Looks like this guy was a rip off - and Braddick vouched for him
relayer
Posts: 10,570 ✭
Steve got his first neg
But it looks like he'll still make $4300 (less ebay fees)
And Braddick vouched for the guy
My posts viewed
timessince 8/1/6
0
Comments
42/92
<< <i>Could be wrong >>
24 hrs and a neg ?
musta been a serious pissing match !
<< <i>Something weird here !
24 hrs and a neg ?
musta been a serious pissing match ! >>
Yeah, such as a 0-feedback seller selling a high-end, rare coin without being able to show any proof that he owns it...
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>I think Braddick's post was sarcastic though... >>
And you think you know how to detect sarcasim?
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>I think Braddick's post was sarcastic though... >>
Ya think?
If I were a buyer on future auctions by this seller, first I would not buy this type of coin without more feedback, but second, I would not take this negative into account if I had checked out the times. This negative is not realistic.
...is sure it's a scam. He left it only four hours after the end of the auction. What he said above doesn't mean it's a scam -- it makes it more suspicious, sure, but unless there's more to the story that the high bidder knows, it's hard to conclude "scam" after four hours have passed.
<< <i>I think Braddick's post was sarcastic though... >>
Gee...ya think?
Zero feedback record, no references, no escrow, no face to face meeting, SCAM >>
I interpret this to mean that the buyer contacted the seller asking him to use an escrow service or to make the transaction face to face.
There really isn't any reason a legitimate seller wouldn't use eBay's escrow if the buyer were willing to cover all the fees.
The seller said no, so the buyer is now sure it is a scam and thus is leaving this neg.
This communiction could take place in a 4 hour time span, so I don't see anything suspicious.
As for making $4,300, it's clear from the feedback that the buyer didn't pay, so actually the seller is out the listing and final value fees, unless he files a NPB.
<< <i>I interpret this to mean that the buyer contacted the seller asking him to use an escrow service or to make the transaction face to face.
The seller said no, so the buyer is now sure it is a scam and thus is leaving this neg.
This communiction could take place in a 4 hour time span, so I don't see anything suspicious. >>
The communication could happen in four hours, but again -- while this is certainly legitimate reason to be suspicious and I'd not touch this with a fifty-foot pole, it's certainly not *proof* of a scam.
Maybe the buyer contacted the seller before bidding and asked if face-to-face or escrow was possible, and the seller said it was. If so, yes, the buyer would be justified in negging the seller if they went back on their word. But if the buyer asked for these things only after the auction is over, the seller is under no obligation to meet those terms. Maybe the seller is concerned about being robbed if he brings a coin worth several thousand dollars somewhere?
I guess the neg and the claim of a scam could be legit based on details we don't know. But from what we can see on the public record, the buyer has given no evidence that this is a scam, merely reasons to be suspicious that it *could* be a scam.
It turns out that I know him and he's one of the good guys. He had strongly suspected a scam and his suspicions were reinforced when the seller would not accept escrow or a face to face transaction. That, along with the seller's Ebay "history" and the nature of his offerings justified the negative feedback (and warning to others), in the eyes of the high bidder.
It should be obvious Braddick was being scarcastic.
<< <i>I want to here Braddick's side of the story. >>
I stick by my original story. Steve's a good guy. You can't judge someone based on only ONE single negative feedback.
Glass houses and stones gentlemen. Glass houses.
peacockcoins
<< <i>I contacted the high bidder after I saw he had left negative feedback so quickly.
It turns out that I know him and he's one of the good guys. He had strongly suspected a scam and his suspicions were reinforced when the seller would not accept escrow or a face to face transaction. That, along with the seller's Ebay "history" and the nature of his offerings justified the negative feedback (and warning to others), in the eyes of the high bidder. >>
If I was a seller of a high priced coin, I wouldn't accept escrow or a face-to-face transaction. If you don't like my terms, don't bid. That's no reason for a negative and doesn't prove it's a scam. With knowing only the little bit of the story that we know, the buyer is WAY out of line leaving a negative over this. If you are going to make an offer to buy on ebay, accept the payment terms listed. Send the money and see if the coin ends up in your mailbox. THEN, if it doesn't, post a negative.
