should this be a red flag?

[KeeNoooo]

When someone on eBay asks if they bid on a coin and pay at the first of the next month.

This guy says he is on a budget and already used his coin budget for the month but really wants my coin.

He says he will bid strong..........he has good feedback...........?

ThAnks nick

[jpcienkus]

Generally speaking, I would say yes, this is a big red flag. But, there are people out there who are honest and work off a budget too. How many positive buying feedbacks does he have? I'd view them all.

 

The big question is for you. Are you in a hurry to sell the coin? Let's say you wait until the end of the month and offer the coin to this gentlemen AND he doesn't buy it. You'll be out two months of the cash flow generated from selling the coin. Does that bother you? If no, then you might want to take a risk with this buyer.

 

It's completely up to you.

[mikew148]

I had a buyer ask the same thing on a roll of circulated Morgan dollars. He bid strong so it was worth it for me to wait for payment. In my case, everything went smoothly. Obviously you wont ship until payment clears so, worst case is you have to wait another month to sell your item if buyer backs out.

 

 

[KeeNoooo]

The guy has 70 buying transactions, all with great feedback...some from big name coin dealers on eBay. As far a being in a hurry, not really. Its just an extra that I upgraded.

I even told him that if I were to even consider, I would need a non refundable deposit.

I do understand that people have budgets, I am one of them.

My only real issue is that I have another coin in mind I wanted to use the funds for....ha

Thanks for the input guys

Nick

[Raisethis2]

I sold a 1794 (head of 94) large cent a few years ago in AG for about a hundred bucks. The buyer failed to pay so after a week I sent him an invoice. He got back to me asking for some time to pay. Two weeks later he shipped, then I shipped the coin.

 

Some people are just busto, I've been there so I never worried for one minute.

[Dudley the 1st]

The reason this bidder is in the financial state of affairs they are is because of behavior as this. Condoning it only exacerbates the behavior.

[physics-fan3.14]

The reason this bidder is in the financial state of affairs they are is because of behavior as this. Condoning it only exacerbates the behavior.

 

How can you deduce anything about his state of affairs? I think you are being really harsh, and really unfair. In fact, I'd say he's doing quite well for himself - he has a budget, he's trying to stick to it, and he doesn't want to break his budget to buy something. That's a good sight better state of financial affairs than most Americans.

 

Assuming he is honest, and pays up, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If he doesn't pay, you just file a non-paying bidder and get the transaction cancelled.

[jayman1970]

The reason this bidder is in the financial state of affairs they are is because of behavior as this. Condoning it only exacerbates the behavior.

 

How can you deduce anything about his state of affairs? I think you are being really harsh, and really unfair. In fact, I'd say he's doing quite well for himself - he has a budget, he's trying to stick to it, and he doesn't want to break his budget to buy something. That's a good sight better state of financial affairs than most Americans.

 

Assuming he is honest, and pays up, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If he doesn't pay, you just file a non-paying bidder and get the transaction cancelled.

 

+1 well said!!

[Nutmeg Coin]

Only if they communicate clearly and if the payment is within a reasonable amount of time. I have had people really want a CAC coin, but say it would take a while for them to come up with the money "if they were lucky enough to win it". Not a good addiction to feed.

 

 

 

 

 

[rockhobby]

I have done this same thing myself several times in the past (ask if they would have a problem if I bid on a coin and If I won, could they wait until such a date for the money). I am retired and do not want to dip into savings to pay for something.

 

Doug

[bsshog40]

I wouldn't usually have a problem with this myself either. Of course I would check his feedback. I then have to wonder about how he budgets. Does his feedback show recent purchases? I mean, this is the first week of the month and he's nipping into next months budget?

[Deerefan8420]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I actually see it as a courtesy to you that he emailed you to ask if you would mind him bidding on it and then paying for it at a later date if he were to win the item. It sure beats getting the same email after the auction ends and then you're stuck waiting on payment!

[coinman_23885]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I actually see it as a courtesy to you that he emailed you to ask if you would mind him bidding on it and then paying for it at a later date if he were to win the item. It sure beats getting the same email after the auction ends and then you're stuck waiting on payment!

 

+1

[ultra-crepidarian]

From my experience, I would NOT accommodate the buyer. That may seem harsh but are you really in the business of providing short term financing for your buyers? Couldn't the guy come up with an alternative to solve HIS problem without getting YOU involved?

 

I would put the coin on a credit card and pay it off in the next billing cycle? Problem solved. Why couldn't he do that? From my experience, when you offer alternatives to solve the buyer’s dilemma you will find that he has an infinite number of reasons why your suggestions won’t work.

