Is it wrong to leave negative feedback for an Ebay seller in this situation?

[MarkFeld]

I am purposely keeping this somewhat vague for now, but....

 

Let's say you win and receive a coin through Ebay and are convinced that the seller intentionally misrepresented the item. Your conclusion is based on the seller's description and/or images, which failed to mention or show a prominent defect which you believe should have been mentioned.

 

Please take it as a given that you are certain that the seller would allow a return, but you would rather keep the item and leave negative feedback in order to warn others.

 

On one hand, it could be argued that before leaving negative feedback, the buyer should allow the seller an opportunity to remedy the situation - work with the seller. But on the other hand, it could be argued that if the seller is guilty of intentional misrepresentation, there is no practical remedy other than to warn others, instead of merely hoping he won't do it again next time.

 

Is it unfair/wrong to leave negative feedback under these circumstances?

 

 

[MunkyMan95]

I'd let the seller make good on the transaction, and if they refused to do that, then I would neg them.

[MTHead-migration]

....but you would rather keep the item and leave negative feedback in order to warn others.

 

Sounds like my mind is already made up. Neg the seller. "Unfair/wrong" doesn't seem to be a consideration.

[bsshog40]

I would contact the seller first to get his response to the coin first. If he seemed like he was not aware of the defect and wanted to remedy the situation, then negative would not be the way I would go. If he got upset and was rude, usually this shows that he was aware of the defect. This is where the situation would turn to refund is the buyer wants. A few scenarios would be present here before a negative would be given in my case. If he refused refund, then yes negative. If he offered refund and buyer kept coin, then I feel a nuetral could be given here. If he offered refund and buyer sent back, then I don't know if feedback can be given?? JMO

[Tradedollarnut]

There is a rather infamous 1875 trade dollar in an MS65 rattler holder floating around. I purchased the coin off ebay years ago with a very strong bid of $19,000 based upon the seller's pictures. The images, of course, didn't show the very prominent slide mark in the left obverse field that [iMO] made the coin very low end - a problem coin to be avoided. I negotiated a $3,000 return fee to the seller since he didn't offer a return privilege but I didn't want the coin. I figured I'd have lost $5k or more if I'd have kept it.

 

I ended up giving the seller positive feedback for working with me on the return. I wasn't pleased with his images, but I kept it positive and lost less than I would have otherwise.

 

So, yes - I think it unfair to not give the seller a chance to fix the problem.

[jesbroken]

Unless this is a repeat poor product or there is evidence that this is a regular event with this seller, I would always give the seller a chance to refund my purchase with the freight. I would eat nothing. If they did that I would not neg them but would give them a neutral explaining the coin was inappropriate for the advertised auction but was refunded 100% by the seller. This does not destroy the seller's reputation but offers the public a chance to see that everything is not roses with this seller. If this was done regularly by buyers it would prevent the seller from just making it right the few times that people complain yet continue to sell junk. As a buyer, what would you think of a seller that had multiple neurtral feedbacks-all indicating a problem with the stated auction product's quality or condition? JMO

 

Edited to add: Sorry Mark, I didn't answer your posted question-Yes, I would think a negative feedback would be unfair at this stage.

[ldhair]

It's unfair, was my first thought.

Being convinced that the seller intentionally misrepresented the item makes me question that.

If the seller was a bad guy from China, I might think it's fair. It's a tough question but I do believe a person should try to work out problems before giving a neg.

 

[MorganMan]

"prominent defect which you believe should have been mentioned"

 

 

Since that statment can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, and if he makes good on the transaction, then he gets a positive....or at least a neutral. If not, neg him.....

 

Making good to me would mean refunding ALL money you paid, including shipping both ways.....

 

MM

[gmarguli]

Yes, it is very wrong/unfair to leave negative feedback in this situation. You cannot assume that this flaw was intentionally ignored and then outright fail to allow the seller to defend their position and/or make it right.

 

You have made the assumption that the defect was intentionally not mentioned. You are assuming that the seller noticed it. Perhaps they didn't? Think of it this way, while at NGC did you ever bodybag a coin for a mount being removed? Do you think the submitter noticed this major problem and still submitted it or did they just not see something that you did? Or perhaps the seller noticed the defect, but didn't think it was important.

 

In the situation you described, I think you have the following options depending on if you keep/return the coin:

 

1) Leave standard Positive feedback.

2) Leave Positive feedback detailing problem.

3) Leave Positive feedback detailing problem and thanking seller for honoring return privilege.

4) Leave no feedback.

 

 

I would not leave a Negative unless seller failed to honor the return privilege. I would not leave a neutral. That is a wimps negative.

[World Colonial]

I believe that the seller needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, most eBay sellers do not disclose problems with coins (primarily cleaned coin that are not eligible for grading) that might not be obvious or apparent from the image. That is why I always ask if I am in doubt.

 

But just as it applies to eBay sellers, this is equally true to dealers. I bought a coin last week that was harshly cleaned. Now the coin was cheap (and you know the rule, if it is to good to be true....) but I did ask them if it it was cleaned and they said if it had been it was not recent. Well, maybe it was not recent but the coin's eye appeal looked terrible and any dealer with 40 years experice (as they claimed) should have known that. So I am going to return it and probably will not buy from that dealer again.

