need more bad sellers and bidders, we need strong values and integrity from both parties.

That seems about right doesn't it?

The trick of it is to look at past auctions to get a sense of the "going rate" for a particular pen (if it is common enough, like a Parker 51). You also need to get a sense of what pens are sought after and have "trawlers" feeding after them--buyers who continually watch for "low end" closing auctions so they can pick them off. For popular pens, there are also people who buy them low, fix them up, then sell with high reserves.

If it's a rare pen, then you can bet there will be last minute sniping. Putting down your highest bid early is a bad idea... it "challenges" others to try outbidding you. That's why it is better to wait near the end.

I've had mostly good experiences, by avoiding people with low or poor feedback and getting a sense of them by communicating (asking questions, requesting additional photos, etc). If you bid on items sold by people well established with pen selling, you usually won't go wrong. There are telltale signs when people are "conditionally unethical", by having a number of negative and neutral feedback ratings from people who are articulate. I've had a few of these happen... the borderline cases where the seller plays up the pen more than it is, then feigns ignorance when there are subtle discrepancies (like a few more dents/scratches than seen in the photos, or a hairline crack not shown). I had that happen with an established seller from Thailand, who then told me I could get my vintage pen "fixed" by sending it into the manufacturer (he said they were reputed to send it back along with an apology for not being able to fix it and a modern day equivalent replacement for free). Boy was he wrong--the manufacturer held my pen hostage for return shipping, with no satisfaction! After a couple months of that, it was too late to get my money back AND I couldn't leave feedback.

So, definitely get to know your seller. On the other hand, you can sometimes get a pen bargain from someone who is clueless about pens but very amicable to deal with overall. Just ask the right questions,

I've got some of my best pens and some excellent bargains on ebay and very few duds at all.
Got an incredible bargain last week. Had a snipe in for almost 5 times the price - yes perhaps a touch over value - but I'm not sure if I was over because of the rarity if the item - but what a deal.
Got my most expensive pen from Al Mayman (RIP mote) over ebay when I fished out his reserve and my snipe didn't need to come into play.
Yes it is hard to gauge a price, but you need to know what you are prepared to pay and not snivel if you get beaten. You might lose by a few bucks but never really know how far the other guy would have gone........

Like so many things, my Ebay buying has been a case of some bad and and some good. The bad is very bad fakes of designer jewellery, items that have been described as new or perfect that plainly were not and retailers that send out goods that were not what you ordered.

Paypal again have been very mixed. and I notice that they are more difficult to deal with when you are a customer of a large volume seller. They repeatedly lose documentation that is sent to them, refuse to accept email attachments and want expert reports (who may be many miles away) of the alledged defect.

If I was to restrict my future buying it would be to the little old lady in Pasadena and Ebay shops in China, I have just bought 3 pens for $20 including shipping and, like Dickens, I have Great Expectations.

That's a fantastic idea. If i was in charge of ebay, that or something similar would be implemented. But alas, i suspect the 'time is money' would be a deterrent and make shareholders not too happy. probably why there is no such option now.

Ah, to you Arthur, I concur completely. People who have some knowledge of compliance with shipping and stipulation agreements must understand that once a contract is binding, regardless of the volume they sell, their obligation must be paramount. You know, if you are selling large equipment to a Chinese firm for example, you must have correct documentation for all cases. Of course, if the documentation is "missing" as said, this could lead to problems. One idea is that if in a case of missing funds from the buyer or seller, Paypal could become the payer for the lost funds. It's a standard for international business. Besides, any feckless reason for "losing" documentation can result in substantial revenue through the government they do business through their country of origin in the form of fines. I am constantly surprised sellers haven't thought through this, maybe they don't know, or they are irrevocably shameless to customers.

Some of these issues certainly need to be addressed to eBay to enhance the auction experience for us.

I've been on eBay for close to 10 years as well, both as a buyer and as a seller. I've had mostly positive experiences on both accounts, but have had my share of negatives with buying and selling. I no longer sell outside of CONUS due to three expensive sales that ended with a loss of each for me, even though the items were insured. For buys, I avoid those auctions that are not careful presentations of the item being sold or have bad ratings for the seller.

I've gotten some good pens on eBay, as well as sold some pens at pretty good prices on eBay. While I like selling on FPN because I know the pens are going to people who will use them (I sound like a parent I know), you reach a wider market on eBay.

I've really only had one bad experience on eBay and that was a selling experience. Over a 10 dollar Moleskine notebook mind you. Seller sent money, later requested all these extras in shipping but refused to pay for them, then proceeded to e-mail me every couple of hours essentially to make sure it shipped out that day. In the end of it, I just refunded the money back to him. He left horrible feedback for me, but I did as well.

I learned from that to stick to my guns when selling. I had a rash initially of people ordering me what I was going to do with their won items. I just learned to steer them back to the auction and remind them what they paid for, usually that works out fine. The biggie is I put that I have up to 5-6 days to ship out the item. I normally get them out the same day or next using first class mail, but it always helps to have that in there.

As for the sniping thing, heck yeah I use sniping. As long as I'm following the rules that eBay has set forth, why wouldn't I play to win. Sniping helps me too though because I set what i'm willing to pay for the pen and don't touch it again. It helped solve that last minute upping my bid higher than I wanted.

Most of my 250+ transactions have been fine, picked up some great pens, numerous CDs (and CDRs of more dubious lineage until they tightened up, but even most of those have been OK or sellers have resolved issues).

Only had a couple of ripoffs (CDs ordered and not delivered, but total loss is minimal so no real worries) and one set of fake Sonnets, but they were very cheap and actually write pretty well.

On the plus side I have picked up some great pens at greatly reduced prices and only had a handful of disappointments (not as described/worse condition than suggested), but that was mainly in the early days. I think Ebay is great if you take care, but true bargains are getting fewer and further between with pens sometimes fetching prices far in excess of true worth, but as I don't bid on those not a problem for me.

I would love to buy more from the US, but am put off by possibility of extra costs, VAT etc (also large variance in shipping costs, anything from $5 - £30 for the same item), so tend to bid no more than $40, but have still picked up some decent bargains including a couple of Vacs and Sheaffer Balances for rather less than UK prices.

Andy

I'm not trying to be provocative, but I think it's curious that those who defend sniping say "why shouldn't I do everything I can inside the rules" or "isn't the point to try to win?"

I suppose the nature of any competitive situation is that people will try to win, but the reason there are rules is because people will always tend to do things in their own interest against the common good.

To apply the same good/bad analysis to capitalism that others have to ebay (and I am no defender of communism, for those of you who will flame me for even daring to draw the parallel), the good of capitalism is that it frees the exchange of goods and services from all those annoying localized customs, practices, mores and relationships. Lots more good stuff flows from producers to suppliers; and suppliers get paid a lot more to provide things people want. But the bad of capitalism is...it frees the exchange of goods and services from all that annoying responsibility to local customs, practices, mores and relationships.

