@Che_Grapes said:
The irony to the whole thing is I’m being accused of the intention to sell this item with an undisclosed defect - however as we now know from above that is exactly what the seller did to me! And really did it! He admitted he knew about it all along - even took a photo which the OP posted above and sold it to me without disclosing it and had a no return policy. Something I’m being accused of intending to do!!
Not a fair comparison. You think the defect is significant, the seller doesn't. Not only that- you're unhappy he didn't disclose it when he listed it for sale, yet when you listed it for sale, you didn't, either.
@Che_Grapes said:
And what else - oh yeah, ANACS does grade d Carr coins to the poster that said they don’t.
That poster was correct. While ANACS does grade Carr coins they don't this issue as it's too large
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@streeter said:
When an issue like this arrives, I tend to take sides. I look for character.
The buyer calls the piece a 'hard luck' piece in the BST. Says he didn't read the eBay listing close enough and bought in error. Says it will 'detail' grade even though no TPG will even take it as a submission. Attempts to rationalize his Attempts at eBay feedback extortion by demanding a 50% refund due to pmd when the item had no such damage.
Furthermore, has over 115 posts over the last 30 days and averages posts 6/7 days, some days with over 10 posts a day. With the exception of this thread and his BST offering which has not been responded to in three days. 'because he doesn't come on the forum all the time'. Although the threads are about him and his actions.
I'm sensing a pattern and I'm not even a detective.
He didn’t “demand “ a 50% refund or for that matter, anything.
And he responded here after I alerted him to the thread. At the time I did so, I think he’d been signed out for more than two days.
@streeter said:
When an issue like this arrives, I tend to take sides. I look for character.
The buyer calls the piece a 'hard luck' piece in the BST. Says he didn't read the eBay listing close enough and bought in error. Says it will 'detail' grade even though no TPG will even take it as a submission. Attempts to rationalize his Attempts at eBay feedback extortion by demanding a 50% refund due to pmd when the item had no such damage.
Furthermore, has over 115 posts over the last 30 days and averages posts 6/7 days, some days with over 10 posts a day. With the exception of this thread and his BST offering which has not been responded to in three days. 'because he doesn't come on the forum all the time'. Although the threads are about him and his actions.
I'm sensing a pattern and I'm not even a detective.
He didn’t “demand “ a 50% refund or for that matter, anything.
And he responded here after I alerted him to the thread. At the time I did so, I think he’d been signed out for more than two days.
@Che_Grapes said:
The irony to the whole thing is I’m being accused of the intention to sell this item with an undisclosed defect - however as we now know from above that is exactly what the seller did to me! And really did it! He admitted he knew about it all along - even took a photo which the OP posted above and sold it to me without disclosing it and had a no return policy. Something I’m being accused of intending to do!!
Not a fair comparison. You think the defect is significant, the seller doesn't. Not only that- you're unhappy he didn't disclose it when he listed it for sale, yet when you listed it for sale, you didn't, either.
This is the crux of the issue for me. If the OP totally blew the description (I realize then you'd have a SNAD situation, but that aside for a moment) and there were an abhorrent flaw noted by the buyer, if the buyer then sold the item without mentioning the flaw, it's a case of having your cake and eating it, too. Either the flaw is a problem or it is not. In this case, the OP decided it was insignificant and an as-made defect that didn't need to be called out. Whether or not you agree with that, if your request for a return/partial refund hinges on that flaw being prominent, noteworthy, and a reason to devalue the piece, I can't come up with any ethical way for the buyer to turn around and sell the piece without making the same not the OP was accused of leaving out.
And no one waits for a buyer to come along before saying "by the way, there's this flaw I've known about since the moment I got the piece that you should know about, but which I didn't mention in the original listing..."
And he responded here after I alerted him to the thread. At the time I did so, I think he’d been signed out for more than two days.
Great, you tagged him, so he must be “it”.
😉
He’s not Batman, you didn’t send the “Bat Signal” and he didn’t see the thread quickly, just because you tagged him.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Che_Grapes said:
The seller never responded to my request for mitigation on eBay. I see he says he tried to respond but I didn’t get it, and waited at least 3 days. Also of note, the seller did not offer a refund on the original listing (which I normally do not buy from listing that offer no return policy but I took a chance on this one) - that’s why I wrote the letter, not to “extort” the person, good grief. I have only written one negative review on EBay (this one, and mainly just because the seller never wrote me back) - if he had accepted refunds I would’ve just applied for a refund and been done with it.
