Should Some Interference Be Allowed In The BST Areas?

[Oscar_Stanage]

I've never understood why there is a written or unwritten rule of not allowing people to comment. The only reason I have found that sellers do not want this is so they can inflate prices and/or hide information and do not want to be questioned.

Any comment should be easily defensible/explained by a seller or you should not be selling. What are you so afraid of?

I have sold cards before on FB and if someone comments, I just explain- "I am pricing this for X, yes it is 10% above comps. I look at the VCP sales and my card is clearly better because of X,Y,X.. thus that is my price. feel free to make an offer"

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If you're a seller bothered by someone posting comps that make your post look bad, you deserve to get called out.

tru this

[Leon]

In case anyone didn't surmise the end result of this thread. The BST rule of no interference is staying in place. As the RULES state, if there is any fraud or factually incorrect information in a BST thread, it can still be posted about. Just like before.
I think it would be a shitshow if we allowed the interference we are speaking of, and I don't want to babysit the BST 24 hours a day.

and a card
.

[cubman1941]

Agree and thanks Leon.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

There seems to be a pretty good consensus that "Buyer should do their homework."

I guess everyone's cool when they are ripped off and are the victim of fraud.

"Hey, that car you just bought with the representation that the odometer was never messed with. Sorry. I just signed that. It's total bullshit. Buy, hey, you're cool with that, right?"

"That seller's disclosure for the house you bought? Yeah, I sort of lied on a good deal of that. That white stuff in the basement actually is asbestos. And the roof wasn't replaced in 2007. Ooopsie!"

"That card was actually trimmed. A few AHs told me that. And no I didn't feel a need to tell you that."

No, but that's why YOU need to look into things like proper pricing. Unless you're volunteering to be the BST police.

I know enough about cars to get a feel for if the stated mileage is probably a bit "off" plus there's Carfax...Or I just don't care, one I owned was surprisingly listed as 217,000 on the title, but the odometer didn't work. At that point it's not like it mattered.

who would buy a house without an inspection? Maybe a flipper who knew what he was doing? We had an inspection and there were very few things pointed out that I didn't already know, and they were trivial. And yes, we had asbestos, and I knew that before the inspection. Plus the roof hasn't been replaced ever. But this type of slate can go 200 years or more....

If you can't spot trimming maybe buy commons until you can?

[Snapolit1]

Amazingly, there are even laws against making fraudulent misrepresentations in commercial negotiations. Since the 1700s. Imagine that!

Originally Posted by steve B

No, but that's why YOU need to look into things like proper pricing. Unless you're volunteering to be the BST police.

I know enough about cars to get a feel for if the stated mileage is probably a bit "off" plus there's Carfax...Or I just don't care, one I owned was surprisingly listed as 217,000 on the title, but the odometer didn't work. At that point it's not like it mattered.

who would buy a house without an inspection? Maybe a flipper who knew what he was doing? We had an inspection and there were very few things pointed out that I didn't already know, and they were trivial. And yes, we had asbestos, and I knew that before the inspection. Plus the roof hasn't been replaced ever. But this type of slate can go 200 years or more....

If you can't spot trimming maybe buy commons until you can?

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I can believe you prior to a certain date but as someone who worked for the largest mortgage lender in the country and now works for the largest government sponsored mortgage investor in the country, I can assure you that if there is now the slightest proven impropriety the appraiser and appraisal is gone forever. The Wild West of appraisal is long gone. Now, you more than likely would forced to use the first appraisal in even if the second comes in a million higher unless you can prove error in the first by negligence. Trust me, it’s not easy.

It was after the "appraisal reform". As mentioned in my post, the only reason there were 2 appraisals, I submitted applications with 2 different lenders. Each did their own appraisal. These were supposed "professionals". The price of the house was $535K. The $420K appraisal was a joke - I was very well versed with the market at the time and expected a 480-520 appraisal. The 420 was the appraiser used by a bank with whom I had a relationship for 20+ years. The 520 was from a recommended mortgage broker who I never even met. The bank ended up apologizing and refunding all my application fees. Just saying - anytime subjectivity is involved - grossly different opinions/outcomes are possible.

As much as the grading companies and many collectors would love it to be as objective and easy as an 8 is an 8 is an 8, it is just not reality.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Seller just has to put- 'Please note that in addition to the past sales I cited, there may be additional auctions that sold a similar card that may of been less or more than I cited within the same time frame'

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Seller just has to put- 'Please note that in addition to the past sales I cited, there may be additional auctions that sold a similar card that may of been less or more than I cited within the same time frame'

Or how about a seller just puts a price? Whatever they want, 10x more than the going price or 10x less. When I go to a card show, all I want is the asking price from the dealer, not a justification of his price. If I have questions, I'll ask. As long as they don't misrepresent the card, we're good.

[ChiefBeef]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

I think any time a member posts something that is not factual in their sale post, interfering to correct that fact is appropriate. IMO the person interfering should be able to prove what they are saying and not just post an opinion. I'm fine with your scenario. As another example I would be fine with a case where someone says something along the lines of this is the only copy and the person interfering can show another.

This makes perfect sense but can get out of hand. I would suppose the moderator would step in if that occurred.