In case that seems a little vague and academic, a case in point: it does not appear that there were any SEC or banking rules against the creation or sale of the derivative securities that enabled investment banks to package up vast quantities of subprime mortgages, insure them and pass them off as triple A grade investments. So why shouldn't the investment banks do so? Isn't the point of being a businessman to make money, as long as you're not breaking the rules? And if any one of them declined to get involved in it, someone else would do it anyway, right?

I'm not saying sniping on ebay is the same as knowingly participating in a financial scam that will cost our country (i.e., us taxpayers and consumers) billions of dollars. I'm just saying I'm leery of people saying "hey, I didn't break any rules" and "of course I was trying to make money-that's my job."

Nobody likes to be sniped, all the comments about "toughing it out" show that it's annoying for everyone to lose by a small increment in the last seconds. Isn't there a better reason to do it than "of course I'm going to do everything within the rules to win?"

To turn it around, what's wrong if a seller writes a technically accurate but deceptive description, or alters or just edits his/her photographs to avoid showing a serious defect. Or neglects to mention a mismatch, replacement part or missing part in order to fool newbies or the careless. Hey, as long as the seller doesn't break the rules, right? Caveat emptor. Serves you right if you got taken...

but wait, isn't the whole point of ebay to make people accountable for their economic behaviour? Ebay only exists because the feedback function allows us all to see evidence of bad behavior. otherwise, it would just be craigslist. or sending money to a post office box listed in a newspaper classified.

And by the way, am I missing something here? The only reason to use sniping software is to try to gain a competitive advantage against people that don't, right? But once all the serious bidders are using sniping services, that advantage is lost. That's why you see the explosive bidding in the last seconds. All the rare pens that sit out there at opening bid or a few bucks more because the sellers have no idea how valuable they are, or how to list them. Right up until the last minute when all the sniping services kick in and the price jumps 1000% in a minute.

So who are we really beating out with the sniping, if all the other "real" bidders, the serious collectors who really know what something is worth, are sniping too? The nibblers? The way prices are going on ebay, I seriously doubt if those tentative, poorly informed collectors would really have nibbled their way to the mostly high (real) prices we're now seeing. Or that they were really interested at all in the the things sniped at low prices in the first place. It begs the question, is all we're really doing by sniping now just enriching the sniping services? Maybe it's just the classic arms race scenario--played out over some bits of gold and plastic and hard rubber...

Oh, and by the way, even if it is working in the short run, and prices for the rarest items are kept artificially low by sniping software, the market will eventually correct for this and fewer things--especially rare things--will come through ebay as sellers seek to sell their best things someplace else. As some dealers in my town have started to do. Or they'll just end their auctions early when they see the price remaining incredibly low, or when someone tries to do a end run around the auction by buying the item outside of ebay.

ebay has brought so many amazing things onto the market, and has given each of us so much more access to so many more pens than we have ever had in the past, it would be a shame if the quality and quantity of goods offered on it were reduced by the negative consequences of sniping.

I don't find this "provocative" (in the negative sense of that word), but I'm not sure i understand the very question.

Is not the point of entering an auction to win that which prompted one to enter?

To the degree that one then has entered an auction to win said item, what possible reason would one not try to win and... at the best price possible, if the rules allow him to tilt the final price in a favorable fashion?

Basically, i don't understand why you view anyone as "defending" sniping. What here needs "defending"?



I believe the very definition of a competitive situation requires an attempt to win.

I believe there is no common good in an auction in terms of actual bid. There is a goal for seller and goal for would-be buyer. That is all. The only "common good" is to prevent cheating (fraud, shill bidding, conspiracy to suppress bidding, etc).

To degree that one might imagine a common good in "outcome" (what, the village will share the auctioned item?), when i bid i darn well want to avoid any "common" good. Rather, i wish to take home the item of interest to me.




Not sure what that has to do with sniping.



This is backwards. One should not be leery of folks trying to get the best deal in an auction setting. One should recognize it rather as the very goal of playing. Indeed, one should simply not participate in an auction setting at all if the notion that bidders are out for themselves generates feelings of leeriness. Indeed, that person's psychology would appear ill suited to the auction milieu.



I don't like to pay $4 for gas. I don't like that some of my stocks lost value. I don't like that i didn't get a raise. I don't like that the sun rises so early in the day.

It is easy not to like things. It is easy to feel entitled. Our country has bit too much of that these days. It is tougher to have to master the rules of a game than to bemoan the reality that some folks have mastered the rules of the game.





To degree that the post i quote started out seemingly as an objection to sniping (not that there really is such a thing. There is rather just... smart bidding... which some choose to denigrate with the "snipe" descriptor), the quote just above does not "turn" anything "around". I do not understand how deception and fraud represent a seller's equivalent to simple smart bidding. The very example provided is misleading and deceptive. The seller equivalent of "sniping" simply is not "cheating and fraud, caveat emptor".



Whilst i am not privy to the ebay charter or high level managers' meetings, my understanding of ebay is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "making people accountable for their economic behavior". Rather, i believe ebay's whole point is to generate revenue for its stock holders with a business model that happens to involve on line bidding.



I believe so.



I believe you indirectly allude to penetrance of a business model, how easy and how well a given business model is (or can be) adopted by anyone. Historically, just because something can be done, does not mean that all do it. Indeed, having used sniperware at least 7 years, i find it still confers a marked advantage, so clearly its availability has not resulted in universal adoption.

And, your assertion as to lost advantage fails on a second count. If all snipe, the poorly educated bidder who embraces weak auction psychology (eg. his "maximum" bid would change if only he'd had time to respond to the presence of a new bid) will tend to still underbid via the snipe mechanism.



No, you see big bidding... in some cases... in the last seconds is that some bidders have greater knowledge than others. Even with the explosion- on some not all pens- weeding out the nibblers conveys some advantage.

In casinos, the house makes millions in blackjack, but only has a <1% advantage per hand over the educated player. Yet the house makes millions. Game theory does not require that any strategy work 100% of the time, in each individual interaction. Rather, a general advantage (whilst providing smaller disadvantage) is all that is needed to make a given strategy benefiial.

But, whether sniping works or not really was not the thrust of your post. You started out with what seems to be a morals argument. If we argue the ethics of "sniping" it should matter not whether sniping works or not, no?



Again, you seem to have retreated from the ethics of the approach into castigation of snipers implying their model does not even serve them. If i misread you, i apologize. Still, recognizing you have strayed from your core point, i answer your question anyway, pointing out that eliminating the nibblers is more than sufficient reason to snipe. And sniping also eliminates other snipers who sometimes wimp out and adopt nibblerhood given the chance. Beating the nibblers conveys well more advantage than the House has in Blackjack, and the Casinos do seem content to have their small advantage.




Recognizing that my experience having won 2000+ pens on ebay and having bid probably on 20,000 leaves me just a dabbler, i believe your serious dout is woefully wrong. Indeed, and as an aside, i do not see particularly higher prices today than 8 years ago, for many/most pens.