You offered him last than half the sales price for issues that were as struck and should have been apparent in the photos in the listing. You even offered below the issue price as you acknowledged. When you make such a ridiculous counteroffer rather than asking for a refund, you open yourself up to criticism. Trying to flip it immediately also does not bode well for you. To be frank, I’m still not convinced that you aren’t trying to gaslight us.
Also I paid way over original price of 135, it was closer to 200 dollars. So he made a nice profit off of the item - which is fine.
Relevance? The amount of profit he made is irrelevant. This seems like an ad hoc rationalization to try to save face. It also makes the rest of your claims suspect. It sounds like you overpaid and now merely have sour grapes.
If he would have offered even just a condolence in a reply I would have accepted it. Instead, he chooses to shame me on the forum.
Condolences for what exactly? He sold you an item as struck. Now that you know you’re handling caused this, you proceed to play the victim.
I do want to sell it and if someone showed interest I would certainly disclose the damage and had intended to sell at a loss.
Why not disclose in the first place? Again your claims strain credulity.
It not not just because of the damage but actually because I purchased the wrong one, I was actually after that 1921 anniversary issue - which I also purchased a few days later, if someone wants to confirm you will see that is true, so I was going to sell the original one, although if no interest I may just keep it at this point.
Now we’re starting to get somewhere. Buyer’s remorse. Got it!
I didn’t post it on eBay, only to see if a fellow collector on the forum would be interested. Again, if there had been interest I intended to sell at a lower cost than I paid and paid would disclose the damage.
Again, why not do it to begin with?
I suppose the seller was successful at his attempts to shame me - that’s fine, but it wasn’t necessary. I do apologize, however, for causing all of this and for the seller to be upset. I should have and could handled it better on my side.
Wish all the best,
You should have started with this and a call to eBay to revise the feedback. That would have saved your credibility. Instead you waste several lines on after the fact rationalizations and try to play the victim (e.g. if only he had apologized instead of posting here, etc.). I don’t believe you’re sorry. You’re just trying to save face.
@Che_Grapes said:
I do want to sell it and if someone showed interest I would certainly disclose the damage...
Why not disclose the damage in your original offer?
You are right, I should have - and I didn’t disclose price either. But if there had been interest I would have sent pictures and gone from there.
Meanwhile - I do note that the seller admits he knew about the damage (even provided his own photo) in the thread above, yet sold it to me without disclosing it on the eBay listing and with no refund policy! Just sayin!
"Damage" implies that something happened to it AFTER it was struck. "Defect" implies that it is still as it was made, with a manufacturing flaw. So, technically, the piece in question is a "defect", not "damage".
And I don't think it is unreasonable for @Che_Grapes to have expected the DEFECT to have been noted.
It is also reasonable for him to have expected a response. Even if negative, to his request for mitigation.
This is an unfortunate transaction with errors on both sides.
If you posted a blind poll of eBay sellers and asked them whether it was an attempt at feedback extortion, I bet you’d have a greater than 90% result for yes. It is not reasonable to assume that the seller would have responded to such a ridiculous message. And this is coming from someone who advised the OP to respond and state that he would offer a full refund but wouldn’t do partial refunds.
@MFeld said:
While clearly, Che_Grapes could and should have handled the situation much better, I don’t think he’s the terrible villain that some seem to believe he is.
I’m the one who notified him of this thread, as I had a feeling that he was unaware of it. And he’s now faced the angry crowd and handled himself much better than many others in his shoes would have.
Usually you are fairly spot on, but I think you’re way off base here. I don’t think he handled himself well at all. We see a bunch of excuses, rationalization, and even an attempt to blame the seller before an “apology” that seems disingenuous at best. If he had simply come forward, acknowledged an honest mistake, apologized, and sought to make things right with his eBay feedback, people might have viewed him as being more sincere. As is, it sounds like a bunch of excuse making and gaslighting.
