Satisfied e-bayer threatens to file complaint.Update;settlement reached.
TennesseeDave
Posts: 4,809 ✭✭✭✭✭
I sold an item on e-bay last week.It was the first coins that I had sold in about six years.Anyways I was only selling one item.It was a mint sealed box of 3- 20th anniversary SAE's.I was the original perchaser of these sets and got them just before Halloween last year.I put in my ad that these sets qualify for 1st strike at Pcgs.The shipping date on the box was 10/27/06.I had spoke to a Pcgs rep.last year about the date qualifying for 1st strike.I had a couple of questions about the coins qualifying or not during the 1st couple days of the auction which was on a Sat. and Sun. One person said none of the coins could get the 1st strike designation and another that only the proof coins could.My answer was that i'll call Pcgs on Monday and double-check.So,I did and was told that all the coins could be graded as 1st strike 20th anniv. I then posted this info to my auction and put the phone # to Pcgs in there and urged anyone interested to call and verify this info for themselves.The auction winner paid quickly and left positive feedback after getting the coins.Then a couple days later I get an e-mail from him saying that he had called Pcgs in preparation to submitting the coins and was told that only the proof and rev. proof coin would qualify for the 1st strike designation and wants a refund.The coins were listed as "no return available for this item."
My question is:What should I do and does this buyer have a legitamate complaint?
Edit to add the outcome.
The buyer and I have reached a settlement.He said he would be happy if I refunded $300.00 I agreed to that and did issue his refund.Also spoke with Laura from Pcgs and she appologized for the errant info I got and is sending both of us 8-10 free grading certificates.He gets 10 which covers the entire submission of the 3-20th anniv.sets,and I get another full year subscription to C.U. at the platinum level and 8 free grading certificates.We are both happy with the outcome.Even after the refund ,minus the e-bay fees ,pay-pal fees I still cleared $1200 on the 3 sets.
My question is:What should I do and does this buyer have a legitamate complaint?
Edit to add the outcome.
The buyer and I have reached a settlement.He said he would be happy if I refunded $300.00 I agreed to that and did issue his refund.Also spoke with Laura from Pcgs and she appologized for the errant info I got and is sending both of us 8-10 free grading certificates.He gets 10 which covers the entire submission of the 3-20th anniv.sets,and I get another full year subscription to C.U. at the platinum level and 8 free grading certificates.We are both happy with the outcome.Even after the refund ,minus the e-bay fees ,pay-pal fees I still cleared $1200 on the 3 sets.
Trade $'s
0
Comments
Ignore him.
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
<< <i>I put in my ad that these sets qualify for 1st strike at Pcgs.
Then a couple days later I get an e-mail from him saying that he had called Pcgs in preparation to submitting the coins and was told that only the proof and rev. proof coin would qualify for the 1st strike designation and wants a refund.
My question is:What should I do and does this buyer have a legitamate complaint? >>
I think he has a legitimate complaint, based on the (apparently) errant information you provided.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Your description was inaccurate. You owe him a refund. Period. >>
That pretty much sums it up.
As I understand it, PCGS told you all could get the FS label, because of the sealed mint carton with the shipping date.
If the buyer opened it, even just to check the contents, NOW only the proofs can get the FS label. But it's his own fault.
Get them back, keep them a few years. And sell them raw for more money. Thats my vote.
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
<< <i>If the buyer opened it, even just to check the contents, NOW only the proofs can get the FS label. But it's his own fault. >>
Not so. The reverse proofs still qualify for the 20th anniversay designation but not anything else. No coins will qualify for FS.
I agree with those that say your description was incorrect. In all fairness, he did not get what he paid for according to your description. You should give the buyer a refund. I would.
<< <i>First Strike designation for 3pc Silver 20th Anniversary sets:
To get the 20th Anniversary First Strike designation, the sets must come to PCGS sealed in the original government boxes they were shipped in.
The box must be unopened.
The shipment date on the shipping label must be October 24th or earlier to get all 3 coins 20th Anniversary First Strike, or November 11th or earlier to get the Proof and Reverse Proof 20th Anniversary First Strike.
Any opened boxes or sets shipped loose out of the government boxes DO NOT qualify for First Strike except for the Reverse Proof Silver Eagle which qualifies until November 11th, 2006 >>
You made an honest mistake based on the erroneous guidelines you were given by a PCGS employee (not surprising). If the buyer has not opened the box, you should take it back since you would lose the dispute.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Link???