 

The fact that a potential buyer can’t afford your coin is not your problem. Don’t put yourself in an unfavorable position trying to be a nice guy. If the deal goes south, you will feel terrible about getting yourself involved when you know you should have known better.

 

The fact that you posed the question in the original post, already indicates that you recognize his request as a “red flag”. Trust your instincts and please don’t request a “non-refundable deposit”. On E-bay there is no such animal.

 

[gmarguli]

I get this a lot. Most of the transactions turn out just fine. Not all, but most.

 

I would not offer this option on bullion related sales, but for a real coin, your downside is limited.

[wdrob]

When I first read this my initial impression was this is a person who is on VA Disability and that is when the checks are deposited; first of the month.

 

Either that or possibly waiting on SS check. SSDI is deposited based upon the last digits of your SSN so it could be the first Wednesday of the month as well.

 

Anyway........ You might want to ask if that person is on VA Disability or something. That would explain the first of the month issue and give you more confidence.

[Dudley the 1st]

When I first read this my initial impression was this is a person who is on VA Disability and that is when the checks are deposited; first of the month.

 

Either that or possibly waiting on SS check. SSDI is deposited based upon the last digits of your SSN so it could be the first Wednesday of the month as well.

 

Anyway........ You might want to ask if that person is on VA Disability or something. That would explain the first of the month issue and give you more confidence.

 

 

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies. It would be quite different if this were a private sale or other than a public auction or as a BIN item, but it wasn't. There was a bidder right behind them who probably would have already submitted their payment to you. I'll bet money , marbles & chalk they have used the same excuse to other sellers in other auctions as well. I'm not heartless or unsympathetic to the disadvantaged at all but following the rules of the game demands being and acting responsibly.

 

 

[Dudley the 1st]

From my experience, I would NOT accommodate the buyer. That may seem harsh but are you really in the business of providing short term financing for your buyers? Couldn't the guy come up with an alternative to solve HIS problem without getting YOU involved?

 

I would put the coin on a credit card and pay it off in the next billing cycle? Problem solved. Why couldn't he do that? From my experience, when you offer alternatives to solve the buyer’s dilemma you will find that he has an infinite number of reasons why your suggestions won’t work.

 

The fact that a potential buyer can’t afford your coin is not your problem. Don’t put yourself in an unfavorable position trying to be a nice guy. If the deal goes south, you will feel terrible about getting yourself involved when you know you should have known better.

 

The fact that you posed the question in the original post, already indicates that you recognize his request as a “red flag”. Trust your instincts and please don’t request a “non-refundable deposit”. On E-bay there is no such animal.

+1

 

[Dudley the 1st]

The reason this bidder is in the financial state of affairs they are is because of behavior as this. Condoning it only exacerbates the behavior.

 

How can you deduce anything about his state of affairs? I think you are being really harsh, and really unfair. In fact, I'd say he's doing quite well for himself - he has a budget, he's trying to stick to it, and he doesn't want to break his budget to buy something. That's a good sight better state of financial affairs than most Americans.

 

Assuming he is honest, and pays up, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If he doesn't pay, you just file a non-paying bidder and get the transaction cancelled.

 

Unfair??? what is unfair is that some folks do not abide by the auction rules & policies . A ten dollar item or a thousand dollar item, would you feel the same in both scenarios?

[MarkFeld]

When I first read this my initial impression was this is a person who is on VA Disability and that is when the checks are deposited; first of the month.

 

Either that or possibly waiting on SS check. SSDI is deposited based upon the last digits of your SSN so it could be the first Wednesday of the month as well.

 

Anyway........ You might want to ask if that person is on VA Disability or something. That would explain the first of the month issue and give you more confidence.

 

 

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies. It would be quite different if this were a private sale or other than a public auction or as a BIN item, but it wasn't. There was a bidder right behind them who probably would have already submitted their payment to you. I'll bet money , marbles & chalk they have used the same excuse to other sellers in other auctions as well. I'm not heartless or unsympathetic to the disadvantaged at all but following the rules of the game demands being and acting responsibly.

 

 

So, do you also consider it "negative behavior" when someone charges goods on a credit card, knowing that they will have the money to pay the bill on time, next month, even though they don't currently have the funds? After all, that, too, is "spending money they don't have or before it's available".

 

Either way, if the bidder asks for and receives permission to pay later, rather than sooner, I don't see how that is not "abiding by the Auction Policies".

[wdrob]

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies.