And he responded here after I alerted him to the thread. At the time I did so, I think he’d been signed out for more than two days.
Great, you tagged him, so he must be “it”.
😉
He’s not Batman, you didn’t send the “Bat Signal” and he didn’t see the thread quickly, just because you tagged him.
Of course not. Batman is usually the hero. At least as portrayed here, he is more like the joker. 🤣😈 Didn’t the joker have some sort of signal too?
@Che_Grapes said:
I do want to sell it and if someone showed interest I would certainly disclose the damage...
Why not disclose the damage in your original offer?
You are right, I should have - and I didn’t disclose price either. But if there had been interest I would have sent pictures and gone from there.
Meanwhile - I do note that the seller admits he knew about the damage (even provided his own photo) in the thread above, yet sold it to me without disclosing it on the eBay listing and with no refund policy! Just sayin!
"Damage" implies that something happened to it AFTER it was struck. "Defect" implies that it is still as it was made, with a manufacturing flaw. So, technically, the piece in question is a "defect", not "damage".
And I don't think it is unreasonable for @Che_Grapes to have expected the DEFECT to have been noted.
It is also reasonable for him to have expected a response. Even if negative, to his request for mitigation.
This is an unfortunate transaction with errors on both sides.
If you posted a blind poll of eBay sellers and asked them whether it was an attempt at feedback extortion, I bet you’d have a greater than 90% result for yes. It is not reasonable to assume that the seller would have responded to such a ridiculous message. And this is coming from someone who advised the OP to respond and state that he would offer a full refund but wouldn’t do partial refunds.
@MFeld said:
While clearly, Che_Grapes could and should have handled the situation much better, I don’t think he’s the terrible villain that some seem to believe he is.
I’m the one who notified him of this thread, as I had a feeling that he was unaware of it. And he’s now faced the angry crowd and handled himself much better than many others in his shoes would have.
Usually you are fairly spot on, but I think you’re way off base here. I don’t think he handled himself well at all. We see a bunch of excuses, rationalization, and even an attempt to blame the seller before an “apology” that seems disingenuous at best. If he had simply come forward, acknowledged an honest mistake, apologized, and sought to make things right with his eBay feedback, people might have viewed him as being more sincere. As is, it sounds like a bunch of excuse making and gaslighting.
It WAS feedback extortion. That also doesn't change anything I said. Greater than 90% of this forum in your poll would also be mad if they didn't get a response from a seller.
Neither side is blameless here and, as I said before, I wouldn't want to do business with either of them.
As a seller, I've accepted returns AT MY EXPENSE for buyer's remorse and other nit picking. It's called being a professional.
@Che_Grapes said:
Look - this is gotten a little over the top so one last post in this topic. The irony to the whole thing is I’m being accused of the intention to sell this item with an undisclosed defect - however as we now know from above that is exactly what the seller did to me! And really did it! He admitted he knew about it all along - even took a photo which the OP posted above and sold it to me without disclosing it and had a no return policy. Something I’m being accused of intending to do!! It’s no longer for sale but if d Carr wants it I’m okay with that and I’ll pm him.
As I mentioned twice now, my note to seller was not done in good taste, I’ve admitted that, and I apologized. All the seller had to do was say “I’m sorry you’re disappointed and actually I’m aware of the defect but it is not damage just a defect - I don’t think justify that size of compensation” or something like that and we would have worked it out - I only proposed a refund but it wasn’t written well. But instead he doesn’t respond - says he blocked me but then wrote me - I guess not wanting any response (which makes no sense if you think about it) and instead brings it here to try and shame the buyer. There’s nothing more I can do here. I will likely stop visiting here for while because I’m obviously upset and yes I feel shamed and did not mean for all of this. I have bought and sold on eBay with good reviews and I try to treat people with respect. I do regret my letter to the seller but I took a chance on a listing with no refund and was aggravated when I opened and saw two big dings and scratch on the bottom. It’s all good. And by the way I did not actually give a neg review I gave it neutral!!
And what else - oh yeah, ANACS does grade d Carr coins to the poster that said they don’t. If you read there is something about “damaged” coins with a no-grade - didn’t know at the time it was a defect. And finally, no I did not see this thread before I posted. There are tons to read so being logged on doesn’t mean you read every thread! I really didn’t see it, wish I had - maybe could have stopped the bleeding sooner.