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
The moral of the story is:
2 out of 3 ain't bad ™
I get an e-mail from him saying that he had called PCGS in preparation to submitting the coins and was told that only the proof and rev. proof coin would qualify for the 1st strike designation and wants a refund
And for part two of your question:
No, the buyer doesn't have a legitimate complaint.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Offer a buy back if buyer is not happy.
The moral of the story is:
2 out of 3 ain't bad ™
I get an e-mail from him saying that he had called PCGS in preparation to submitting the coins and was told that only the proof and rev. proof coin would qualify for the 1st strike designation and wants a refund
And for part two of your question:
No, the buyer doesn't have a legitimate complaint. >>
Problem being the seller did not advertise it being a 2 out of 3 box. Item not as descibed, and he should refund the payment before PayPal makes him do it.
Also, IF HIS satisfaction was based on his being able to submit to PCGS for FS designation, then why did he leave positive feedback so fast.... he should have waited to be denied by PCGS....
So, being that you spoke to someone at PCGS that verified this, I hope you wrote down that persons name and can pass it along to the buyer. You also may want to call PCGS again and explain the situation and get full clarification. You may be able to get it resolved that way, but if not - I'd agree that a refund is in order if you receive the item in the same condition as you shipped it to the buyer.
If two of the three coins qualify for 1st Strike, give him a refund and resell them provided the original box has not been opened. This appears to be a savy buyer so I really don't think the original shipping box has been opened unlike what many are indicating. Open box, NO FIRST STRIKE on either the Proof or the Reverse Proof. 20th Anniversary Designation only for the RP.
Now, a link would be nice or even a selling price which may garner you some PM Offers for your troubles.
If I bought that set of three and ended up with 3 First Strike RP70 Reverse Proofs, I wouldn't whine a bit!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>If it was clear that you do not take returns, then he has to bite the bullet >>
Not if the item is determined by PayPal to be not as described.
Was the auction description erroneous? Yes or no.
From a practical stand point, PayPal would seem to agree.
<< <i>The perils of leaving positive feedback as a buyer before verifying the validity of the auction description? >>
The perils as a buyer of not verifying the validity of the auction description before bidding.
<< <i>
<< <i>The perils of leaving positive feedback as a buyer before verifying the validity of the auction description? >>
The perils as a buyer of not verifying the validity of the auction description before bidding. >>
The perils of believing a seller will behave ethically?
<< <i>This appears to be a savy buyer >>
Not real smart, if he doesn't know how to use a telephone to verify PCGS' first strike policy.
<< <i>Not if the item is determined by PayPal to be not as described >>
Good luck on that one. PayPal requires a letter from "an expert" explaining in what exact way the item is not as described. Furthermore, the buyer then has to return the item to the seller (in its original condition) and the BUYER pays shipping. Once all this is done, then PayPal MAY refund his money.
I say you don't owe him a refund. You acted in good faith. If he's too stupid to call PCGS to verify FS information before he bids, then that's his own fault.
In regards to why the seller didn't send them in on his own, I'm sure he has his reasons. Some I can think of would be 1) I don't have a subscription and don't need one. 2) I was happy keeping them in the sealed mint box of issue. 3) I couldn't afford the cash or 4) I needed the cash and wanted to sell quickly. This stupid question doesn't really make a difference in this whole thing. The auction was for a mint-sealed box.
<< <i>Would smoeone please explain how only 2 of the 3 coins in a set would qualify for the FS designation. >>
The UNC version was released in the two coin set (silver/gold) before the full SAE set, so for the UNC version to qualify it had to have been shipped within 30 days of the two coin set release date. Now, I don't really understand how the regular proof qualifies at all using that logic since the regular proof had been our for 6 months before the set was sold.
<< <i>If you say that a coin has a shot at MS70 and it doesn't get it, are you obligated to give a refund? NO! >>
I don't see how this is relevant because this is not the case being discussed. A more similar example would be if you said a coin had a shot at a PCGS MS70 and it's a coin that PCGS flat out doesn't grade.
<< <i>You called PCGS and they said that the box qualified. >>
Does the seller have any proof that PCGS said the boxed coins qualified?
<< <i>It's the buyer's responsibility to call PCGS to see if they qualify. >>
It's the buyer's responsibility if the seller doesn't make the claim. If the seller makes a false claim, it is the seller's responsibility. It's called false advertising.
<< <i>The auction was for a mint-sealed box. >>
Wrong, the auction was for a mint-sealed box that qualified for First Strike Submission for all three coins. If the seller states that as fact, and the set does not qualify the seller is obligated to accept the return. Now, if the seller had only stated the date on the box and said he thinks it may qualify, then it would be the buyers responsibility to verify the eligibility of the coins.