I understand this forum being gun shy on ebay sellers, but this one is out of line. Apparently Steve is a new ebayer or has a new ebay ID and according to a fellow forum member, a good guy. He wants to sell a high priced coin. Suddenly he is a scam artist because the buyer wanted to get it on different terms? This forum has to get under control. We all know that there are questionable sellers on ebay. We all know there have been people who come to this forum looking for advice on "grandpa's hoard". Let's not black list everyone who is new. Give a new person a chance. Maybe they are legit and maybe not. Hear what they have to say first before nailing them to a wall. This kind of treatment is a sure fire way to turn people off of this forum.
Forgive me, but I thought this forum was here to discuss coins, compare coins, and share the hobby. Guess I'm in the wrong place.
Feedback left by a member who bid on or purchased an item solely to have the opportunity to leave negative feedback for the seller, with no intention of completing the transaction.
If the terms of sale said nothing about escrow or a face-to-face transaction, and if the buyer had no intention of completing the sale unless those unspecified terms were met, it could be argued that the buyer had no intention to complete the deal based on the terms of the auction.
<< <i> Let's not black list everyone who is new. Give a new person a chance. Maybe they are legit and maybe not. Hear what they have to say first before nailing them to a wall. This kind of treatment is a sure fire way to turn people off of this forum. Forgive me, but I thought this forum was here to discuss coins, compare coins, and share the hobby. Guess I'm in the wrong place. >>
I don't think anyone is being nailed to any walls or blacklisted.
However, I think it is an interesting discussion about the murky waters of ebay including these potential traps:
- The risks of buying coins in ebay, especially high-priced ones
- The degree to which little or no feedback affects your trust of a seller.
- What exactly "deserves" a negative.
<< <i>Apparently Steve is a new ebayer or has a new ebay ID and according to a fellow forum member, a good guy >>
Tmot99, the fellow forum member was being facetious, not serious, in his endorsement of the seller. Also, I am confident that the high bidder gave the seller every reasonable chance to show he was legitimate, before leaving the negative feedback.
<< <i>
<< <i>Apparently Steve is a new ebayer or has a new ebay ID and according to a fellow forum member, a good guy >>
Tmot99, the fellow forum member was being facetious, not serious, in his endorsement of the seller. Also, I am confident that the high bidder gave the seller every reasonable chance to show he was legitimate, before leaving the negative feedback. >>
That's interesting. Only going by the buyer's request are considered sales "every reasonable chance". Is that how you would request I do business with you? I tell YOU how to do business or how you will get me a coin I want to buy?
I thought that ebay follows the sellers terms.
Russ, NCNE
coin of that price or magnitude,if the buyer felt it was a rip,or the seller felt he got good money,somebody should have stepped up and paid for escrow !
cant believe a neg after 4 hours unless something really shakey happened.
EX: the buyer knows that someone else owns or owned the coin and and contacted the owner who responded with " thats my coin and it is not for sale !"
We really need more info before throwing bricks !
<< <i>It's incredible that anybody could think there is even a remote chance that auction was not a scam. >>
It's not that I don't think it was likely to be a scam. When you look at everything: no feedback, no references, an insanely low starting bid with no reserve -- in terms of circumstantial evidence, it *does* scream out "this is a scam, stay far, far away."
It's just that *based on what is known*, it sounds like the buyer wanted to impose his own terms after the sale, terms which were not part of the actual auction. And when the seller refused to give special terms, the buyer negged him. I believe it probably was a scam, but in this case, I'm not sure it's ethical to neg someone unless you *know* it is a scam. Merely refusing to accept after-the-fact terms on the seller's part does not prove a scam or bad faith on the seller's part.
Again, if this buyer contacted the seller *before bidding* about escrow and/or meeting face-to-face and the seller accepted it, *then* the negative is justified if the seller wouldn't do it once the auction closed. But unless the winning bidder makes themselves known and confirms that or gives more details to let everyone conclude "scam" beyond a reasonable doubt, I think this was an itchy trigger finger and a presumption of guilt.
<< <i>It's just that *based on what is known*, it sounds like the buyer wanted to impose his own terms after the sale >>
Actually, it sounds more like the buyer saw the auction for what it was and bid to protect the unwary.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i> it sounds like the buyer wanted to impose his own terms after the sale, terms which were not part of the actual auction. And when the seller refused to give special terms, the buyer negged him >>
Ziggy29, I do not know the seller but I do know the buyer.
I don't claim to know every detail and you need not agree with me. But, the buyer did not want to "impose his own terms" - he wanted the seller to prove he owned the coin and could/would make good on the transaction. Knowing the buyer as I do, he would not have left negative feedback casually, without good cause or considering all of the pertinent circumstances.