Sniping serves also to win, not necessarily at a "low" price, but rather at a "lower" price. A "lower" price still can be quite high.



i believe this raises or invites-- rather than begs-- the question. Barring a case controlled prospective trial, a proof will be difficult to provide. My wee experience- 2000+ pens won, 20,000+ pens bid upon, convinces me that sniping has saved me a fortune. Given that i pay the sniper company ONLY when i win, i am grateful if i am able to enrich them a tiny fraction of what they have given me. Capitalism at its best.



WHere to begin with all the errors and assumptions in that quote. Where is it shown that prices for any item is kept artificially low by sniperware, per se. Have you controlled for the market presence of ebay? Will an item withheld from ebay to be sold in a local Iowan auction in which 10 farmers attend, do better because it was not placed on ebay and placed in the path of sniperware?



No. Most who put things on ebay use reserves if they have sense of value of their item, and do not know enough to end auctions early when they don't have sense of value, which is why many sellers work with ebay instead of, say, Sotheby's.




Correlation, causation and assumption are such tricky things. Ebays quality and quantity of goods appears to have blossomed in parallel with sniperware.

regards

david

Excellent post, Stephenchin. An ultracompetitive specter has been haunting America over the past ten years or so, and in my opinion it is destroying many of the values that made this capitalist nation great. The eBay sniping case reminds me of a girl I went to highschool with (she's now a lawyer). We had a history class with a teacher who was not very bright. She figured out early in the year that if she asked him very detailed questions over and over again during a test, he would eventually (out of boredom or stupidity) just give her the correct answers. So she did this with every single test - she no longer had to study, and she got some of the best grades in the class. She didn't see anything wrong with what she did: in her understanding, the point of school was to get good grades and it really didn't matter what you did to get them as long as you didn't violate the rules in a way that would result in punishment. She minimized her effort and maximized her results (she also didn't learn anything about US history).

In a way, I think the sniping case is less egregious than this, but they partake of the same spirit. The "point" of eBay (if we can say that any of these things have a "point" that isn't contingent on the participants' understandings) is to purchase goods cheaply at auction. Sniping certainly helps with this, but as Stephenchin pointed out, there will eventually be a cost (in his example, sellers no longer posting rare and valuable items). It's an awkward situation, and one that's hard to resist in any meaningful way - using conventional bidding and losing to snipers is not a very effective or visible form of protest. If we start thinking about politics in these terms many of us will get very mad and depressed, so I'll leave that up to your imagination, readers. Anyway, I applaud Stephenchin's idealism (I use the word in a positive sense).

I've gotten some great items on ebay, but very few of them were pens. In fact the last two pens I won were from sellers who were highly recommended by several people here on FPN. Both pens were advertised as restored, although the sellers didn't indicate anything about their writing condition. True enough, one wouldn't write at all and the other was badly restored, if at all. I had to send both out for repair.

But, I've found pens I've bought on FPN's market place to be a mixed bag, too. I've gotten several gems, and I've gotten bad ones where the seller out and out lied about the condition.

Amen.



There are some inexperienced sellers who, seeing few or no bids near the auction end, close the auction just prior to the critical last ten seconds, for fear that they won't realize what they want for the item. Experienced sellers don't do this, they understand the Fleabay game. As far as really "rare and valuable" items, they generally won't show up on Fleabay if the owner has any notion of the true value, they'll go to Sotheby's, Christy's or Butterfield or the like. I think that the cut-off level is a few kilobucks. Inexperienced Fleabay sellers are there because it's easy, experienced sellers because it's quick, knowing full well that the likely Fleabay sales price will be significantly less than could be gotten off-line, given the necessary extra time needed to get exposure to a like number of potential buyers.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sniping is not in the least unethical behavior. Ebay (time limited) is not the equivalent of a traditional live auction (bid limited). Fleabay is its own unique auction model. If it wanted to replicate the traditional live auction, then it would institute a rule that a bid in the last X minutes of the original auction end would extend the auction close by X minutes from the time of that bid. But that isn't what it is now. Taking your live auction experience and applying that understanding to Ebay to determine that sniping is suspect behavior is just a misapplication of a certain mindset, IMO, maybe like trying to ride a camel utilizing your horse riding expertise with no modification.

Wow. The intense (and articulate) defense of sniping by Dr. Isaacson I think crystallizes what concerns me. As he mentions game theory in defense of his strategy to beat out weak bidders by sniping, I think two aspects of that have become part of the academic discourse on game theory in the past few years bear mentioning: the Prisoners Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons. And just for the record, this thread is motivated by my concern about how we behave toward each other in this country--way beyond simply who gets the most pens.

The Tragedy of the Commons is when it is in everybody's interest (and not against any rules) to overgraze the common pasture, making sure your sheep eat as much of it as possible before your competitors do. Right up until the ecosystem collapses and no one has any grass.

Any blind faith in capitalism's unchecked ability to obtain the greatest good for all has to look at the collapse of the Atlantic cod and lobster fisheries, or the many other examples of the tragedy of the commons. Yes, including the subprime mortgage crisis. Or the willingness of American contractors to rip off taxpayes to the tune of billions of dollars for reconstruction in Iraq. Rules? What rules? I didn't break any rules. And everybody's doing it, right? So what's the problem? I'm making millions. I'm the winner and all you dopes back in the US who are footing the bill, hey, you could come over here and do the same as me, right? This is the winner take all/winner's always right culture that Asamsky has concerns about, and that troubles me as well. How successful you are (whether it's 2000 pens or 2 million dollars for a months work) is hardly a defense of your actions.

Game theory's work with the Prisoners Dilemma also demonstrates why destructive behavior can be irresistable in the short run. The Prisoner's Dilemma is when two prisoners arrested for being accomplices in a crime are separated and each promised immunity if they rat out the other. Game theory demonstrated that even though it was in both of their interests not to rat out the other and deny everything, in practice, those that "cheated" or took the deal, did better. But only in non-iterative, non-repeating versions of the game. When the same scenario was played out over and over, the cheaters were found out. In other words, the world, the market, tends to correct for bad behavior over time with enough information. that's what Ebay feedback is all about.

I couldn't agree more with Asamsky. The winner take all philosophy has really overwhelmed America, to the point where I see shameful behavior perpetrated by people who I suspect would have been ashamed by this not so long ago. Wall Street is simply one example. To be fair, even 25 years ago at the beginning of this hobby there were collectors who were so frenzied by our common love of pens that they cheated old ladies out of their dead husband's pens (wish I were kidding here--I can name the collector that got his Waterman's worlds smallest pen this way) and took advantage of the ignorant shamelessly. They would sit close to the entrance at pen shows and wait for the barefoot pilgrims to arrive to try to fleece them of their pens. There was another collector who would take other people's pens and under the guise of authenticating them would shop them around the room. We use to shun those guys--the latter example was actually banned from the New Jersey show as I recall. But in the end, I wonder why the number of members of the general public going to pen shows dropped off so much over the last 10 years. Yep, causality is a bitch to prove, but only idiots ignore the obvious (remember how our government used to vociferously denied the existence of global warming? What happened? Why the rush to get ahead of the climate change issue? Oh, it's election year) There are great people in our hobby too, people like Susan Wirth who have reached out to the public to try to help and educate. I wish I didn't feel on some days like their work was being undermined by others.