[TomB]

If the seller provides a full return for you then I would think that at the absolute worst you could leave a neutral as a warning. However, if the return is a truly smooth, problem-free return then you might leave positive feedback that described the return process for the problem coin.

[Revenant]

I would agree that you need to give the seller the chance to make it good, but if they show any reluctance to work with you then immediately neg them.

 

That said, there was this one time where a seller was a real individual_without_enough_empathy so I convinced them to leave me positive feedback, then I filed an "item not received" dispute with Paypal, got my money refunded 100% and then I hit them with a negative feedback. I never received the item and like I said, they REALLY pissed me off...

[rexcat]

I feel that if you say nothing to the seller and keep the coin you should leave a positive feedback due to the fact you kept the coin, this in itself gives the appearance(in the Ebay world anyway) of a satisfied buyer in that auction. As would your contacting the seller about the coin, of course he knew nothing about this prominent defect and is shocked to hear about, so he offers a better price on the coin and you keep it or you return the coin for a refund. Either way this would warrant a positive feedback again.

 

Ebay is and will always be a place where buyers must be on their toes all the time especially with rare coins. For several reasons the feedback system does little in truly gauging the honesty and business practices of the sellers, many less then happy buyers leave positive feedback not wanting a black mark they may get from leaving a negative rating for a seller.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

For the record, I believe that the buyer should have inquired about the reverse and the absence of an image of that side. But I am also of the opinion that this gives a good indication (though not proof) that the seller deliberately withheld important information about the item's condition.

 

What if the buyer had asked for and been given permission to return the coin for a full refund? And what if he left no feedback or neutral or positive feedback? How would that have "made things right" if the seller was deliberately deceitful (and I'm not saying it's a given that he was)?

[bsshog40]

Well seeing this picture Mark only indicates that decisions cannot be made correctly without all of the information. I would say that this should have been mentioned or pictured. I would still let the seller make good, but I would agree this was deceiving!

[gmarguli]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

Perhaps the seller considers those scratches nothing major on an item that is 95 years old?

[pendragon1998]

My thoughts:

 

I think that IF there's a problem with an item recieved and IF there is sufficient evidence that the seller was being deliberately deceitful (as opposed to ignorant) then even if the seller refunded the money and "makes it right", they deserve a neg. The other buyers out there ought to know that this person is deceitful. Such a seller should not be able to simply buy his way out of a neg, get the item back and then (likely) relist the item to scam another buyer.

 

If there's some doubt the seller deliberately deceived the buyer (actively or through omission), but it's also not a sure thing that it was a simple mistake, then a neutral or no feedback is warranted. Which one depends on how the seller responds (i.e., if they're a jerk, then a neutral, if they're nice, then no f/b)

 

If there is a reasonable explanation that indicates this was a reasonable mistake made and the seller makes an effort to repair the situation, that's cause for a positive (but one listing the problem and the resolution)

 

If there was a reasonable mistake made and the seller is an , that's cause for a neg.

 

 

[MunkyMan95]

Would it make any difference if everyone knew that this was only a $15 item?

[MarkFeld]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

Perhaps the seller considers those scratches nothing major on an item that is 95 years old?

And perhaps it's just a coincidence that he didn't bother to provide an image of that side.

 

Would it make any difference if everyone knew that this was only a $15 item?

Should it excuse the seller if the item was of low value? And if so, at what price level would it matter?

 

My thoughts:

 

I think that IF there's a problem with an item recieved and IF there is sufficient evidence that the seller was being deliberately deceitful (as opposed to ignorant) then even if the seller refunded the money and "makes it right", they deserve a neg. The other buyers out there ought to know that this person is deceitful. Such a seller should not be able to simply buy his way out of a neg, get the item back and then (likely) relist the item to scam another buyer.

 

If there's some doubt the seller deliberately deceived the buyer (actively or through omission), but it's also not a sure thing that it was a simple mistake, then a neutral or no feedback is warranted. Which one depends on how the seller responds (i.e., if they're a jerk, then a neutral, if they're nice, then no f/b)

 

If there is a reasonable explanation that indicates this was a reasonable mistake made and the seller makes an effort to repair the situation, that's cause for a positive (but one listing the problem and the resolution)

 

If there was a reasonable mistake made and the seller is an *spoon*, that's cause for a neg.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting essentially how I feel about it.

 

 

[gmarguli]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

Perhaps the seller considers those scratches nothing major on an item that is 95 years old?

And perhaps it's just a coincidence that he didn't bother to provide an image of that side.

 

Very possibly. Are we talking about a coin with actual detail on one side or a tin can with no detail as pictured?

[MarkFeld]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

Perhaps the seller considers those scratches nothing major on an item that is 95 years old?

And perhaps it's just a coincidence that he didn't bother to provide an image of that side.

 

Very possibly. Are we talking about a coin with actual detail on one side or a tin can with no detail as pictured?

