Question about BST etiquette

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Here's a hypothetical question that I haven't seen discussed lately, or maybe never. I'd like to see some discussion, and maybe a consensus will emerge.

Say you put a "wanted" post on the BST with some very specific and fairly obscure cards.

We'll say for the sake of example that they are 1916 E135 Collins-McCarthy cards of mostly common players-- because you are doing the whole set. Not expensive cards but not falling off trees either. You list 10-20 cards you need in the post.

After a few days someone posts a comment like "I have a few of those cards available-- please contact me." You contact the person as soon as you see this. He tells you that someone else from the board contacted him right after his post and has already bought them.

Would you feel ripped off because you had placed the original post, done the "publicity," etc., while some lurker who is also doing the set jumps in and walks off with the cards?

Would it make you think twice about posting wantlists?

Should the other buyer have contacted you and given you first refusal, or offered to split the ones you both needed?

Or is all fair in cards these days?

These questions are not that clear to me, but I do think I would feel a little ill-used by the other buyer, especially if it was by someone I knew.

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

It seems to me that the seller should give the poster first shot at it, as a courtesy, but this is up to the seller. Awhile ago someone posted a WTB, and somewhere in the thread someone else also posted that he would also like to buy the same cards. It didn't take long for several new posts to appear, all saying the second poster should not have jumped the tread to hijack cards.

I've also seen several instances where another potential buyer will post after a seller has responded to an original WTB. In many cases I'm very impressed that these second buyers are clear in saying "I'll take it if so and so passes" - making it clear that their interest is only after the original person has a shot at the cards.

Other times I see similar threads but it looks like the seller is playing the original poster against subsequent poster and setting up a bit of a free-for-all.

So to answer the question - my opinion is that sellers should give original posters first shot. But again, that's completely up to the seller, and the ice gets thin quickly when you try to tell anyone who they can and can't sell to.

And all of the above is based on the assumption that no one is abusing the BST by posting WTB's every week for the same broad categories of cards and then claiming they should therefore be first in line for any that become available. If I hop on every Monday and post that I am looking for Detroit cards in each of the categories, does that mean I have shut out all the other Detroit collectors and get first grab at any and all? No, it doesn't.

If there is an unwritten rule, desire, whatever that someone posting a WTB gets first crack, it says a lot for this forum that no one really abuses that custom. We did have someone a long time ago that used to post WTB's for the same card on a weekly basis, but that has since stopped.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As almost always I agree with everything you said. I hope that all sellers will give the first right of refusal to the person that initiates the first post/thread. There is no way to police it but I would strongly encourage everyone to let the first person posting have the first shot.....It's only fair.....For all the transactions that do go on over on the BST pages there are still very few issues and it's still CAVEAT EMPTOR as always....Good luck Tim....

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Very similar situation this weekend but with a twist.

Poster posts his wants.

Respondent posts that he has three on ebay "take a look".

Another Board member, being the sharpie that he/she is checks out the ebay listing and determines that he/she is not inerested.

The other Board member then emails the Respondent and sends along his/her wantlist.

Respondent then emails a web link to the original poster, the "other" board member AND another board member who likewise had emailed him. Respondent checks the link and sees two cards that he/she needs and buys them.

Original poster is unhappy becuase he needed them too.

Anything wrong going on here?

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

My original post was phrased in such a way that anyone who hadn't known of an actual "event" wouldn't know there was one.

I have no quarrel with you or anyone here. The point, as I see it, is to clarify how the BST should best work, and especially what the responsibilities of regular board members are toward one another.

I agree with Joann and Leon that no one can police sellers, especially those from outside our sphere. And obviously, simply posting that he/she wants something doesn't entitle anyone to unlimited first dibs forever. So maybe there is no harm, no foul, in a technical sense.

But dealings among regular board members may demand a higher standard, because almost everyone we deal with, we will deal with again). This sounds like a good case of "what goes around...."

Cheers,
Tim

PS: Also, for the record, I was not asked to make this post on anyone's behalf: I volunteered to do so.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Sorry you and he feel that way. Good bye.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

If the want list creator posts something publicly, it is open season. The whole point of the post is to alert the world that the poster is looking for something. If that alerts others to the prospect, that is the price of making a public post.

Also, even if I was to cast blame, I would not blame the buyer for “poaching”; if anything, the seller should be blamed for not emailing the poster and offering the cards that way rather than sticking a post on the thread where anyone could see it. And I would not even blame the seller because I don't think it is fair to expect someone to hold cards the poster hasn't reserved on an open basis, especially if there hasn’t been any communication between the poster and the seller, simply because they are on a want list. For all the seller knows, the poster might not be interested in the particular specimens of the cards he has or might not want to pay the price he has them at. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve responded to a want ad with the cards wanted only to find that I could not make a deal with the poster.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

In the future you could ask prospective sellers to EMAIL you rather than post in the BST. Some people may not want to do this but if they do you'll be covered and not have to worry about poachers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

On a related topic...I know we've been through this before..but it would be so nice if people would stop the third party comments on the B/S/T. Making a comment about how nice something is or whatever is one thing, on the other hand there are comments that I believe hinder a sale. Maybe some of the third party interferences aren't meant maliciously...but why do they have to happen?

[Archive]

Posted By: RC

In my brief experience on the board, I have had good experiences with the BST. Of course I am not extremely active either but those posters I have dealt with have been great.

RC

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Guys and girls- please let me know when there is interference, besides a benign comment, and I will take care of it. There shouldn't be 3rd party interference per the board rules.....if you don't know what I am talking about then read the rules....thanks