The pen community in general, and Ebay in particular, is like the commons to me, a fantastic resource that can make all of our collecting lives better. But only if we all behave well. I'm sad that such a sentiment seems to provoke such strong argument. And for the record, I'm not an idealist. Frankly, I'm a cynic.

I do agree with Dr. Isaacson, snipers in the short run do help themselves win more auctions--but maybe at the expense of everyone else. Rampant fraud is probably the greatest threat to ebay, but several high end watch dealers I know will simply no longer put good pieces on to be sniped or scammed. And most of the flea market pickers/dealers I know, just put their unsellable junk on. If they put something high end on, it's only when they've researched it and put a high reserve on.

While there will always be the ignorant and the ineffective to be taken advantage of, anyone who is motivated by the indeterminate advantage on a small percentage of auctions spread over thousands should also understand that all sellers eventually will be affected by lower prices and fewer bidders if sniping causes that. Doesn't anybody feel like the really great and surprising pens that used to show up on ebay 5 years ago are getting fewer and fewer. And that more and more things of those good pens are being offered up by dealers, rather than individuals? And then sniped up to higher than show prices in the end?

Has anyone here seen THERE WILL BE BLOOD? It's a great but disturbing movie about the ruthless competitiveness that drives the hero's success. He does end up with all the oil--in an odd echo of Dr. Isaacson's proud proclamation of his undeniable success in pen collecting on ebay. But he also loses his happiness and his family in the process. And, though the film doesn't show it, the rush to beat out the competition to win the oil race of the early 20th century also resulted in a great deal of American oil wasted or left underground, inaccessible until now.

Well, I haven't won 2000 pens on Ebay. I've won a few. And I don't believe I've stolen any at submarket prices. But I have gotten some very nice pieces at decent prices. Isn't that the real model for sustainable capitalism? A fair exchange of value that keeps both parties not just happy but continuing to interact? That will keep more pens coming on to the ebay marketplace? There will always be ways to beat the competition that don't break the rules but make things worse for everyone else. I just wonder if sniping is one of them...

Out of nearly 400 eBay purchases, I've only had 4 or 5 bad experiences. All of those bad experiences occurred early in my eBay history. Obviously, buying only from experienced sellers with excellent feedback also helps.

"To degree that one might imagine a common good in "outcome" (what, the village will share the auctioned item?), when i bid i darn well want to avoid any "common" good. Rather, i wish to take home the item of interest to me." David Isaacson.

In case I didn't make it clear enough, I think there is a common good possible in a capitalist transaction. Our country's success is built on the capitalist growth that comes from everyone benefiting from economic transactions. Ebay's a microcosm of this. Cheating and behavior that leaves people feeling taken advantage of will cause people (who can) to stop participating. That's a common bad.

I applaud Dr. Isaacson for stating openly that he wants to avoid any "common good" and that all he cares about it doing what's of interest to him. It's pretty amazing to see someone put it out there so nakedly, so I thank him for his honesty.

But it's exactly what concerns me...

Mr. Chin, again bravo. The "I drink your milkshake" attitude seems defensible from a rational-consumer, rah rah capitalist competition point of view, but it often results in unintended human cost. Take, for example, the pharmaceutical industry's reliance on "me-too" drugs. These drugs are inexpensive to develop (since they rely on previous research and drug development) and generally go into markets where the companies are sure they will sell, and sell well. This makes perfect sense from a corporate point of view since it minimizes expenditure and risk and maximizes rewards. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this ethically, and legally the corporations have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to make their enterprise as profitable as possible. Yet this also diverts funding from research on less profitable drugs (for instance for the "orphan diseases," diseases that affect only thousands of people and thus have no market value). The market will not necessarily take care of everything. As an aside, and lest everyone think I'm taking a shot at an easy target, Big PhRMA, with all its flaws, actually does some stunning philanthropic work as well, which doesn't fit very well with the ruthless capitalist image most people have of it.

yes, there are all too many examples of this going around. Lots of things that are perfectly rational and not illegal benefit some at the expense of most. Once upon a time, I really do believe most people in America thought that was bad. And guided their actions by other concerns (like the golden rule). I really fear our country is changing radically for the worse.

by the way, speaking of bad behavior, snipers beware. There is one well known ebay watch dealer in Mexico who actually asked me to help him shill his auctions. He didn't mention snipers in particular, but obviously, the way to beat snipers is to have shills make false bids to either defeat or bid up snipe auctions.

Who knows how many snipers have paid much more than they would have if the auction were fair.

I've had a good experience with one seller, and an amusing story regarding eBay. I'm a huge fan of Russian composer named Sergei Prokofiev, so the only pieces of his I don't have yet are rare recordings. I found one such rare recording on eBay, made from a radio recording in Moscow many years ago. I jumped on the deal, excited to finally be able to hear one of the rare pieces. Well, a few days after winning the seller called me and told me he had lost the master recording! Well, he ended up calling England and finding another copy for me, then shipping it internationally at no extra charge. I certainly wasn't expecting that.

My friend and flatmate bought me, as a birthday present, a newspaper article about Prokofiev from the 1920's in 2006. It didn't show up. We all assumed the eBay seller took the money and ran. My friend left negative feedback, emailed the guy, did everything he could to get some sort of response and received nothing. The guy never said one work after the money had changed hands. Turns out, the article showed up a few days ago. In our university's mail room. It had been there for 15 months. Turns out we were accusing the guy of never shipping the item when it had been here the entire time. It just goes to show that you shouldn't always assume it's the seller's fault when something goes wrong.

Sigh.


I recall an old lawyer show in which the judge reamed the neophyte lady lawyer for trying to cite Constitutional Law to get her client out of a parking ticket in local court.

Reading the post above, i see an attempt to use a particular slant on Grand Philosophical/Spiritual Solutions To The World's Imperfections, as a diversion from the notion that if one wishes to win an auction at best price, he really ought to learn the rules of the trivial small-busines game in which he chooses to play that day

d

Actually, i was wearing clothing when i wrote my post.

But, i begin to find the philosophy/psychology espoused in response to my post a bit entertaining.

Why would one be conncerned that someone who discusses bidding in an auction cites a goal of winning the item on which he bids, rather than wanting "the village" or someone else to win said item.

Can you explain why YOU would ever bid in an auction with the goal NOT to win?

Do you believe there is inappropriate greed involved in bidding in an auction to win, vs bidding in an auction to not win?

-d

Semantics and meaning matter.

It is common debate approach to argue against that which was not said, suggesting (intentionally or not) that something not said by one's debate opponent is what the opponent did say, thus branding him for a negative that really has nothing to do with that person's actual assertions.

I don't know that "everyone" has ever benefited from any given economic transaction, as is claimed above as an underpinning of grand notion of "capitalist growth" and "our country's success".

