This is why, whenever there is some doubt about the merchant's reliability, or when it is something one of a kind like this art glass, I try to use credit cards to pay for the item. The credit card companies can make life really tough for crooked businessmen, as they have all sorts of penalties triggered by some number of reversed charges. I have had a few situations, such as a motel that kicked my family out, then tried to charge us for a 2 days stay. The credit card co. reversed the charges after I wrote a letter explaining what happened.
Well, looking at Myers' feedback, you are the first unhappy eBay customer he has had in 4 1/2 years! I note he says he has offered a full refund. Did he actually make this offer? It seems pretty unlikely that a real scumbag would have 1158 positive feedback from 647 different buyers, and only one bad transaction listed. The truly infamous Al Babin can't get 4 positive feedbacks in a row before he gets a string of negatives and gets removed from eBay. He rarely operates for more than 2 weeks before getting his username pulled.
It varies from state to state, but at $1200, it would likely be a felony in most states. but, with people stealing $30,000 cars every couple of minutes, the police are busy with a lot of bigger stuff.
Sure, I'd like to see the photo of what they didn't show you.
Jon
Have you ever known any Greeks? Are you aware of
Oh oh! Didn't pay attention to your last name, but I should have! Glad **I** didn't sell you that piece!
(I will say that I have several items I've picked up, hoping to sell for a profit, and after cleaning and inspecting them, did not put them on eBay, because they were in such bad condition that it would be tantamount to fraud.)
Trust? Who said anything about trust? We were talking lawyers here.... :)
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Plato (wasn't he Greek?) said that to be dedicated to one thing is to be undedicated to all else, so that no one is truly dedicated. Not really, I made that up. But dedication itself is only as virtuous as the object of the dedication. The world is full of wrongly dedicated people.
McDonalds *never* fills up the french fries like the photo on the menu. Calling them crooks and swindlers for this misrepresentation would be hard to defend as "truth". You can't cast a civil dispute over quality of goods as a criminal fraud, without being guilty of libel. Every merchant is greedy to some extent; we can't have them all being labeled criminals, at least not in a civil society.
"Jon Elson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@pico-systems.com...
Yep, his incredible feedback is what gave Susan the confidence to bid, especially when she got a reply from Mary that the item had no issues with condition. It's all too hard to believe, right up until the time you see the area in question on the vase. You also must have a firm understanding of what defects do to both desirability and value in art glass. What might be dismissed as "nothing" to the novice can have a profound effect on value for those the sell and collect. That isn't making our task any easier because we're the ones with the pictures of the repair, unlike his posted on eBay, which show a perfect piece. Perhaps it might be a good idea for me to post the picture of the repair for others to see? He accused us of trick photography, but all we did is side light the area so it better defined the repair, which I have already mentioned was determined to be a repair, not an inclusion, by a certified, accredited appraiser that had nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling lies. His reputation would be on the line, and he is the author of published books, so being right would be very important to him. We did not know this man until we sought him for the appraisal. We were referred to him by the Antiques Mall in Centralia. The bottom line on this issue is this: Whether it is a repair or an inclusion, it SHOULD have been disclosed. All decent sellers do so as a routine.
Regards the return, when I told Mary that we expected that they should refund shipping charges because they had misrepresented the piece , she is the one that got defensive, telling us she had no obligation to disclose the anomaly, and their terms clearly state that shipping would be at our expense. I brought to her attention the fact that her terms also clearly state that they would disclose any anomalies with the items they sell, and they hadn't done so, which lead us to bid on an item that we, otherwise, would not have been interested in buying. When she couldn't convince us that it was an inclusion, the discussion got heated so we terminated the conversation. We received a follow-up phone call from the owner, Michael J. Myers, in which he told us that there was no way in hell he would accept the item in return because we had upset his wife. In other words, we can agree that it was an inclusion and they had no obligation to disclose it, or he wouldn't accept it in return. He could lie to us, but if we didn't agree with his assessment, then we must be punished by being refused a refund.
*They lied about the refund* because he withdrew the offer to send us our purchase price, minus shipping, which was over $50 both ways. He clearly states that we "sealed our fate" in the exchange between us and eBay, which I will gladly forward to anyone interested. It all boils down to this: If they had been honest, we wouldn't be where we are today. We wouldn't have bid, which is the very reason we inquired before doing so. * They lied to us*, and they continue to lie about how it has gone.
By the way, they did offer to accept it in return if we would discount the amount by the $175 that eBay awarded Susan for all her trouble. In other words, they would get the piece back, make a small amount for their trouble, and we're out the several hundred miles of travel we had to do for the appraisal, plus the time we have spent. The bad guys make a profit on the heads of the victim? I'd rather die first.