On another note, if you are selling your house and the bank for the buyer says there are not enough comps to certify that your asking price is reasonable, wouldn't you either a) find all you could to support your asking price ahead of time, or b) request the opportunity to prove them wrong? Generally speaking, you are looking for what benefits you and not the buyer. The buyer has the option to back out (if the contract allows) if they do not like the results, or accept your hard work looking for comps and request a review or go to another bank.

It has been said "caveat emptor" and that is true so therefore buyers should do their homework and be sure of what they are buying. To allow a group of others to interject their "thoughts" when they disagree what the asking price is seems inappropriate and should not be the norm. Again, it is said, the value is what the one willing to purchase believes what the value is, or is willing to accept what is asked because they want it for reasons unknown.

[Fred]

After reading a lot of good comments, there is a strong/good reason to not allow comps:

Comp was based on a card of the same grade. However, as indicated in other threads, an 8 isn't an 8 isn't an 8. The comps used may be for stellar examples of the card while the card being sold may be one of those 8-ish cards that should probably be a 6 or 7. Maybe the centering on the comps were perfect which led to a higher overall sale price. Even if the comp was for a 4, there are nice 4s and some ugly 4s (and we've all seen that before).

Comp was based on a different time frame when the irrational exuberance was in abundance.

Not my call.

[JollyElm]

A lot of people are missing (purposely ignoring?) the basic question being asked. Should some INTERFERENCE be allowed? It has nothing to do with sc*mbags trying to screw over people. That is rightfully called out by everyone all the time, as it should always be. It's about people messing with someone's FT/FS posts just to be an ass. That's what opening this metaphorical door will lead to. Case in point, some contrarian will probably jump in to argue that my use of the word 'metaphorical' here was improper.

Can o' frickin' worms!!!

[Exhibitman]

IMHO, require LTB or WTB in BST titles. WTTF also OK. Keeps it simple. I click a post w/o WTB or LTB, I GTFO PDQ. Finally, just keep the sales posts simple with good clear images; otherwise TLDR.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

IMHO, require LTB or WTB in BST titles. WTTF also OK. Keeps it simple. I click a post w/o WTB or LTB, I GTFO PDQ. Finally, just keep the sales posts simple with good clear images; otherwise TLDR.

What do you think a poll would show about requiring WTB, LTB, WTTF, in thread titles?

Even if it is more want it, than not, it would have to be managed

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Leon

What do you think a poll would show about requiring WTB, LTB, WTTF, in thread titles?

Even if it is more want it, than not, it would have to be managed

the one that throws me is NFT (not for trade), I read that as non fungible token sometimes.

[HexsHeroes]

.

Personally feel that if acceptable for members to post current market valuation data or information to another member's B/S/T post, then it should be perfectly acceptable for members to "out" auctions.

I realize "outing" behavior is very unpopular among members and that many might not see any relationship between the question posed by Leon here and "outing". But IMHO both behaviors are related.

That said, am I one to intentionally out auctions? No !!!

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

No, disagree completely.

Caveat Emptor rules the day, if you're too lazy as a buyer to do your homework and educate yourself and then take the sellers word on value, then you deserve to pay a higher price. The numbers are out there for free, use them. I've had buyers use the same silly tactic to try and drive my asking price down, let's just say I won't deal with that buyer anymore because it's bad form whether a seller or buyer uses that tactic, it's not what BST is about.

It wasn't too far in the past that you would admonish any member commenting on a BST listing with anything but positive comments.

As someone who has never sold anything on this website I agree with this 100%

[dmats33312]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Or how about a seller just puts a price? Whatever they want, 10x more than the going price or 10x less. When I go to a card show, all I want is the asking price from the dealer, not a justification of his price. If I have questions, I'll ask. As long as they don't misrepresent the card, we're good.

I think this is it, a seller has a card and it's theirs to try to sell it at any price they want just as the buyer can accept it at a price they want. If either is too far off of what the true value is most likely a deal won't be made. With comps I see it as people will use VCP if it's in their favor or cherry pick a sale or use eBay comps or go last 4 sales which happens to have the 4th sale as an abnormality. Just put a price and buyer can vet it.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

What do you think a poll would show about requiring WTB, LTB, WTTF, in thread titles?

Even if it is more want it, than not, it would have to be managed

Oh, I don't really care, I was just trying to toss in as many acronyms as I could.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Seller just has to put- 'Please note that in addition to the past sales I cited, there may be additional auctions that sold a similar card that may of been less or more than I cited within the same time frame'

OR

Potential buyers could be smart enough to know that on their own.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Leon

In case anyone didn't surmise the end result of this thread. The BST rule of no interference is staying in place. As the RULES state, if there is any fraud or factually incorrect information in a BST thread, it can still be posted about. Just like before.
I think it would be a shitshow if we allowed the interference we are speaking of, and I don't want to babysit the BST 24 hours a day.

and a card
.

Seems like a case of good old fashioned "don't fix what's not broke", thanx Leon.

And a "card"

[Leon]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Seems like a case of good old fashioned "don't fix what's not broke", thanx Leon.

And a "card"

For me, it's not only don't fix what isn't broken, but also, if it's not a large improvement, it usually shouldn't be done. Who likes change?
and every rule has to be managed, so I still believe in fewer are better, or I would have to work more.

It was a valid subject to discuss.

and another card



.