I do not believe that ebay is a microcosm of that posited model, especially as i find that posited model does not apply in the macrocosm to which it is asserted ebay mimics.

Further, cheating has not been an issue whatsoever in this side thread about sniping.

Rather, this appears to be more about folks who do not learn the rules of the game in which they volunteer to play, resenting the greater success in said game of those who have learned the rules. Sort of like a blackjack player who accuses the house of cheating because house rules (clearly posted) favor... the house. Poor business men should not resent good businessmen simply for being better at business.

Cheating in an auction involves shill bidding, conspiracy to suppress bids (three folks get together and decide to have one fellow only bid on items with agreement to share later), etc.

Bidding in the last minute of an auction that has a fixed closing time is not cheating.

regards

david

First, I have won and encountered more good pens on ebay this year than i did 8 years ago. I have seen more "great and surprising" pens on ebay this year than 8 years ago.

Second, as a hobby matures and a limited supply of items comes out of the wild, fewer items will be offered from... the wild... by definition. Before ebay appeared at all, during the 20 years of organized vintage pendom, as time went on a greater percentage of pens were being offered by dealers rather than appearing from the wild. This is natural progression of newly discovered old-item collectables hobbies and has nothing to do with sniping.

regards

david

I have to say this, and I don't like to, but maybe some of you might be able to give suggestions. I have a lot of trust and integrity dealing with the pen community, so when something happens to one of our members by creating serious conflict, then this is bad for all of us.

Let me tell you what's going on:

I had won an eBay auction for a Parker that was from the aeromatic era. I asked the seller quite a few questions and since he's from Janesville, his claim the pens he bought were from ex-Parker employees. Being a Parker fan, as some may know from my intro, this seemed like a great opportunity.

There was an immediate red flag I now entirely regret. The seller did not respond to my various inquiries on the pen. In fact, he didn't respond by e-mail at all. There is not a single shred of contact information on the eBay site, and since I was a fool in paying through PayPal as well, the funds may not be returned to me for the item I bought.

Why you ask? Well, the pen arrived last Saturday and immediately upon opening the package I knewthis pen had to be returned. He described the pen with two small cracks on the barrel which I was aware of due to his item description of the pen. He said nothing about the nib being damaged, the inside of the pen cap encrusted with corrosion, and the feed dried with ink. The seller's claim on the item description was he did nothing to the item when he got it and if the buyer has any problems with the item, the buyer has 3 (!!) days to return the item and e-mail him the reason for returning it.

Now I don't get this; what could possibly be ethical about a three day return clause? If the item was sent to Japan, or somewhere else for that matter, it leaves zero alternatives for your case. You bought it, you got it, you suck! I just don't see the good business practice sense in this. Even as a seller I give appropiate time for each buyer to return it as long as they give me a detailed description of the item.

I felt because of this problem, I had no choice but to return the item to the seller. I e-mailed him to tell him my reasons, and gosh, it took a seriously long time for him to respond. Two days in fact. By that time, the item was mailed and in transit.

I decided to be professional and send him a good letter with strong language for my refund. Sometimes instead of being mad about the seller and his practices, I wanted to give him a respectful letter he could respond to.

Bad move. The seller took up the claim on eBay's Resolution Center stating "buyer's remorse" and he now wants me to pay for any eBay fees he has for the item. This just ticked me off! I responded by going to the security center on PayPal to state my claim on the seller with as much detail as possible. The case between me and the seller is no pending in eBay and PayPal.

I am convinced that if either PayPal or eBay doesn't resolve this matter, I need to seek counsel. The sparse e-mails, the incorrect item description, the eBay resolution center claim; no way. I am without a pen and without money and the seller wants more of it.

I've learned something that's very important legally when dealing with matters like this. If an item arrives and you find it is not what you were described by the seller, you need to do absolutely everything providing a detailed statement to support your claim and if you can, pictures. I didn't send any pictures. If you have picture evidence on your item and certainly did not do anything to alter the item, take as many as you can. This is concrete evidence to support your claim in case anyone from PayPal, eBay or anyone else for that matter, needs it.

Contact your seller immediately in case anything happens and make sure you have the contact information at hand to support your claim. I got a dreadful feeling things are not going to be rosy between me and this seller. What do you think?

John (Shamouti)

My condolences on getting a pen that did not meet expectations. It has happened to me. Ebay offers potential for great bargains, but also for unhappy finds. Buying from retailers (not that i'm biased or anything LOL) offers fewer chances for bargains but usually more satisfaction with that which is obtained.

Nib damage should be disclosed, if the seller knows enough to be aware of it. Remember, "buying bargains from those who don't know pens" means... the seller might not... know pens.

Dirt and gunk are not uncommon on pens from the wild. I have not seen too many truly corroded 51 caps so this one... might clean up.



Maybe i understand better now. Generally "days" for return means days from receipt of item. If ten days shipping to japan, the three days starts on arrival. If the seller means three days from time of mailing, given that nearly no package arrives in three days, then a) this is a bad policy for the buyer, probably should have been posted in ad, but c) always is worth it for buyer to ask before bidding. Have you asked?



Generally if buyer and seller email ebay that transaction did not complete, ebay waives fees so that should be easy solution. Hassle with resolution center can be real. At least the ebay fees are just a few dollars. Another good reason to consider buying from dealers. Ebay offers... again... great potential but has some risks. I've had bad pens arrive i could not return. Given that by now i have pretty good eye for ebay buying and buy hundreds of pens per year, the occasional bad one is absorbed by the greater good, but still.. there are risks.



That is a choice. However, if you bought a used 51 for < $100 and the issue at hand (if i follow your point) is not the refund but just the ebay fees, i suspect that hiring counsel at couple hundred bucks/hr will not be cost effective vs not sweating the $8 in ebay fees.



Even that might not be enough to protect you. One lesson (painful though it is) is that ebay purchases of old pens (and many other things) carries risks. Sometimes the cost of resolving the bad cases will way outweigh the cost of absorbing the loss of the unlucky purchase. Ebay can be... tricky.

regards

david

My condolences on getting a pen that did not meet expectations. It has happened to me. Ebay offers potential for great bargains, but also for unhappy finds. Buying from retailers (not that i'm biased or anything LOL) offers fewer chances for bargains but usually more satisfaction with that which is obtained.

Nib damage should be disclosed, if the seller knows enough to be aware of it. Remember, "buying bargains from those who don't know pens" means... the seller might not... know pens.

Dirt and gunk are not uncommon on pens from the wild. I have not seen too many truly corroded 51 caps so this one... might clean up.

It sounds like the seller's claim on the item description was true- that he did nothing to the item when he got it.


He does post a return policy. I'm not sure why the 3 days gets a double exclamation point. You are happy he has a return option? You are unhappy it is brief? In any case, it was posted and assuming he is not lying it does allow a rational decision to be made as to whether it is worth bidding on said item, in the context of having ability to return it if one wishes.



