@PerryHall said:
Should those sellers who offer a 30 day return stipulate in their listing that the buyer is not allowed to show the coin to anyone else to get their opinion of the coin?
How would a distant seller enforce something like that? IMO any buyer even thinking about what the OP was asking couldn't be trusted to adhere to any seller's agreements or conditions.
@Walkerlover said:
My question is dealing with purchasing a coin say on EBay with a 30 day money back return policy. Would it be unethical to submit it to CAC first and keep it if it stickered but return it if it fails. Disclaimer, I haven’t done it or contemplated it but was curious what others think. Perhaps some people have done this already.
I bought raw coins on eBay with the understanding that if it came back DETAILS, that I could return it for purchase price. I would be out the postage and grading costs. Seller agreed and I bought it but it came back DETAILS and I returned it.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
Whether it’s unethical, in bad taste, unfair or whatever phrase you might use it’s not risk free profit. Whoever might attempt this is risking grading and shipping fees and potential loss or damage in the postal system.
On that one coin, sure. But as a pattern of behavior, much less so. When you can return all the "losers" and keep all the "winners" you are guaranteeing yourself a profit by using someone else to fund your inventory.
There is zero potential loss or damage in the postal system. You insure that. All you are risking is the grading/shipping fees to CAC or the TPG. And you are sticking the seller with round-trip shipping costs in exchange, when they have no possibility of "winning".
There is always potential for loss when dealing with the USPS regarding the value of items for which a claim has been submitted. Being made whole by the USPS is not guaranteed.
@PerryHall said:
Should those sellers who offer a 30 day return stipulate in their listing that the buyer is not allowed to show the coin to anyone else to get their opinion of the coin?
How would a distant seller enforce something like that? IMO any buyer even thinking about what the OP was asking couldn't be trusted to adhere to any seller's agreements or conditions.
It was a rhetorical question asked in humor. Of course, the seller has no way of knowing what the buyer does with it during the return period nor should he care as long as the coin and slab is returned undamaged. Of course, many sellers would just block the buyer from his future auctions after multiple returns and I wouldn't blame them.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I recently paid a dealer to submit an NGC coin in his inventory to PCGS for crossover with an agreement that if it crossed I would buy it. I was out grading and shipping fees, but I felt it was worth the risk and was glad the dealer was willing to do it.
@DeplorableDan said: Whether or not the action can be defined as "unethical" is just a matter of semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us feel it's not right. When I originally answered the question, I had to ask myself internally- "Is this something I would do?" My answer- "No".
It's not what I would do either. Maybe what's wrong is so many wanting to judge what someone else does. As outlined by the OP, returning an item within the specified 30 days is OK. Why is that so hard to understand?
@PerryHall said:
Should those sellers who offer a 30 day return stipulate in their listing that the buyer is not allowed to show the coin to anyone else to get their opinion of the coin?
How would a distant seller enforce something like that? IMO any buyer even thinking about what the OP was asking couldn't be trusted to adhere to any seller's agreements or conditions.
It was a rhetorical question asked in humor. Of course, the seller has no way of knowing what the buyer does with it during the return period nor should he care as long as the coin and slab is returned undamaged. Of course, many sellers would just block the buyer from his future auctions after multiple returns and I wouldn't blame them.
I don't sell on eBay, but if I did and had a buyer try to jack me around even once I'd block them.
@Maywood said: @DeplorableDan said: Whether or not the action can be defined as "unethical" is just a matter of semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us feel it's not right. When I originally answered the question, I had to ask myself internally- "Is this something I would do?" My answer- "No".
It's not what I would do either. Maybe what's wrong is so many wanting to judge what someone else does. As outlined by the OP, returning an item within the specified 30 days is OK. Why is that so hard to understand?
Why does eBay think that any buyer needs 30 days in order to decide whether or not that what they bought is unacceptable? That's where the problem/s arise. 5 days is more than adequate. I know that eBay goes out of their way to favor buyers over sellers.
I don’t doubt a lot of players working their angle - trying pick off nice coins off bourse at shows or online - send into CAC, get the sticker, then it’s higher CPG value.
Especially if they have strong grading skills.
A seller (for self protection) would have 14 day return policy (online) and for show sales (sight seen) all transactions are final.
But why stop there?? Let's cut right to it and get around all the self-righteous posturing going on with forum members, because it's sort of sickening to me. If a seller, on eBay/FaceBook/a dealer anywhere offers a "30 day money back return policy" and a buyer returns the coin within that timeframe and asks for a refund then the refund should be given.
If the seller has a problem with that then they shouldn't offer a "30 day money back return policy" to buyers.
What is so difficult to understand here??