EVERYONE that does business with these people should know and understand that if they are unhappy and unwilling to eat a loss that is not at their hand, they would be better off to not do business with them.
This brings to mind a guy that was selling certified items off eBay from the Seattle area a while ago. One person complained and was ignored, yet when the truth came to be known, everything that was being sold was fraudulently represented by him, and he was the owner of the business doing all the certification.
This is a quote from the email I received:
"I've followed the thread, ouch. Your comment about being Myer's first ebay "negative" reminded me of the Seattle Times story about Thesaurus Fine Arts, beginning with their article in Jan. 2003. This outfit, owned by a prominent Asian economist and professor, had a high-profile gallery in Seattle and sold expensive "Chinese antiquities", authenticated by a well-known lab in Hong Kong. Turned out nearly 100% of what they sold was elaborate, entirely deliberate fakery, and that the gallery owner also owned the "independent lab". He's now wanted for fraud but will never be extradited back to Seattle."
Bad things happen when good people don't speak up, and often not everything is as it appears.
I have attached links that will take you to two photos of the vase in question. I apologize for how the .txt was posted. I, somehow, ended up with all the MS crud in spite of the fact that I composed the message with the note pad. I assume it was in how I made the attachment. I'm not very good at this computer stuff, sort of keeps me off balance most of the time.
formatting link
formatting link
In case the text is tough to read, 01 shows the vase lit from the side with light passing through. The other, 02, was taken with overhead lighting.
Nothing was done to the photos or the piece to enhance or otherwise change the image, or the repaired area Our entire argument is that the seller did not disclose the area in question, which resulted in our bidding way beyond the true value of the piece. Accident? Oversight? I think not. Not when they wouldn't do what any honest dealer would and make good their screw up. All indications are that they tried to profit through fraudulently representing the vase. I can't imagine a judge wouldn't see it the same way.
Greetings and salutations. Well, I have to say that the photos seem to give some strong foundation to your claims. I find it interesting that the ONE view that would have shown the defect up really well...a shot directly down on the TOP of the vase...was not part of the handful of pictures in the auction. However, there was a shot straight on from the bottom of the piece. My feeling would be that the views were carefully choosen to beautify the item as much as possible. Seems a bit questionable to me.... But then I am not trying to get $1000+ for a little chunk of melted sand. (and yes...I DO appreciate art glass... just not the inflated prices of some of it). Regards Dave Mundt
Yes... amen. Mr. Kinch struck me as an intelligent man until this latest. Acouple of his posts lately have been in the troll category. This sounds like one of them.
Mark
P.S. I know Mr. Vordos in person, and he is a decent sort... not given to foolishness at all. His posts in the last few years have always been useful and to the point.
This sounds like pontificating and obfuscation to me. If you had just pointed out that Mr. Vordos may lose more than he will gain in this matter, perhaps that would have been a valid point. Especially now that we learn that he was offered a full refund less the shipping. Instead, you ridiculed him and (worse) his wife for having an "extravagant hobby" (quote: "And all this over ART GLASS? Puh-leeze. Your extravagant and non-productive hobby does not deserve anyone's attention or sympathy. " end quote). What gives you the right to ridicule someone else's hobby? Do you know Harold's wife? I do, and she was a very kind and gracious person when I met her. Your comment about her hobby was boorish and ungentlemanly to say the least.
I also note that you have done precisely the same thing as Mr. Vordos regarding your loss of $151 on ebay (re your first post on this thread. It seems that Mr. Vordos is not the only one that gets emotional over this sort of fraud. Clearly (from your link,
formatting link
) you spent FAR more than $151 pursuing your particular crook... evidently your high minded principles don't apply when it's your money at stake....
For an intelligent man, you are remarkably deficient in civilized behavior.
I didn't. I ridiculed the crusade for justice, which is indeed ridiculous, being founded on an exquisite piece of colored glass with less utility than an empty soda bottle. Hmmm, maybe that's sounds like I am ridiculing this hobby. But all collectibles are ridiculous, aren't they? Google "tulip craze".
And it looks perfect from certain angles! But oh, the flaw is still there! The enjoyment and the value is not in how the thing itself looks, as if it were some genuine beauty, it is in the precious perfection of it, and lost it is, lost.