I don't follow. Perhaps the stronger question is what could possibly NOT be ethical about a three day return clause? I could see debating the ethics of one who fails to honor his posted policy, but a policy is a policy, honestly stated and available for consideration before playing. One might instead ask, if one finds a 3 day return policy... insufficient... why would one then bid on said item?



Maybe i understand better now. Generally "days" for return means days from receipt of item. If ten days shipping to japan, the three days starts on arrival. If the seller means three days from time of mailing, given that nearly no package arrives in three days, then a) this is a bad policy for the buyer, B: probably should have been made clear in ad, but c) always is worth it for buyer to ask before bidding. Have you asked?



Generally if buyer and seller email ebay that transaction did not complete, ebay waives fees so that should be easy solution. Hassle with resolution center can be real. At least the ebay fees are just a few dollars. Another good reason to consider buying from dealers. Ebay offers... again... great potential but has some risks. I've had bad pens arrive i could not return. Given that by now i have pretty good eye for ebay buying and buy hundreds of pens per year, the occasional bad one is absorbed by the greater good, but still.. there are risks.



That is a choice. However, if you bought a used 51 for < $100 and the issue at hand (if i follow your point) is not the refund but just the ebay fees, i suspect that hiring counsel at couple hundred bucks/hr will not be cost effective vs not sweating the $8 in ebay fees.



Even that might not be enough to protect you. One lesson (painful though it is) is that ebay purchases of old pens (and many other things) carries risks. Sometimes the cost of resolving the bad cases will way outweigh the cost of absorbing the loss of the unlucky purchase. Ebay can be... tricky.

regards

david

You're right David. Sometimes I get a pen I know corroded from the inside, I usually do a good detailed job in cleaning it out.

Recently I purchased a nice Sheaffer Snorkel Clipper through eBay. The seller was actually pretty cool. I got e-mails right away from him and I knew the pen had new o-rings and a sac; it was in a great condition when I purchased it. What I do is I take a flashlight inside the pen cap to see if there's any corrosion and if so, I clean it as best as I can. With the Sheaffer, I didn't have any problems and it looked better than new inside out. I was happy with it, and was glad the pen turned out even better than when I originally purchased it.

When a pen is not restored, it helps to pay close attention on restoration and to take good care of the pen in any case. I mean, they're like children in a way.


When I repeatedly asked the seller about the return clause, I didn't get a response from the seller at all, David. Yes, it made me feel foolish. Buying from dealers like you said are more reputable than individual sellers, that's true. In this case, it's the first time I've had a really bad transaction with a seller. So in a way, sure, I might be out of money or the pen, in any condition, but it's better to learn your lesson and become more knowledgeable because of it.

I look at it this way, PayPal and eBay are quite well equipped with situations like this. If this claim does become resolved, it would help increase my confidence and shares in the company. Lawsuits are too common and peculiar for reasons like this.

Hope that makes some sense, David. Your input I think will not only help me, but can help contribute for members to be more aware of situations if they do rise.

John (Shamouti)

Ebay sometimes comes through. One can but hope.

regards

d

Sorry about your bad experience, Shamouti. Unfortunately, Fleabay doesn't wish to "waste" money by getting real people involved in quality/condition issues. I believe that, in general, Fleabay only takes real notice when nothing at all is received by the buyer. If you get anything at all that remotely resembles what was described in the auction, you're stuck with it at the seller's prerogative. I learned my lesson in returning a mis-described pocket watch, and the seller refusing a refund, and so I was out three figures, my appeals to Fleabay went nowhere. And so I don't use Fleabay any more for items that are critically dependent on small condition details that are aren't pictured/described, as pocket watches and Japanese swords. Fleabay has a "do nothing" attitude that favors the sellers, and so buyers are in effect "working without a net", IMO.

There are always opportunities to act badly or well. And the interesting thing is, I suspect even Dr. Isaacson knows this despite his bleating repetition of the same illogical arguments.

There is another way: there is an alternative to doing everything within the rules to win, no matter how the spirit of the rule or the common good is subverted. It's called behaving ethically. Reasonably. Treating others with the respect and consideration with which we would all like to be treated. You don't have to be stupid or weak to do so. In fact, it's hard. And I'm not saying I always succeed, but why is it laughable to try?

We all know that Ebay is set up to make Ebay money. And that they do try to police the most egregious cases of fraud but it isn't in their interest to expend the energy to get into less than obvious instances. The cost-benefit analysis just isn't there. Hey, that's just good business, right? They're not in this to be good, they're in this to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. But is that the only way they can do business? What we call "service" and "taking care of customers" is often not in the immediate economic interest of the seller. And, as in the case of ebay, it may not even be in his or her long term interest--if the seller is operating an effective monopoly. They can just gouge us and do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean it's good or right.

People always try to game any system, and the sellers that are using ebay to try to deceive buyers are often acting within--sometimes barely within the rules. Which, by the way, Ebay sets in a way to maximize it's profit buy keeping people buying and selling the most with the least cost/effort to Ebay.

I'm sure the sellers that find ways of selling broken and damaged goods within the rules apply the same reductive illogic that Dr. Isaacson does: hey, people sell on ebay to get the most money for their items, right? So why would I willingly disclose serious flaws in my item that would materially reduce the selling price, if I can sell it without doing so--and still stay within the rules? That's effective selling, right? I mean, why would anyone get involved in an auction to try to sell for less? And all those people who are unhappy with what I sell them, how dare they give me negative feedback. I didn't break the rules. I didn't lie. They were stupid. They didn't know how to play the--how was it Dr. Isaacson put it, the little game they were participating in. They must be jealous of my big success as a seller, that's why they're unhappy with the broken pen I sold them. Let them sell their own broken pens as well as I do. They're just losers. I'm the big winner!

Words matter. But actions matter more. I don't need to have every pen out there. And I don't feel like being the high bidder on ebay auctions makes me a "winner": all that silly ebay marketing hype smacks of the logic of Vegas casinos to me ("don't let it get away" 'You WON on Ebay!" "you're just one bid away from losing" you loser). But I do feel like I have a responsibility to act well irregardless of what the rules let me get away with. I am really worried that America is becoming a place where more and more people feel no responsibility to do the right thing any more. I don't want to live in that country. And having lots of pens doesn't make up for feeling like people are cheating me and behaving badly around me all the time.

I look at the sacrifice of kids who are volunteering to fight in Iraq for their belief in America and their desire to do something good for the rest of us. Are they stupid? Are they losers, because they are not maximizing their self-interest?

By the way, if you really want to go someplace where there are no rules at all, and it's all about winning, whatever the cost, you can always leave America. Most of the rest of the world, particularly the third world, already works that way. I wonder how many of us would be "winners" in that pure capitalist world....

Yadda yadda yadda

I actually agree, for the most part, with the most vociferous poster in this thread, but I do find that we've gone too far afield to be of any use to anyone. There's too much to read, for most of us to address the points at hand.

As far as the original topic goes, I'd like to add another point of view. I personally buy in about six or eight categories (on the internet or in real life) and I find EBay, and the internet as a whole, more or less reliable or useful, depending on the category.