 

 

Wow! You read much more into that than what was intended. I was simply stating my first impression and the fact that the person might not be out to scam after all.

 

Mark was right on in a subsequent post with his analogy.

 

btw; I never ever mentioned SSI. You either don't understand the difference in SSDI and SSI or you just felt compelled to lump someone that went to war or served in the military for a number of years and receives disability compensation for injuries of a chronic nature that were a direct result of the military service or wounds sustained during a war with someone who collects a check from the government (tax payer) for not making a living and does not qualify for SSDI since they either never worked or they didn't pay into the system to gain enough credits. Big difference.

 

[Dudley the 1st]

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies.

 

 

Wow! You read much more into that than what was intended. I was simply stating my first impression and the fact that the person might not be out to scam after all.

 

Mark was right on in a subsequent post with his analogy.

 

btw; I never ever mentioned SSI. You either don't understand the difference in SSDI and SSI or you just felt compelled to lump someone that went to war or served in the military for a number of years and receives disability compensation for injuries of a chronic nature that were a direct result of the military service or wounds sustained during a war with someone who collects a check from the government (tax payer) for not making a living and does not qualify for SSDI since they either never worked or they didn't pay into the system to gain enough credits. Big difference.

 

I never suggested anything about a possible scam and it makes absolutely no difference whether it's SSI, SSDI, VA disability or their uncles generosity check that comes monthly on the first. I'm a disabled vet and live on a VA disability income, that does not entitle me to act irresponsibly toward myself or anyone else by buying anything without have the resources to pay it, unless prior arrangements have been made.

 

As I said, if this were a private offering, i would not see a problem with working out payments with anyone, but that's not the case here where the auction policies and rules have defined buyer obligations that have been agreed to before that first bid and last bid was made. What's your next excuse for condoning this irresponsible behavior?

[Dudley the 1st]

Only if they communicate clearly and if the payment is within a reasonable amount of time. I have had people really want a CAC coin, but say it would take a while for them to come up with the money "if they were lucky enough to win it". Not a good addiction to feed.

 

 

 

 

(thumbs u

[MarkFeld]

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies.

 

 

Wow! You read much more into that than what was intended. I was simply stating my first impression and the fact that the person might not be out to scam after all.

 

Mark was right on in a subsequent post with his analogy.

 

btw; I never ever mentioned SSI. You either don't understand the difference in SSDI and SSI or you just felt compelled to lump someone that went to war or served in the military for a number of years and receives disability compensation for injuries of a chronic nature that were a direct result of the military service or wounds sustained during a war with someone who collects a check from the government (tax payer) for not making a living and does not qualify for SSDI since they either never worked or they didn't pay into the system to gain enough credits. Big difference.

 

I never suggested anything about a possible scam and it makes absolutely no difference whether it's SSI, SSDI, VA disability or their uncles generosity check that comes monthly on the first. I'm a disabled vet and live on a VA disability income, that does not entitle me to act irresponsibly toward myself or anyone else by buying anything without have the resources to pay it, unless prior arrangements have been made.

 

As I said, if this were a private offering, i would not see a problem with working out payments with anyone, but that's not the case here where the auction policies and rules have defined buyer obligations that have been agreed to before that first bid and last bid was made. What's your next excuse for condoning this irresponsible behavior?

 

Maybe my asking for the second time will be the charm....

 

So, do you also consider it "negative behavior" when someone charges goods on a credit card, knowing that they will have the money to pay the bill on time, next month, even though they don't currently have the funds? After all, that, too, is "spending money they don't have or before it's available".

 

Either way, if the bidder asks for and receives permission to pay later, rather than sooner, I don't see how that is not "abiding by the Auction Policies". Nor do I see how that amounts to "irresponsible behavior".

[Dudley the 1st]

When I first read this my initial impression was this is a person who is on VA Disability and that is when the checks are deposited; first of the month.

 

Either that or possibly waiting on SS check. SSDI is deposited based upon the last digits of your SSN so it could be the first Wednesday of the month as well.

 

Anyway........ You might want to ask if that person is on VA Disability or something. That would explain the first of the month issue and give you more confidence.

 

 

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies. It would be quite different if this were a private sale or other than a public auction or as a BIN item, but it wasn't. There was a bidder right behind them who probably would have already submitted their payment to you. I'll bet money , marbles & chalk they have used the same excuse to other sellers in other auctions as well. I'm not heartless or unsympathetic to the disadvantaged at all but following the rules of the game demands being and acting responsibly.