Everyone enjoy the hobby and very best regards.
.
Looks like I need to respond to you directly.
For starters, I want to be unambiguously 100% crystal clear: I DID NOT PAY ANY NOTICE TO THE TINY IMPERFECTIONS UNTIL YOU MENTIONED THEM IN YOUR MESSAGE TO ME on ebay Tues 3/15. (Exactly what I mean in that capitalized statement is discussed in detail further below.
But first, let's look at the photos.
Tues 3/15 -- Reacting to your message, my first thought was that you damaged the Token when you removed it from its Airtite capsule. So I searched my photo archives and found this 2017 photo (taken with a Galaxy S6 cell phone):
To focus on the area you found objectionable, I did a blow-up of the photo using Microsoft Paint:
The point is, I never took a photo specifically focusing on that tiny area. I only photographed the whole Token for my records.
More on the subject of imperfections later. Now let's look at the timeline.
BEFORE you saw my photo, in your 3/15 ebay message you tried to extort a 50% refund -- which, based on your "Good Grief" comment, instead of a refund, I now believe you were trying to use the option of a refund as leverage to extort a return (not my policy, which you stated that you know).
That's why I reported it to ebay on 3/15. I also blocked you, which I thought would only prevent you from buying anything from me. Apparently, it also prevented my response to your 3/15 message from being delivered.
Then there's your BST ad. You posted it BEFORE you saw my photo. That means you deliberately didn't disclose the imperfections you found so objectionable. Forum members called you on that hypocrisy -- which you attempted to deflect by playing the victim, accusing me of the very thing you did in your ad.
Circling back to the imperfections, you might be wondering how I could possibly overlook or ignore or pay no notice or however you want to characterize the apparent oversight of not disclosing the Token's small imperfections in my ebay listing -- especially since I had carefully inspected the Token for hazing & spotting.
Maybe it's ignorance on my part, but I thought those minor imperfections were not uncommon -- and in fact, are acceptable and do not necessarily affect grading. Especially near the edge of larger Carr products (Dan discussed this in an earlier post).
For example, look at the irregularities near the edge:
(Not the best lighting, I know.)
Apparently ANACS agrees with me: This 41mm Octagon graded MS69 (ANACS #5078979, 5027254, or 5027255 -- not sure which slab, it's in my bank safe deposit box).
This addresses the buyer's concern that the imperfections would affect grading. Suffice it say, it's a moot point because ANACS doesn't accept items larger than 41mm: https://anacs.com/submitfaq.aspx#subq7
Of course I realize that much of the above discussion really doesn't matter. The buyer already admitted he bought the wrong item. I get it, people make mistakes. Now, it's just of matter of how to correct the error.
Yes, I could go on (and on and on and on) addressing each the buyer's claims & complaints. But enough is enough.
For now, I think my best course of action is wait for ebay's decision.
In conclusion, thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. Special thanks to Dan Carr for his kind offer.
And please don't be offended if I haven't responded to all the comments; they are very much appreciated, but I've been crafting this post for the past 8 hours and haven't been keeping up. (Looks like I've missed dozens of comments.)
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
Maybe I missed or forgot something else. But that's all I recall. And after his last post, I've received nothing else -- no PM's, no ebay messages, no further posts I'm aware of.
That's fine by me.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Maybe I missed or forgot something else. But that's all I recall. And after his last post, I've received nothing else -- no PM's, no ebay messages, no further posts I'm aware of.
That's fine by me.
That's all we need to know about this poster. Rather than acknowledge a mistake and try to make it right, he comes here to play the victim. His post strikes me as nothing less than gaslighting pure and simple. I'm sorry you had to endure this.
Comments
Not a fair comparison. You think the defect is significant, the seller doesn't. Not only that- you're unhappy he didn't disclose it when he listed it for sale, yet when you listed it for sale, you didn't, either.
That poster was correct. While ANACS does grade Carr coins they don't this issue as it's too large
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I tagged him on the 18th!
But he wasn't on until the 19th.
All I learned from this thread is that I wouldn't want to do business with either the buyer or the seller.