Airline tickets: always on the internet, never on EBay

Vintage razors (technically, razor HANDLES ... Gillette Super-Speed, for instance, a twist-to-open gew-gaw which takes a double-edged razor blade: almost always on EBay; extremely useful, because these items are essentially "idiot proof." If they're cleaned and in "working order," the only working that they do is open and close, and so any idiot can "restore" them. Me included.

Cufflinks and other small, inexpensive, non-precious jewelry: all over EBay. If it looks fun, and you want it, then you can buy it!

Precious stones: never on the internet. I want to look a dude in the face and have a place to take things back to, if it turns out to be a fake.

Smoking pipes (tobacco!): wonderful on EBay. Again, these are idiot-proof. If they look nice to the buyer, then the question of whether or not they'll "work properly" is really idiot-proof. How can a socket drilled through the middle of a piece of wood not have a hole in it? Sure, there are some minor ways that a smoking pipe can go wrong, and you can get stuck with one that you can't use. That's rare.

Pens: they border on all the above categories. The nice ones are as expensive as a short airplane ticket, have some degree of "precious stone" character to them, ought to be as easy to operate as a pipe or a razor handle, but actually are a bit more complicated than that.

So, dealing with pens creates an EBay problem. I have found that the pens which I get at FPN and through the reputable regular websites of sellers who congregate at FPN (David's Vacumania included! ) are categorically better than the ones I can get on EBay. Generally, any EBay pen is going to cost me another $30 for restoration and return-shipping to the restorer. There are some diamonds in the rough (a few); but mostly, I'm a user-pen user, not a collectible-pen collector, so I'm looking for something quasi-nice but also entirely functional. This means EBay does NOT fulfill my requirements as well as other internet sources, for pens.

For smoking pipes, I'm more ambivalent as to where I buy (or sell) an item. EBay, the rest of the internet, or brick-and-mortar, all figure about equally.

So, it depends on the item.

And no, I have no problem with sniping. It's the people who think they've "lost" when they failed to enter their own genuine personal maximum, who are the cheaters. Here's what a non-sniper says to himself in his thought process: "I'd like to get that item. I'm willing to pay $50 for it. I'll enter $40 and hope nobody enters anything any higher. ... [pause] ... Hey wait a minute! It went for $45 at the last minute! That's not fair! I would have paid $50." He lied, by entering $40 but then wanting a result dependent on his entering of $50. He should have entered $50 in the first place; he should enter his REAL personal maximum AS DO ALL SNIPERS. Snipers only ever enter into their computer one price -- their personal maximum. The loser who dislikes snipers should be so honest, too, rather than trying to mislead the computer with false bids, and he'd find that he gets what he wants more often.

Quotes are from fpn member stephenchin



Ad hominimity (sic). Sigh. The writer accuses me of "bleat" and "illogic" but indeed fails actually to address any of of my obviously accurate arguments, thus essentially conceding my points whilst bemoaning them at same time. Poor form.



Again, you argue against that which is NOT said, treating what was NOT said as if it WAS said, to try to bolster your philosophy, which appears not to be based in fact, but ratherin your wishes. That one's ebay strategy (bidding, say, early) fails, does not render the bidding strategy of others (bidding late) unethical or unreasonable.

As this large tangent on the original thread started about that which some call sniping, which in fact is simply bidding at the end of a fixed-period auction, some have asserted that this process is "gaming the system", "subverting the common good", behaving unethically and unreasonably.

No evidence has been provided for these assertions, which indeed i do find rather silly.

One can enter the olympics too (if one is good enough) and engage in a foot race and deliberately run slowly to allow someone else to win for some odd personal goal- like "hating competition", "wanting the common good", "ethics". All cute catch phrases. But, one would ask, why enter a personal competition- i note that competition was the word cited describing ebay not by me originally but by another and now used by me for the "foot race"- if his goal is not to compete?

Compete defines as "strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same". Foot races and auctions are competitions, so, there will be no warm and fuzzy common good when playing there, i fear.

I repeat, no cheating is involved in bidding within the rules of ebay. And, this thread seems to have become more about those who do not know the rules and have not bothered to master them, resenting those more successful at mastering the game. Poor form. One wonders if said people had "B's" in science class and resented those who received "A's" as obviously the latter were not working for the common good

Finally, i invite you to provide evidence for the intended "spirit" of the ebay rules.



No. It seems i knew that but another poster did not. Indeed in an earlier post a writer who's handle is stephenchin wrote,



After i informed said writer that this is not ebay's whole point, it seems that writer has adopted my stand that ebay indeed actually is in business to make money using an online auction business model. I'm glad one of my points has gotten through. We shall work on the others.



I don't know if that's good business or not. Businesses succeed and businesses fail. As to whether this is the only way they can or cannot do business, you would have to ask them.

If you resent ebay for gouging and for doing whatever they want, happily for you, you can make your objection to their business model known by not playing there or better still by creating your own competing business. It costs but $20 or so to buy domain name and $20 per month to host it. Never in the entire history of USA (and most of the rest of the world) has it been so very very easy for poor "ethical" little guys to compete with "big evil corporations".

But, again, what has all this tangent to do with the earlier, obvious, core point that those who resent folks who are wise enough to bid late in an ebay auction simply are folks who are ineffective bidders resenting those who are effective bidders?




I'm sorry. This was about "sniping"- bidding at the end of an auction. Sniping has what to do with selling broken goods? Furthermore what is wrong with selling accurately described broken good? Oh, are you suggesting folks sell broken goods with dishonest desriptions? What has fraudulent selling to do with bidding at the end of an auction, again? I sense painful wiggly attempts at diversion here, yes i do.



Which has what to do with bidding at the end of an auction? I sense painful wiggly attempts at diversion, here, yes i do. No one has made a sound argument that bidding at the end of an auction is less ethical than bidding early in an auction. All i hear is resentment that those who bid late do better than those who bid early. It is important not to conflate one's own sadness about his own poor technique at any project, with lack of ethics on the part of those with good technique.

Also, as an aside, i'd note that several folks have observed (and they might be right) that in a given auction ebay might get more money by extending the auction if folks bid at the very end to give a 5 minute window (for example). So ebay, relative to an individual auction, seems not to be maximizing its profit. Shows that sometimes companies have important goals (like not alienating bidder base) that trump profit concerns at the small level.



Again, we see a deceptive point. Saying "actions matter more" in cases where the implied action does not matter more, is simply using words again.

For third or fourth time, arguing against what was NOT said as if it WAS said to brand one's opponent in a negative fashion, is an old debate tactic, but one that- obviously- is not being tolerated here.

I do not recall any writer in this thread asserting he needs to have every pen out there.

However, i do observe it was a writer named stephenchin here on FPN- not David I- who asserted that ebay is a competition. No one else cited that. To compete, again, is defined, "strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same", so it seems at least that stephenchin believes that ebay is a milieu in which it is important to strive to gain or win something via defeat of another.

