Bidiots getting smart?

Again, I don't think your title and his title are very similiar.

There are already countless examples of titles that fall somewhere between his and yours out there. Heck, there are probably a lot out there that are as bad as yours and FeeBay isn't doing anything to police them. Do I like it? Not particularly, but I'm accustomed to it and I am a cautious buyer. When disputes arise between sellers who use misleading titles and buyers who don't read descriptions, it's between them and FeeBay, not me.

I think I should also point out that I might be interpreting his title differently than you. I see the "90%" and the "Junk Silver" as key words meant to increase search hits, not necessarily meant to describe all items in the lot. If the lot did not contain any 90% silver, then I would consider that abusive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I, for example, had absolutely no clue what years were 90% and 40% until I read this

 

How are the titles different? "Lot of X% Y". Then it turns out only a portion of Y are actually X%, but at least half of them contain significantly less than X%.

I seriously doubt, or at least I hope, that people are not getting away with the gold example (blatant lying) which I gave. And by get away with, I mean that if a buyer disputed it then Ebay enforced the sale, which is what we are talking about here (not removing the auction before sale).

 

I'm also irked by the buyer's actions of filing a claim before contacting Trey. He was pretty clear in his auction that he'd be willing to work on any issues that might arise. But alas, the buyer probably STILL hasn't read the auction description. Isn't it FeeBay's policy that buyers and sellers should try to resolve issues on their own first?

If I was in Trey's position, I'd probably just ask the buyer to return the coins for a refund with the buyer paying for the shipping of course. But I also understand Trey's position and desire to stand by his own principles.

 

Because your description reads more like a sentence where the "1 oz pure 100%" is a descriptor to the "gold coins", and you also used the word "Lot of", which to me also implies they are all the same.

Trey's auction title was worded differently was it not?

 

He probably should have contacted him. Of course, maybe he did read the description afterwards and saw there were no returns and was like "forget it I know I can cancel, so I'm cancelling." Irksome? Sure I'd agree with that.

I don't think anyone is faulting Trey's position, actions, or principles in this situation. I just wanted to illustrate there is another perspective to this, particularly when he seems to think Ebay should have no basis for disallowing auctions of this type (rule against me on whim).

 

If you keep everything in my example the same but changed the title to Gold Coins 1 oz 100% Gold it is the same exact format as his, except even less ambiguous because it does not have junk in the title which could mean anything. Given the situation, I could then fall back on "yeah but they are all 1 oz gold coins and 2 of them are 100% and the rest at least have some gold, so it's all good"? I mean that is ridiculous.

 

For anyone keeping score, so far I have one strike against Trey and four strikes against the buyer:

Trey

- Possibly misleading title.

Buyer:

- Made an assumption based on the title.
- Didn't read the description.
- Didn't follow seller's instructions.
- Didn't follow FeeBay's policies.

The buyer is outta there!

 

Surely the seller also didn't follow FeeBay's policies?

Still 4-2 either way

 

I'd say it's better, but I'd judge it much the same as I have Trey's title: I wouldn't use a title like that, I'd prefer others not use titles like that, but I'd still read descriptions even if nobody used titles like that.

 

Actually, eBay has changed their system now. When you go to "ask a question" after an item has already been purchased, it takes you straight to the resolution center and you fill out a form. It's a bad idea in my opinion. I went to contact a guy to return a coin last week. His description said "no returns" but the coin was scratched corroded and cleaned, which was obscured by blurry pics. All I was going to do was ask if he would take a return, but the ONLY way I could contact him about this specific thing was to automatically open a case! It felt weird to me. I'm sure we could have worked it out just fine, but now eBay steps in and opens a case automatically!

 

That is a good policy. The question though is if someone is taking advantage of the system and using that exact title and selling such "gold", and the buyer does not use your policy, should it be caveat emptor and the buyer is hosed?

If you think the answer to that is yes, then the only basic difference between that example and Trey's is that clearly the scammer was doing it intentionally and Trey was not. At which point, it comes back to Ebay judging intent and how are they supposed to do that on less clear cut examples? Or you just feel like the policy should be "Shoulda read the description; sale enforced" and Ebay will have 10 scams for every real offering.

 

That seems not right somehow.

 

I just went to an item I purchased and clicked on Contact Seller. It went straight to the email form not the Resolution Center.

 

I purchase a lot of my coins off e-bay. It is a shame some buyers play this game with you all. They shouldn't bid if they don't have the funds and they should be held responsible to follow thru with a sale.

 

For me I went to the ask a question page and selected Subject: Item Not As Described. It used to just let you ask a question of the seller, but now it takes you straight to open a case.

 

I once did that, by accident. It was a fairly high graded, modern Canadian coin, a tougher year to find in MS-66 or better... Market (book) price was $75, and I wanted to bid $88. Instead I bid $888 by accident - didn't even know I had done that until the auction was over. BUT, I was outbid at the end with a snipe bid I can only assume was $999 (never will know though, they won at the next increment above $888)...

Needless to say, I dodged that bullet!!! Not sure if that poor snipe bidder paid or not, but I was pretty darn quick to decline the 'Second Chance Offer'....

Accidents do happen, I tend to give the buyer the benefit of the doubt the first time. Repeat offenders are blocked.

 

Heres an update. It looks like the buyer is backing off and realizes to some extent that he was in wrong. The case is still open but has not escalated any further. He also left me a neutral feedback, which does lead to the indication that he is at least reasonable and understands that it was his duty to carefully read and look at the description as well as pictures.

I do feel a little bad for him though, so I think I may shoot him over a couple of quarters or 1/2oz round or something to at least make him feel better. As it turns out he doesnt seem to be as much of a hard lined take everything to the extreme buyer as I was assuming with how he initially responded.

The damage has already been done, but seeing as the outcome was favorable to me, as it rightly should have been I dont mind sharing the responsibility as much now and feel alot better about making sure he got a fair value for his money. Like I said, i didnt much care about the feedback, just the principle that theres a description for a reason and it shouldbt be overlooked in favor of a simple title.

Anyway, i will continue to update as this progresses. I wonder how hes going to feel when he opens my next package with some freebies.

 

I'm glad everything has worked out for everyone.