Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
I would think it varies greatly by each situation and money is made buying cards not selling when a dealer. At least in my experiance.
On the other side I bought a card from a member that he had listed for months on here, I turned around and sold it for close to 10 times what I paid. I sent the guy I bought it from a nice cash gift.
On another occasion I bought a complete 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set from a member. When it arrived it was in way better condition than what I was looking for. He said he sold it cheap because he really needed the money. Shortly after his computer died so I bought him a new one.
So it can go both ways.  |
What difference does it make if a person is a buyer or a seller, a dealer or collector? The implication was that paying someone less than what something may actually be worth is tantamount to being a crime, and the person getting the deal is therefore somehow a criminal. Otherwise, why resort to using a line like, "There is just all kinds of crime.", or reference the person buying the cards as being "morally bankrupt"?
In the poster's story the party with the cards approached the dealer looking to sell them, not the other way around. So, when the dealer makes him an initial offer to buy, and the seller accepts without making a counter-office, or maybe going around to others at the show first to see if someone else may offer more, why is it the dealer's fault the guy sold so low, and he's now possibly perceived as a morally bankrupt criminal as a result?
Remember, dealers are in business to make money so none of them are ever going to offer full market value to buy for what to them is simply inventory they need to make a profit on. So what, are all dealers now automatically morally bankrupt criminals of some sort for merely trying to turn a profit? And if you're going to argue that based on that story he paid too little, how do you know what that dealer's costs and expenses are, and therefore what profit margin he needs to make? In which case now you're subjectively, not objectively, making someone out to be some type of criminal.
Now, if the dealer went out of his way to lie to the guy and told him things like maybe the cards were fake, or that they were worth next to nothing due to condition or some other made up reason(s), now THAT is a different story. But based on all the person posting said about this, we don't know what the dealer may have said to this guy. So now it looks like this poster could be accusing this dealer of things based merely on assumptions which may be wrong. I don't know.
But my question to him was a legitimate question as to if that is how he felt about the dealer in his story, how would he act were he suddenly to be in a somewhat similar position to that dealer himself?
Ben, you're a good guy, and I get and applaud that you go out of your way to be fair in dealing with others. But you also did not imply someone may be morally bankrupt, or possibly some type of criminal, based on a story/event where all the pertinent and relevant facts may not be known.