And, stephenchin might be right on that point. I am happy to agree where i am able. So let's agree ebay auctions are competitions of a sort. Let's review...



Again, tricky verbiage. There can be no doubt that in the competition of ebay (which is what stephenchin called ebay, a competition), and noting again that competition is defined as striving to defeat others in the same game, that being the victor in an auction does make one a winner. One is nothing else but a winner and very well should feel that way if he is high bidder in an auction. I find it weird that one would not feel like a winner having just won an auction. Should he feel like a loser?

As to what i see implied in the immediate quote above- the question about being a winner on a more grand scale (life, love, happiness, personal satisfaction), well... who cares? I don't recall anyone suggesting that winning a $5 trinket on ebay is meant to provide all those things. But, there can be no doubt that winning on ebay makes one a winner of that auction, and one should feel whatever contentment he chooses from that reality.

By the way, this has what to do with your objection to sniping?



First, you make a great case not to get caught up in the hoopla that ebay would generate for itself. Certainly a good reason for you not to play there, i agree. But this has what to do with your objection to sniping, or to your objection to my defense of it?

Second, given my knowledge of old pens, given that i happen to like acquiring good pens and given that ebay has proven a wonderful source of old pens, I am remarkably grateful for the existence of ebay and don't begrudge them their hype.



Irregardless is not a proper word. But, i do favor responsible behavior in all settings. Who would favor otherwise?

You appear to assert that acting within the rules of ebay can constitute irresponsibility (which is a word). Can you explain this?

And, what has all this to do with the simple and obvious point that bidding late in an ebay auction makes more sense than bidding early? Surely, THAT is not what you are considering to be irresponsible, is it?



My old response now... it is poor form- if a recognized debate tactic- to argue against that which was not said as if it was said, in order to brand one's opponent with a negative and to provide diversion.

I think some might share with you the somewhat- IMHO- tired bromide that "folks today aren't responsible. Woe is unto our country for having a bunch of immoral slobs living here. I wanna move to Canada where people still are people". I don't.

But, i do share with you the notion that acting responsibly is a good thing.

I don't know that anyone here asserted that having pens substitutes for any spiritual, philosphical or behavioral need.

So... what has all this to do with the notion that wise bidders bid late in an ebay auction and foolish bidder bid early? Let's not get off track now.



Debate tactic 12: If one's argument is not succeeding about- say- whether Lite Beer is less filling or more tasty, invoke the "Death of our Children" to divert, divert, divert.

I would be interested to hear how fighting in our armed forces relates to a choice to bid wisely (late) or foolishly (early) in an ebay auction.



Hmmm, did someone- maybe me- already mention that an old and weak debate tactic that will not be allowed to work, is to argue against your opponent (or the world) suggesting they hold an opinion they don't hold in order to brand them with a negative as you argue against "their" words which indeed are not theirs at all.

I don't know anyone who argued there should be "no rules at all". Indeed your objection seems to be about people obeying ebay's... rules, not to there being a lack of rules. Let's not get the issues confused, shall we.

I don't know anyone who said it's ALL about winning. I do believe i have asserted that bidding in an ebay auction is about winning with said bid. I believe it was you who asserted that ebay is a competition. I have provided a dicitionary definition confirming then YOUR assertion that ebay bidding is about winning.

I return to my point after prior quote, noting that a common debate tactic is to invoke grand (perhaps grandiose) sweeping generalizations when one's argument about a given small point is.. failing. One loses an argument about ebay bidding so suddenly, we confront the suggestions to leave America, to have No Rules At All, to move to the Third World, etc etc.

I prefer simply to return to the core point you first addressed with me. What... exactly is unethical about bidding late in an auction rather than early. It seems to me i see only the resentment of one who embraces a poor game theory for winning in the competition of ebay.

regards

david

My E-bay experience has been for the most part excellent. I have had a couple of bad deals, but Paypal handled them with no problem, There was one person from whom I won an item but after paying he was removed as a seller by E-bay. My money was returned and I also received a $400.00 gift certificate from E-bay. I love to pay by Paypal, as if there is a problem, it is handled efficiently.

Only a few considerations pro sniping on Ebay:
- I had, not only once, the sensation that bidding early make me pay much, other bidders only trying to make me bid again. To give an example, I bid $20 and after a while I see someone is ahead with $21. When I increase my bid to 25 and became the winner, I can see the my competitor bidded 24.99, suspecting that I'll bid in integer numbers. I may be wrong, but I can not see other reasons for bidding in .99 other than losing the auction for 1 cent.
- Saying that "it's annoying for everyone to lose by a small increment in the last seconds" means that the author doesn't understands the mechanics of sniping. Lets say stephenchin bids 60 bucks for a pen that may be valued at $100. I wait till the last 5 seconds and bid $100, and win (if nobody else snipes against stephenchin) "by a small increment" at 61 bucks bid. The reason I am bidding 100 and not (lets say) 65 is that I can suspect that other snipers may appear and I won't be able to increase my bid. So, my bid was at the right value of the pen, the only reson I win at a small price (or "by a small increment") is the fact that stephenchin made a very low bid, wishing to buy low and to increase his bid only if anyone interferes.

I let the others judge my opinions, and please excuse my English, it isn't my native language.

Too many words ...

This argument about how bad sniping is and how unfair it is to those who follow the auction to the end is absolutely asinine to me...
I snipe....
Why to I snipe??? Because I know what I am willing to bid on an item and don't want to wait around the computer to bid at the last moment... I may snipe an auction with 3-4 days left on it... I do check to see where the bid is occasionally and in some cases I might even raise my snipe... but very rarely... I know what I am willing to pay and that is that...
Why don't I just bid my amount early then.... Because I have seen bids like that end up with people having to see how far they need to go to beat the other guy....
Most bidding on an auction occurs in the last hour or so of the auction. I have auctioned items with a reserve price that have not gone over the reserve until the last two hours and then some of those items went nuts...
Sniping basically just hides what I consider the maximum I want to spend on an item
Sniping does not in any way make winning an item a sure thing... if it did I would be up to me ears (instead of just my knees) in pens recently....
In the last 3 days I have sniped 15 auctions...... I have won 3, and all of those for less than my snipe amount.
On 10 of those auctions the winner bid the same amount I did.... BUT, HOW COULD THEY WIN.... Well it was because the bid was placed sometime earlier than my snipe arrived...
On eBay the early bid wins if both high bids are the same....
What happened on the other 2... someone apparently sniped in with a higher amount than I did...
Am I ticked off, mad at eBay for allowing this to happen.... HELL NO, that is part of bidding on auctions. Some you win, some you lose.

All in all, I have done very well on eBay as far as both selling and purchasing pens..... I recently sold a pen I paid $15 for to someone for $125, and my latest $60 eBay purchase is a pen worth about $300. Do they all come out like that... Far from it, but my best to date is a pair of pens I purchased for about $16.00 including shipping that will be worth close to $1800-2000 when they come back from restoration.
Have there been problems? Yes, but none that were so bad I would go nuts over them... and only one that required eBay & Paypal intervention.