I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, most likely a scam, but who knows? My point was merely that just because someone tries to sell an expensive coin with no feedback doesn't make him a scam and this forum is known for jumping right to that conclusion. I know many many people who have never bid or sold anything on ebay. I'll warn them not to sell my coins on ebay when I kick. But, they may actually get the highest dollar there. Trust me, no scam in my collection.
Russ:
I'm sure glad that "buyer" is out there to protect the public. If someone wants to put that kind of money out on a coin on ebay to a seller without feedback, who cares? I'm not about to do it, but I would assume that there is someone who would. Why does anyone feel the need to protect buyers stupid purchases?
<< <i>I don't claim to know every detail and you need not agree with me. But, the buyer did not want to "impose his own terms" - he wanted the seller to prove he owned the coin and could/would make good on the transaction. Knowing the buyer as I do, he would not have left negative feedback casually, without good cause or considering all of the pertinent circumstances. >>
That's fair enough. If he merely asked the seller to prove he owned the coin before sending payment and the seller refused, that's fine. I think that's more than reasonable. This may be one of those cases where the limit on feedback length prevented the actual details from being presentable.
<< <i>This may be one of those cases where the limit on feedback length prevented the actual details from being presentable >>
I have often wished more space were allowed in which to leave more helpful and meaningful feedback.
But, Paypal will nick the guy what ? 120-150 bucks in fees ?
However,the escrow ? still comes up.
Sure i can send ya 4500.00 bucks,when do i get my coin ?
There is still a lot more here than we know !
It seems like the turnip truck was in town last night and quite a few people fell off.
The Seller steven_gonzale joined Jul-23 and listed two coins worth about $10k with no reserve and coinguy posted if any one knew the seller, to which Braddick replied...
<< <i>Could be wrong, but that looks like steven Gonzales coin. He's been on eBay for a few hours now, so it's cool, you can trust him. >>
For those of you who don't think that is hilarious, please click on all emails requesting your personal information and load up on raw gold from sellers in Romania.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Well that whole cashiers check or MO is a red FLAG !
But, Paypal will nick the guy what ? 120-150 bucks in fees ?
However,the escrow ? still comes up.
Sure i can send ya 4500.00 bucks,when do i get my coin ?
There is still a lot more here than we know ! >>
As much as people often use the fees as an excuse not to accept PayPal, I've found that a lot of people won't bid if they can't use it, and that therefore an auction accepting PayPal brings more bidders and likely a higher selling price which more than offsets the fees.
Good detective work Ryana
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Positive ID.
Here is where the images and descriptions were taken from:
http://www.sellcoins.com/Dealer/eye/read/Item.asp?Web_ItemID=891 >>
Nice detective work!
Anybody still want to give this scammer the benefit of the doubt?
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>This may be one of those cases where the limit on feedback length prevented the actual details from being presentable >>
I have often wished more space were allowed in which to leave more helpful and meaningful feedback. >>
You know, there actually may be a sneaky way to do this...
<< <i>It's incredible that anybody could think there is even a remote chance that auction was not a scam.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ, I wonder the same thing...I think they're drawn from the same pool of people that line up to buy from 97% positive power sellers.
GUILTY !
Nice work !
<< <i>If you want to try an change the sellers terms, do it before you bid. FOLLOW THE SELLERS RULES OR DONT BID! >>
Wallstreetman,
Do you ever bother to read the content of a thread before replying?
Russ, NCNE
I was never giving the seller the benefit of the doubt. From what Mark says, the winning bidder did. My only comment is that if you weren't interested in sending the money, don't bid. If you were foolish enough to bid, shame on you.
Why is this forum the coin police? If someone is stupid enough to place a bid like this one, it's their own fault.
I contacted the buyer of the $3 Princess yesterday and told him to check the sellers feedback now before sending money and got this reply today:
<< <i>
I did he has zero feedback except for one recent negetive.He declined escrow.com and offered free shipping etc.I told him to forget it I am passing on this transaction. This character reeks with fraud. Thank you for the email warning its nice when people care about others. >>
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Why is this forum the coin police? If someone is stupid enough to place a bid like this one, it's their own fault. >>
<< <i>Thank you for the email warning its nice when people care about others. >>
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Why is this forum the coin police? If someone is stupid enough to place a bid like this one, it's their own fault. >>
That could be a whole thread unto itself!