What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eBay can force the refund once the item is received back according to tracking. They freeze the sellers payment on the item until returned / refunded. If the item is late or no tracking then no refund to buyer. I guess in that scenario the nice seller returns item to buyer if he gets it back. Otherwise if he doesn’t receive item back too bad so sad / stuff happens. Before refunding make sure you get the item back. Scammers out there.
But why stop there?? Let's cut right to it and get around all the self-righteous posturing going on with forum members, because it's sort of sickening to me. If a seller, on eBay/FaceBook/a dealer anywhere offers a "30 day money back return policy" and a buyer returns the coin within that timeframe and asks for a refund then the refund should be given.
If the seller has a problem with that then they shouldn't offer a "30 day money back return policy" to buyers.
What is so difficult to understand here??
That wasn't the question. That was the opposite question.
If your baby is kidnapped and the kidnapper asks for ransom, you will pay the ransom. That doesn't make the kidnapper's behavior acceptable
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
Whether it’s unethical, in bad taste, unfair or whatever phrase you might use it’s not risk free profit. Whoever might attempt this is risking grading and shipping fees and potential loss or damage in the postal system.
On that one coin, sure. But as a pattern of behavior, much less so. When you can return all the "losers" and keep all the "winners" you are guaranteeing yourself a profit by using someone else to fund your inventory.
There is zero potential loss or damage in the postal system. You insure that. All you are risking is the grading/shipping fees to CAC or the TPG. And you are sticking the seller with round-trip shipping costs in exchange, when they have no possibility of "winning".
There is always potential for loss when dealing with the USPS regarding the value of items for which a claim has been submitted. Being made whole by the USPS is not guaranteed.
Ok. If you like, I'll rephrase: the unethical buyer is taking on minimum risk while willing to inflicting much larger irrecoverable losses on the honest seller.
@124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
@Maywood said: @124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
I agree that anyone dumb enough to essentially loan their coins out on approval for a month tends to get what they get.
Having said that however, that does not magically make a somewhat unethical action ethical, nor does it mean that the seller has to like it. He/she does unfortunately have to accept the outcome since it is he/she who offered a ridiculously long return window. Of course this is all essentially moot anyhow, as eBay has so many escape hatches for buyers/bidders that sellers really should know going in that they are a de facto approval service if the buyer/bidder wishes them to be.
@Maywood said: @124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
I agree that anyone dumb enough to essentially loan their coins out on approval for a month tends to get what they get.
Having said that however, that does not magically make a somewhat unethical action ethical, nor does it mean that the seller has to like it. He/she does unfortunately have to accept the outcome since it is he/she who offered a ridiculously long return window. Of course this is all essentially moot anyhow, as eBay has so many escape hatches for buyers/bidders that sellers really should know going in that they are a de facto approval service if the buyer/bidder wishes them to be.
@Maywood said: @124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
I agree that anyone dumb enough to essentially loan their coins out on approval for a month tends to get what they get.
Having said that however, that does not magically make a somewhat unethical action ethical, nor does it mean that the seller has to like it. He/she does unfortunately have to accept the outcome since it is he/she who offered a ridiculously long return window. Of course this is all essentially moot anyhow, as eBay has so many escape hatches for buyers/bidders that sellers really should know going in that they are a de facto approval service if the buyer/bidder wishes them to be.
Apparently, "self-right·eous" ("having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior") only applies to those who disagree with @Maywood, but not to him. And that's despite his certainty that he is totally correct.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said: @124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
I agree that anyone dumb enough to essentially loan their coins out on approval for a month tends to get what they get.
Having said that however, that does not magically make a somewhat unethical action ethical, nor does it mean that the seller has to like it. He/she does unfortunately have to accept the outcome since it is he/she who offered a ridiculously long return window. Of course this is all essentially moot anyhow, as eBay has so many escape hatches for buyers/bidders that sellers really should know going in that they are a de facto approval service if the buyer/bidder wishes them to be.
@Maywood said: @124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
I agree that anyone dumb enough to essentially loan their coins out on approval for a month tends to get what they get.
Having said that however, that does not magically make a somewhat unethical action ethical, nor does it mean that the seller has to like it. He/she does unfortunately have to accept the outcome since it is he/she who offered a ridiculously long return window. Of course this is all essentially moot anyhow, as eBay has so many escape hatches for buyers/bidders that sellers really should know going in that they are a de facto approval service if the buyer/bidder wishes them to be.
Apparently, "self-right·eous" ("having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior") only applies to those who disagree with @Maywood, but not to him. And that's despite his certainty that he is totally correct.
That's because our opinions are stupid. That cancels his self-righteousness.