Doesn’t anyone have anything better to do?
I guess I don’t either since I’m a part of this marathon.
This is the crux of the issue for me. If the OP totally blew the description (I realize then you'd have a SNAD situation, but that aside for a moment) and there were an abhorrent flaw noted by the buyer, if the buyer then sold the item without mentioning the flaw, it's a case of having your cake and eating it, too. Either the flaw is a problem or it is not. In this case, the OP decided it was insignificant and an as-made defect that didn't need to be called out. Whether or not you agree with that, if your request for a return/partial refund hinges on that flaw being prominent, noteworthy, and a reason to devalue the piece, I can't come up with any ethical way for the buyer to turn around and sell the piece without making the same not the OP was accused of leaving out.
And no one waits for a buyer to come along before saying "by the way, there's this flaw I've known about since the moment I got the piece that you should know about, but which I didn't mention in the original listing..."
Great, you tagged him, so he must be “it”.
😉
He’s not Batman, you didn’t send the “Bat Signal” and he didn’t see the thread quickly, just because you tagged him.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You offered him last than half the sales price for issues that were as struck and should have been apparent in the photos in the listing. You even offered below the issue price as you acknowledged. When you make such a ridiculous counteroffer rather than asking for a refund, you open yourself up to criticism. Trying to flip it immediately also does not bode well for you. To be frank, I’m still not convinced that you aren’t trying to gaslight us.
Relevance? The amount of profit he made is irrelevant. This seems like an ad hoc rationalization to try to save face. It also makes the rest of your claims suspect. It sounds like you overpaid and now merely have sour grapes.
Condolences for what exactly? He sold you an item as struck. Now that you know you’re handling caused this, you proceed to play the victim.
Why not disclose in the first place? Again your claims strain credulity.
Now we’re starting to get somewhere. Buyer’s remorse. Got it!
Again, why not do it to begin with?
You should have started with this and a call to eBay to revise the feedback. That would have saved your credibility. Instead you waste several lines on after the fact rationalizations and try to play the victim (e.g. if only he had apologized instead of posting here, etc.). I don’t believe you’re sorry. You’re just trying to save face.
If you posted a blind poll of eBay sellers and asked them whether it was an attempt at feedback extortion, I bet you’d have a greater than 90% result for yes. It is not reasonable to assume that the seller would have responded to such a ridiculous message. And this is coming from someone who advised the OP to respond and state that he would offer a full refund but wouldn’t do partial refunds.
Usually you are fairly spot on, but I think you’re way off base here. I don’t think he handled himself well at all. We see a bunch of excuses, rationalization, and even an attempt to blame the seller before an “apology” that seems disingenuous at best. If he had simply come forward, acknowledged an honest mistake, apologized, and sought to make things right with his eBay feedback, people might have viewed him as being more sincere. As is, it sounds like a bunch of excuse making and gaslighting.
Of course not. Batman is usually the hero. At least as portrayed here, he is more like the joker. 🤣😈 Didn’t the joker have some sort of signal too?
It WAS feedback extortion. That also doesn't change anything I said. Greater than 90% of this forum in your poll would also be mad if they didn't get a response from a seller.
Neither side is blameless here and, as I said before, I wouldn't want to do business with either of them.
As a seller, I've accepted returns AT MY EXPENSE for buyer's remorse and other nit picking. It's called being a professional.
.
Looks like I need to respond to you directly.
For starters, I want to be unambiguously 100% crystal clear: I DID NOT PAY ANY NOTICE TO THE TINY IMPERFECTIONS UNTIL YOU MENTIONED THEM IN YOUR MESSAGE TO ME on ebay Tues 3/15. (Exactly what I mean in that capitalized statement is discussed in detail further below.
But first, let's look at the photos.
Tues 3/15 -- Reacting to your message, my first thought was that you damaged the Token when you removed it from its Airtite capsule. So I searched my photo archives and found this 2017 photo (taken with a Galaxy S6 cell phone):
To focus on the area you found objectionable, I did a blow-up of the photo using Microsoft Paint:
The point is, I never took a photo specifically focusing on that tiny area. I only photographed the whole Token for my records.
More on the subject of imperfections later. Now let's look at the timeline.