I don't have an image of the other side but it was described as: "Adorned with a woman in relief in the center of the coin. The coin is marked: 'The Winter Garden National Beauty Contest 1912'. It has a plain back......"

[TomB]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

Perhaps the seller considers those scratches nothing major on an item that is 95 years old?

And perhaps it's just a coincidence that he didn't bother to provide an image of that side.

 

Very possibly. Are we talking about a coin with actual detail on one side or a tin can with no detail as pictured?

I don't have an image of the other side but it was described as: "Adorned with a woman in relief in the center of the coin. The coin is marked: 'The Winter Garden National Beauty Contest 1912'. It has a plain back......"

Well, we all know it isn't a coin. The additional detail that states the medal has a plain back makes the seller much more sympathetic, in my opinion, than your more recent posts (those with the image) would indicate. I still believe it is wrong to neg the seller if the seller acts in a manner consistent with my first post. Sorry, Mark, but I don't believe you can protect everyone all the time from every possible event.

[MarkFeld]

Would it make any difference if the seller described the (1912) item as "This coin is in excellent condition for its age....It is made of tarnished silver...." and included an image of a problem-free obverse, but not one of the reverse, which looks like this?

 

Perhaps the seller considers those scratches nothing major on an item that is 95 years old?

And perhaps it's just a coincidence that he didn't bother to provide an image of that side.

 

Very possibly. Are we talking about a coin with actual detail on one side or a tin can with no detail as pictured?

I don't have an image of the other side but it was described as: "Adorned with a woman in relief in the center of the coin. The coin is marked: 'The Winter Garden National Beauty Contest 1912'. It has a plain back......"

Well, we all know it isn't a coin. The additional detail that states the medal has a plain back makes the seller much more sympathetic, in my opinion, than your more recent posts (those with the image) would indicate. I still believe it is wrong to neg the seller if the seller acts in a manner consistent with my first post. Sorry, Mark, but I don't believe you can protect everyone all the time from every possible event.

Fair enough Tom, and I had meant to include the description in an earlier post.

[michael]

leave negative feedback.......................

 

it is okie and in fact of good moral fibre to leave a warming sign

 

forewarned is forearmed

 

 

[IrishMike]

Not to spoil your party Mark but I would do a search on toolhaus to find out what others had to say about this seller. As a matter of fact I did and it all sounds familiar. He even though has a 99.9% rating is not someone I would buy from. His feedback suggests to me that he purposely left out info. For that amount of money I would neg him as a warning to others to stay away. For a higher amount I would expect him to honor a return and even if he did I would at the least leave him a neutral. Too many of the 46 or so that left him a neutral probably should have negged him.

[MarkFeld]

Not to spoil your party Mark but I would do a search on toolhaus to find out what others had to say about this seller. As a matter of fact I did and it all sounds familiar. He even though has a 99.9% rating is not someone I would buy from. His feedback suggests to me that he purposely left out info. For that amount of money I would neg him as a warning to others to stay away. For a higher amount I would expect him to honor a return and even if he did I would at the least leave him a neutral. Too many of the 46 or so that left him a neutral probably should have negged him.

Mike, you didn't spoil the party. On the contrary, you livened it up.

 

I had read some of his Toolhaus feedback before I posted here. I didn't interject it at the beginning though, partly to see if posters would raise the issue of previous feedback, a pattern, etc.

[D.D.]

What do you think of this feedback left by the buyer of the coin in the OP?

 

The seller charges $9.99 for shipping, which is high, but it's in plain veiw and listed in the auction. The buyer neg the seller for high shipping charges. Link to auction

 

 

Charged $10 shipping when actual postage < $3. Absolutely no response to email Seller: falconecoins ( 1043) Oct-03-07 11:38

Reply by falconecoins (Oct-09-07 13:43):

email was dwn neg mark not warranted a simple phoncall I wld have refnded loser!

 

-- (#170140303902)

 

[pendragon1998]

I'm hard-pressed to remember the last time my email was down (yahoo mail or school provided) for more than 1-2 hours. Maybe the seller's got really crappy email service; maybe it's just not true.

[Connecticoin]

I think that IF there's a problem with an item recieved and IF there is sufficient evidence that the seller was being deliberately deceitful (as opposed to ignorant) then even if the seller refunded the money and "makes it right", they deserve a neg. The other buyers out there ought to know that this person is deceitful. Such a seller should not be able to simply buy his way out of a neg, get the item back and then (likely) relist the item to scam another buyer.

 

Unforunately this is the MO of numerous ebay "Powersellers" who routinely sell cleaned and overgraded raw coins, typically with hazy or otherwise misleading pictures. Those who don't know any better get screwed, and those who do get a hassle-free return and almost never neg the seller afterward. These sellers typically have 3000+ feeback ratings and 99+ % positive feedback.

[D.D.]

I'm hard-pressed to remember the last time my email was down (yahoo mail or school provided) for more than 1-2 hours. Maybe the seller's got really crappy email service; maybe it's just not true.

 

Did you see the seller's phone number listed in the auction?

 

So it's O.K. to negotiate the shipping charges after the auction is over?

 

Just for the record I don't know either the buyer or seller.