The PCGS info in this thread would be sufficient
for PayPal to decide in the buyer's favor on a
SNAD claim. If the buyer used a credit-card, the
issuing company is his back-up.
Sadly, the listing had a good-faith error in it.
That means the buyer eventually prevails, if
he pursues his refund.
It might be best to try to get the buyer to
cooperate by shipping the items back and
agreeing to a mutual-cancellation of the sale.
(EBAY FVFs would be returned to the OP.)
EBAY is a perilous place for buyers and sellers.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would smoeone please explain how only 2 of the 3 coins in a set would qualify for the FS designation. >>
The UNC version was released in the two coin set (silver/gold) before the full SAE set, so for the UNC version to qualify it had to have been shipped within 30 days of the two coin set release date. Now, I don't really understand how the regular proof qualifies at all using that logic since the regular proof had been our for 6 months before the set was sold. >>
The proof coin in the 20th anniversary sets has a different pedigree than the ASE that came out earler, altough they are the same coin, they are labeled different.
Russ, NCNE
the buyer has a RESPONSIBILITY to research what they are
buying. the buyer could have called PCGS themself.
no refund for losers who buy at an AUCTION and then want
their money back when there is not a single problem with the
coins.
the problem lies with GREED on the BUYERS part and his
stupidity.
<< <i>the buyer could have called PCGS themself. >>
And, he quite possibly may have gotten the same incorrect info they provided the seller. Bottom line is that the seller's statements were incorrect, and the bidders relied on these statements.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>i cannot believe what i am reading.
the buyer has a RESPONSIBILITY to research what they are
buying. the buyer could have called PCGS themself.
no refund for losers who buy at an AUCTION and then want
their money back when there is not a single problem with the
coins.
the problem lies with GREED on the BUYERS part and his
stupidity. >>
Problem is the seller made a mistake (intentional or not) based or erroneous information he received from a PCGS employee by saying the box qualified for the 'First Strike' designation in his listing. Since the box clearly does not and the buyer accepted the sellers premise that it did when he purchased the item, he should receive a refund from the seller.
and the bidder's relied on these statements."
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sad, but true.
do you believe every person's personal grade on raw coins?
if off by +-1 grade, you should get a return? at an auction?
lol, many people here are so odd.
the whole pcgs grading part is secondary to his info that said:
no returns.
is that too tough to understand? NO RETURNS. heh.
stop supporting stupid buyers and their greed.
no return. he gets nada. ignore him.
<< <i>do you believe every person's personal grade on raw coins?
if off by +-1 grade, you should get a return? at an auction? >>
Grading is subjective. There is nothing subjective about the cutoff date for FS designation.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>all information in the auction should be considered bad!
do you believe every person's personal grade on raw coins?
if off by +-1 grade, you should get a return? at an auction?
lol, many people here are so odd.
the whole pcgs grading part is secondary to his info that said:
no returns.
is that too tough to understand? NO RETURNS. heh.
stop supporting stupid buyers and their greed.
no return. he gets nada. ignore him. >>
Unfortunately for the seller, PayPal would have a different view if he refuses to refund the buyers money for making erroneous claims.
what does that have to do with an auction for some coins?
it is up to the buyer to research that crap. FS, the whole concept
stinks and the buyer.
the whole claim is "i am an uneducated buyer who is unhappy
with my purchase because of FOO".
the coins are nice, i just do not like the "date on the box".
----------
i cannot be convinced by their arguements. i am too jaded about
coin collecting now days. this was an auction that had in print
the words, " no returns ".
the product is and was what it shall always be. some coins.
---
also adding, good thread. i like a bit of arguing and debate over
my first cup of caffiene. an auction to me, has always been no return.
heck, i have never returned a coin bought at auction. all the risk
is on me.
<< <i>do you believe every person's personal grade on raw coins?
if off by +-1 grade, you should get a return? at an auction? >>
A grade is an opinion. Whether a box qualifies for FS is not.
<< <i>is that too tough to understand? NO RETURNS. heh. >>
Umm, what about eBay policies which says "Do not include: Anything that is not true."? Is this something that can get the seller NARUed?
How about this example, a seller ask someone if a fake Trade Dollar is real and he receives a "yes" answer. The seller lists it on eBay as a real Trade Dollar, is he off the hook?
the product was clearly described.
it appears the seller and the buyer were both wrong.
the buyer takes all the risk at an auction. the product is
not defective, fake, etc..
the buyer should have researched more. i guess i perfer personal
responsibility when it comes to these things.