BEFORE you saw my photo, in your 3/15 ebay message you tried to extort a 50% refund -- which, based on your "Good Grief" comment, instead of a refund, I now believe you were trying to use the option of a refund as leverage to extort a return (not my policy, which you stated that you know).
Either way, I believe your 3/15 message violates ebay's Feedback Extortion policy:
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/feedback-policies/feedback-extortion-policy?id=4230
That's why I reported it to ebay on 3/15. I also blocked you, which I thought would only prevent you from buying anything from me. Apparently, it also prevented my response to your 3/15 message from being delivered.
To respond to your Feedback, yesterday I unblocked you. Here's my response:
https://www.ebay.com/fdbk/feedback_profile/jeffb123
Then there's your BST ad. You posted it BEFORE you saw my photo. That means you deliberately didn't disclose the imperfections you found so objectionable. Forum members called you on that hypocrisy -- which you attempted to deflect by playing the victim, accusing me of the very thing you did in your ad.
Circling back to the imperfections, you might be wondering how I could possibly overlook or ignore or pay no notice or however you want to characterize the apparent oversight of not disclosing the Token's small imperfections in my ebay listing -- especially since I had carefully inspected the Token for hazing & spotting.
Maybe it's ignorance on my part, but I thought those minor imperfections were not uncommon -- and in fact, are acceptable and do not necessarily affect grading. Especially near the edge of larger Carr products (Dan discussed this in an earlier post).
For example, look at the irregularities near the edge:
(Not the best lighting, I know.)
Apparently ANACS agrees with me: This 41mm Octagon graded MS69 (ANACS #5078979, 5027254, or 5027255 -- not sure which slab, it's in my bank safe deposit box).
This is not considered damage and does not affect grading:
https://www.anacs.com/Verify/CertVerification.aspx
This addresses the buyer's concern that the imperfections would affect grading. Suffice it say, it's a moot point because ANACS doesn't accept items larger than 41mm:
https://anacs.com/submitfaq.aspx#subq7
Of course I realize that much of the above discussion really doesn't matter. The buyer already admitted he bought the wrong item. I get it, people make mistakes. Now, it's just of matter of how to correct the error.
Yes, I could go on (and on and on and on) addressing each the buyer's claims & complaints. But enough is enough.
For now, I think my best course of action is wait for ebay's decision.
In conclusion, thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. Special thanks to Dan Carr for his kind offer.
And please don't be offended if I haven't responded to all the comments; they are very much appreciated, but I've been crafting this post for the past 8 hours and haven't been keeping up. (Looks like I've missed dozens of comments.)
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
@Che_Grapes said:
And what else - oh yeah, ANACS does grade d Carr coins to the poster that said they don’t.
.
Yes, ANACS grades DC coins, BUT NOT THIS COIN.
ANACS grades coins up to 41mm, yours is 50mm.
I’m too tired and lazy to read through all of this:
.
No worries, "TL;DR" does not surprise me.
-- 1. No corrections, no editing. Buyer's feedback on ebay is unchanged.
-- 2. In his last post, he repeated his apology that his 3/15 ebay message to me "was not done in good taste..."
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13202084/#Comment_13202084
Maybe I missed or forgot something else. But that's all I recall. And after his last post, I've received nothing else -- no PM's, no ebay messages, no further posts I'm aware of.
That's fine by me.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
Is this going back to DC? I'm lost
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
.
The buyer's BST ad is still up, so maybe nothing is final yet.
Anyway, I haven't heard for sure if it's going to DC, someone else, or ?
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
And still no mention of the edges in the BST
What the hell happened here?
@jessewvu
What happened here can be summed up in two words. Dog knot
Martin
….another dysfunctional family affair. i shoulda known.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I see that the buyer hasn't logged on here since March 20.
I am embarrassed to say that I had to google "dog knot." Eeeeewwwwwwww.
But I think that you assessment is quite accurate.
That's all we need to know about this poster. Rather than acknowledge a mistake and try to make it right, he comes here to play the victim. His post strikes me as nothing less than gaslighting pure and simple. I'm sorry you had to endure this.
Dog knot.. funny 😄
I was thinking it is nothing more than sour grapes 🍇🙀🦫
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