I can understand those saying it is not unethical. Because it's not immoral. Braddick I can live by your views on it. It's a good conversation and my thoughts are where they are simply because I am forced by eBay to accept returns, even on auctions. It's not cool to underbidders , and a logistical nuisance to re list stuff. So for those gaming the venue: it's within the rules. I accept that. I disagree with it. I have no choice on eBay.
Comments
How would a distant seller enforce something like that? IMO any buyer even thinking about what the OP was asking couldn't be trusted to adhere to any seller's agreements or conditions.
I bought raw coins on eBay with the understanding that if it came back DETAILS, that I could return it for purchase price. I would be out the postage and grading costs. Seller agreed and I bought it but it came back DETAILS and I returned it.
There is always potential for loss when dealing with the USPS regarding the value of items for which a claim has been submitted. Being made whole by the USPS is not guaranteed.
It was a rhetorical question asked in humor. Of course, the seller has no way of knowing what the buyer does with it during the return period nor should he care as long as the coin and slab is returned undamaged. Of course, many sellers would just block the buyer from his future auctions after multiple returns and I wouldn't blame them.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I recently paid a dealer to submit an NGC coin in his inventory to PCGS for crossover with an agreement that if it crossed I would buy it. I was out grading and shipping fees, but I felt it was worth the risk and was glad the dealer was willing to do it.
@DeplorableDan said: Whether or not the action can be defined as "unethical" is just a matter of semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us feel it's not right. When I originally answered the question, I had to ask myself internally- "Is this something I would do?" My answer- "No".
It's not what I would do either. Maybe what's wrong is so many wanting to judge what someone else does. As outlined by the OP, returning an item within the specified 30 days is OK. Why is that so hard to understand?
I don't sell on eBay, but if I did and had a buyer try to jack me around even once I'd block them.
Why does eBay think that any buyer needs 30 days in order to decide whether or not that what they bought is unacceptable? That's where the problem/s arise. 5 days is more than adequate. I know that eBay goes out of their way to favor buyers over sellers.
I don’t doubt a lot of players working their angle - trying pick off nice coins off bourse at shows or online - send into CAC, get the sticker, then it’s higher CPG value.
Especially if they have strong grading skills.
A seller (for self protection) would have 14 day return policy (online) and for show sales (sight seen) all transactions are final.
What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eBay can force the refund once the item is received back according to tracking. They freeze the sellers payment on the item until returned / refunded. If the item is late or no tracking then no refund to buyer. I guess in that scenario the nice seller returns item to buyer if he gets it back. Otherwise if he doesn’t receive item back too bad so sad / stuff happens. Before refunding make sure you get the item back. Scammers out there.
That wasn't the question. That was the opposite question.
If your baby is kidnapped and the kidnapper asks for ransom, you will pay the ransom. That doesn't make the kidnapper's behavior acceptable
Ok. If you like, I'll rephrase: the unethical buyer is taking on minimum risk while willing to inflicting much larger irrecoverable losses on the honest seller.
@124Spider said: What's "so difficult" for me to understand is how anyone could believe that playing that game is ethical.
eth·i·cal --- relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
mor·al --- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
self-right·eous --- having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Again, the 30 day "unconditional" return is offered, if a coin is returned within that timeframe nothing wrong or bad has been done.
The trouble arises because people choose to be self-righteous and judge others on what they consider right/wrong or good/bad.
I agree that anyone dumb enough to essentially loan their coins out on approval for a month tends to get what they get.
Having said that however, that does not magically make a somewhat unethical action ethical, nor does it mean that the seller has to like it. He/she does unfortunately have to accept the outcome since it is he/she who offered a ridiculously long return window. Of course this is all essentially moot anyhow, as eBay has so many escape hatches for buyers/bidders that sellers really should know going in that they are a de facto approval service if the buyer/bidder wishes them to be.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Apparently, "self-right·eous" ("having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior") only applies to those who disagree with @Maywood, but not to him. And that's despite his certainty that he is totally correct.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Unethical = Not cool.
Ethical = chill.
Be chill in your dealings and stop being uncool.
peacockcoins
So what do we call them - East Side Return Robbers, Pickoff Gang Cartel, PQ Street Mafia…
That's because our opinions are stupid. That cancels his self-righteousness.
I can understand those saying it is not unethical. Because it's not immoral. Braddick I can live by your views on it. It's a good conversation and my thoughts are where they are simply because I am forced by eBay to accept returns, even on auctions. It's not cool to underbidders , and a logistical nuisance to re list stuff. So for those gaming the venue: it's within the rules. I accept that. I disagree with it. I have no choice on eBay.