So this is nothing more than a kind of silly baseball card type of collecting, where the values are all determined as a kind of zero-sum game (or negative, if you count the dealers' premiums). Now if this game appeals to you and entertains you, then fine, enjoy it. But these artificial and illusory values do not deserve the enforcement and protection of the sword of civil justice, which has enough genuine issues to try. No sane judge would rule on a basis of collectible values.
Don't confuse social interactions in real life, versus abstract, critical discussions in newsgroups. If somebody presents a case and asks for advice, then you can't complain that the truth hurt somebody's feelings.
And it's a bit unfair to appeal to the lady's honor, as honorable as she no doubt is. It doesn't matter whether she was the victim, or some guy, or some lowlife. The advice is the same.
I admit to being harsh. I remember stepping on a few toes during the Beanie Baby craze, and again during the surf-the-Web-for-money craze. I was vilified for pointing out how silly and ultimately worthless it would be. I was so cruel to all those stay-at-home-moms who just knew they would finally be able to earn some extra income. So boorish and ungentlemanly of me to point that out to them. And so few appreciated it, even when it eventually was borne out. Anyone remember alladvantage.com? I was puncturing the hopes of those charming women who were buying diapers and Christmas gifts for their kids, treating their husbands to dates out, and hugely helping to pay the bills.
Precisely? I wrote an essay to inform people of the arcane eBay fraud protection program, and to advise people of how to best diagnose and prosecute fraudulent situations. I resolved my own case to my satisfaction. My money recovery was a wash, but I discovered useful new information about doing business on eBay, formerly unpublicized, which value I freely share (via that Web page) with others. It currently gets about 600 readers/month, and I receive plenty of fan mail on it.
I also note that my adversary was NARUed on eBay subsequent to my prosecution. The alleged "criminal" of this thread somehow remains active on eBay, and indeed, has a near-perfect well-aged feedback rating, which is phenomenal for somebody dealing in antiques and collectibles.
Your criticism of "you same" only extends to the eBay buyer protection apparatus that we both invoked. Given that there was next to no public information on the true costs of that novel process (before my Web page, and a few others like it now), I indulged it as much as a research project as an attempt at recovery. So while it wouldn't be worth repeating, I don't regret having done it.
The "you same" does *not* extend to hiring lawyers, starting lawsuits, Internet picketing, etc. that the aggrieved Mr V has been considering. If you read my page, written quite a few months ago, you'll see that everything I advocate there clearly sets forth the other-cheek calculus I have been advocating in his case. I have written off several major losses (anywhere from $2500 to $25000 each) from frauds and bad debts over my career, as has just about anybody in enterprise for business or hobbies. If you pursue precision justice at the expense of work or pleasure, you will end up with none of the three.
(snipped self serving rationalization of rudeness)
I am sure Mrs. Vordos appreciates your "lesson" and is eternally grateful you have volunteered your infinite wisdom in correcting her deficiencies. You must be a popular fellow.
"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in news:4099d65f snipped-for-privacy@newspeer2.tds.net:
Some Principles and Tips for Dealing on eBay and in Real Life
# In life in general, do not insist on absolute justice in small matters. In the eternal perspective, the final day of judgment will even all books. We should always be mindful of this as we order our temporal affairs. If instead, you harbor a hard-bitten, worldly approach, you will ultimately be unhappy, and constantly in fear of the next mishap. Business is ultimately a spiritual exercise.
# A hallmark of professional conduct is confidence that you will make money in the long run, but not necessarily in any given transaction. Be willing to accept the occasional economic loss with good cheer. Perfectionism in such details is not a virtue, and is a severe handicap with eBay. If your feelings of success hinge on every single transaction working out positively, then you will will often feel unsuccessful. I do not advocate a mindless optimism, but it always helps to keep the long-term trends in mind, rather than the crisis of the moment.
I think this is where the man is coming from, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, there are laws against cyberstalking in many states. Even though Harold may be telling the truth, following the victim around in cyberspace and repeating the claim over and over with the intent to do the victim commercial harm would open him up to prosecution under those laws, or the more traditional harrassment laws.
Harold may think that this is the same as an informational picket, but even that has strict limits as to place and manner. This is a very tricky legal area, more lucrative to lawyers than to the parties involved. Ebay does provide a specific forum for this sort of thing, the feedback forum, and Harold has already exercised that. Going beyond that puts him in dangerous waters.
Ebay considers it interfering with an auction, and will kick a person off if they find out he's doing it.
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying by mail order.
As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price, same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store, they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do. Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.
The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim. But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on this).
What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".
But that assumes that the seller fulfilled his end of the contract, which was to deliver what was described. If the seller misrepresented the goods, even innocently, then the burden shifts to the seller to correct things at the seller's expense, not the buyer.