 

 

So, do you also consider it "negative behavior" when someone charges goods on a credit card, knowing that they will have the money to pay the bill on time, next month, even though they don't currently have the funds? After all, that, too, is "spending money they don't have or before it's available".

 

Either way, if the bidder asks for and receives permission to pay later, rather than sooner, I don't see how that is not "abiding by the Auction Policies".

 

To answer your question, NO and YES. Let me back track a moment because I may have misunderstood the initial post. If this perspective buyer made arrangements with the seller prior to making a bid, than I see no problem with this and accommodating them is a reasonable consideration and that behavior I would consider commendable. If the buyer bid and than informed the seller they could only pay at a later date, than I have an issue with that behavior.

[Dudley the 1st]

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies.

 

 

Wow! You read much more into that than what was intended. I was simply stating my first impression and the fact that the person might not be out to scam after all.

 

Mark was right on in a subsequent post with his analogy.

 

btw; I never ever mentioned SSI. You either don't understand the difference in SSDI and SSI or you just felt compelled to lump someone that went to war or served in the military for a number of years and receives disability compensation for injuries of a chronic nature that were a direct result of the military service or wounds sustained during a war with someone who collects a check from the government (tax payer) for not making a living and does not qualify for SSDI since they either never worked or they didn't pay into the system to gain enough credits. Big difference.

 

I never suggested anything about a possible scam and it makes absolutely no difference whether it's SSI, SSDI, VA disability or their uncles generosity check that comes monthly on the first. I'm a disabled vet and live on a VA disability income, that does not entitle me to act irresponsibly toward myself or anyone else by buying anything without have the resources to pay it, unless prior arrangements have been made.

 

As I said, if this were a private offering, i would not see a problem with working out payments with anyone, but that's not the case here where the auction policies and rules have defined buyer obligations that have been agreed to before that first bid and last bid was made. What's your next excuse for condoning this irresponsible behavior?

 

Maybe my asking for the second time will be the charm....

 

So, do you also consider it "negative behavior" when someone charges goods on a credit card, knowing that they will have the money to pay the bill on time, next month, even though they don't currently have the funds? After all, that, too, is "spending money they don't have or before it's available".

 

Either way, if the bidder asks for and receives permission to pay later, rather than sooner, I don't see how that is not "abiding by the Auction Policies". Nor do I see how that amounts to "irresponsible behavior".

 

Your approach is reasonable and I have no issue with a potential buyer making prior arrangements with the seller.

[MarkFeld]

When I first read this my initial impression was this is a person who is on VA Disability and that is when the checks are deposited; first of the month.

 

Either that or possibly waiting on SS check. SSDI is deposited based upon the last digits of your SSN so it could be the first Wednesday of the month as well.

 

Anyway........ You might want to ask if that person is on VA Disability or something. That would explain the first of the month issue and give you more confidence.

 

 

The fact that an individual is on SSI or any other form of disability is no reason to accommodate negative behavior. i.e. spending money they don't have or before it's available and........not abiding by the Auction Policies. It would be quite different if this were a private sale or other than a public auction or as a BIN item, but it wasn't. There was a bidder right behind them who probably would have already submitted their payment to you. I'll bet money , marbles & chalk they have used the same excuse to other sellers in other auctions as well. I'm not heartless or unsympathetic to the disadvantaged at all but following the rules of the game demands being and acting responsibly.

 

 

So, do you also consider it "negative behavior" when someone charges goods on a credit card, knowing that they will have the money to pay the bill on time, next month, even though they don't currently have the funds? After all, that, too, is "spending money they don't have or before it's available".

 

Either way, if the bidder asks for and receives permission to pay later, rather than sooner, I don't see how that is not "abiding by the Auction Policies".

 

To answer your question, NO and YES. Let me back track a moment because I may have misunderstood the initial post. If this perspective buyer made arrangements with the seller prior to making a bid, than I see no problem with this and accommodating them is a reasonable consideration and that behavior I would consider commendable. If the buyer bid and than informed the seller they could only pay at a later date, than I have an issue with that behavior.

 

Thank you and I agree with you.

[Conder101]

Trust your instincts and please don’t request a “non-refundable deposit”. On E-bay there is no such animal.

Sure there is, deposit to be paid by money order not paypal.

[wdrob]

I never suggested anything about a possible scam

 

I never said you did. If you would take the time to read the ENTIRE THREAD then maybe you would see that is was suggested that it could be some sort of scam.

 

You haven't a clue here so I will just do like others have in the past; Ignore.

 

 

What's your next excuse for condoning this irresponsible behavior?

 

 

 

 

 

[Dudley the 1st]

Thanks Mark,