[xplainer]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If I'm reading this right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the total purchase was $2500. We know the ball was $600, so that means the bats were $1900. Is this correct?

The OP felt that the bats were misrepresented and cut his loses by selling them on eBay. I think I speak for most everyone here, but if I made a purchase of that size and felt it was misrepresented, I would ask for a refund, not cut my loses by turning around and selling them on eBay.

A few months later he feels the ball is misrepresented and now wants a refund (and I think he deserves one). I guess the part of this that doesn't make sense to me is why he was willing to cut his loses on the $1900 worth of bats, but wants a refund (again, which I think he's entitled to) on the $600 ball? Why not cut his loses on that too? Why the bats, not the ball?

It just looks strange to have the bats shipped to a third party and then immediately posted on eBay. I understand the explanation for this, but others have said the bats looked nice. This is the part that I just can't wrap my head around - why be willing to immediately cut your loses on $1900 in worthless bats, but not on a worthless ball?

Last, if the bats and ball were shipped together (I'm assuming they were), why did Greg immediately dismiss the bats as worthless, but not the ball?

I agree. So many unanswered questions.

As I have stated before, if the ball is not as stated, a refund is in order. But the bat story is crazy.