Nope. "Money back guarantees" are actually NON-guarantees. While this is the usual voluntary practice for retail sales, the law (which is to say, the UCC) is even more protective on the side of buyer. In the case of non-conforming goods (the UCC term for what is alleged in this case), the seller is required to deliver what was promised, not just to refund money ("specific performance"). If the seller won't comply, then the buyer may cure by buying the correct item from another source, even at a higher price if that is what a fair market requires, and charging any difference in cost to the seller.
You cannot contract to sell a horse, deliver a mule, and then just offer the buyer a refund less round-trip shipping when he complains.
Normally it is expedient for all concerned to simply unwind the deal with a return/refund when the seller is at fault, and the seller might even have a standing offer for "buyer satisfaction" refunds. But that doesn't relieve the seller of his contractual duty to deliver conforming goods, not just a refund, if the buyer should so demand.
Enforcement of the UCC against a reluctant seller is expensive, however, so I still think it prudent in this case to forget it. In a perfect world, sellers would willingly understand and deal on these principles and wouldn't have to be forced into compliance.
From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire, you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the hook? The real victim, the one that got screwed, gets screwed again by the legal system because he tries to notify others that they are subject to the same type of treatment?
If you're right, and you certainly may be, someone else said about this matter, that the system is broken. It is. No one should be allowed to advertise with false information and prevail, and that's exactly what happened in this instance. We not only trusted their listing, but made a specific inquiry as to the condition and were further assured that it was in good condition. That's called fraud, folks.
Don't lose sight of the fact that the offer to refund our money was withdrawn the moment I talked about shipping charges that would not have occurred had they not told us lies. While we don't have that in writing because it was by telephone, they alluded to such in the comments on eBay. "We sealed our fate" when we challenged their right to not disclose a repair. We were told that they had no obligation to disclose the repair, not even when we asked. Do take note that this isn't a minor defect, it profoundly effects the desirability of the piece. I trust you did look at the pics.
Once the ball got rolling regards some type of settlement, the only way they'd refund any amount of money was if we discounted the $175 we were awarded from eBay for their misleading ad, which did nothing more than pay for our time and travel to verify that the item was defective. The seller's also demanded the return of the item before paying for it, stating to the mediator that "if they found it to be in the same condition that it was sent" they would refund the partial amount, which was less than we paid, even discounting shipping. Please keep in mind these are the same people that lied to us about the condition of the piece in the first instance. If they lied about the condition when it was offered, what reason would they have to not lie again, only now they are in possession of the item and we have nothing to show a judge.
Frankly, I think I'm beginning to see how this thing all works. Is it called apathy? Is it that as long as it's not one's personal problem, so what? Is every decent individual alive willing to stand by and watch someone else get screwed, turning a blind eye, making the victim the perpetrator because he demands justice? Does it become a valid matter only when it involves you? If that's how society is now, it can kiss my ass. My principles are high enough that I don't care to be surrounded by such individuals, and my position is not based on religion. It's called common decency, or the golden rule.
To the person, everyone that has been advised of what these people have done should boycott them. That would either drive them out of business, or cause them to cease doing what they've done and make things right. At this point, they have been rewarded for lying. Once they know and understand it's possible, don't you think it will happen again? I don't give a damn that they had a great record, that's exactly what got us involved. Great feedback, no smudges. Have you wondered how many others may have had a similar outcome but hesitated to post negative feedback to avoid receiving negative feedback in return?
Lesson learned for Harold: Society thinks that it's OK for you to be told lies and sold goods that are worth a fraction of the price you have paid. Society thinks that if you voice your concern that you have been screwed that a judge will penalize you for voicing that concern. You're supposed to suck it up and let the perp continue screwing others. To speak out in an attempt to warn others, you are making a mistake.
I'm sure the law applies the same principles and concepts to those that choose to rob banks. If they insist, and persist, the banks should quit whining about it and get used to it. After all, that's what they do. Bank robbers should be permitted the privilege of robbing banks. To speak out about it would be wrong, harassment of the robbers? How is it that when Babin was pulling his tricks it was different?
Yep! It's broke!! And I'm going to test the system to see just how "broke" it is.
Thanks for your comments, all. I appreciate hearing the various views, which is what I asked for.
Ouch! That indeed is a nasty inclusion and indeed, the seller misrepresented the piece intentionally. That area sticks out like a sore thumb.
Ive some small knowledge of diamond grading..and what would be a SVG would be an industrial diamond with it. Big big difference in value.
Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell
Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought. You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping. Get real, Harold.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.