What are your eBay experiences?

[Romeo Dog]

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.

 

 

[Nihontochicken]

... eliminating the nibblers is more than sufficient reason to snipe.

 

Amen.

 

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).

 

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.

[stephenchin]

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 (bleep) 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...

 

 

[RayMan]

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.

[stephenchin]

"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...

[asamsky]

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.

[stephenchin]

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.

[JSorrell]

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.

[david i]

Wow. The intense (and articulate) defense of sniping by Dr. Isaacson I think crystallizes what concerns me. SNIP

 

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...

 

 

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

 

[david i]

"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...

 

 

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

 

[david i]

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.

 

 

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

Edited March 28, 2008 by david i

[david i]

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?

 

 

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

Edited March 28, 2008 by david i

[Shamouti]

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. :bonk:

 

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)

Edited March 28, 2008 by Shamouti

[david i]

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.

 

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.

 

Now I don't get this; what could possibly be ethical about a three day return clause?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. wallbash.gif

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

Edited March 28, 2008 by david i

[david i]

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.

 

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.

 

Now I don't get this; what could possibly be ethical about a three day return clause?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. wallbash.gif

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

Edited March 28, 2008 by david i

[Shamouti]

"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." David I.

 

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.

"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, cool.gif probably should have been posted in ad, but c) always is worth it for buyer to ask before bidding. Have you asked?" David I.

 

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)

Edited March 28, 2008 by Shamouti

[david i]

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

 

[Nihontochicken]

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.

[stephenchin]

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....

[finalidid]

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 (bleep) 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.

Edited March 29, 2008 by finalidid