![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Now, I'm not saying that this is the case here. BUT what happens often is that someone submits an offer that may be more just in case they saw it late and someone had already messaged at the asking price. The way I see it, it should be sold to the FIRST person that offered $200 or more, and not any higher after the fact offers.. Since a SALE price was listed, it should be first come, first serve.. While I don't necessarily agree with how this one has been handled. There did appear to be some unexplained horseplay, where some members somehow turned this into a public auction. So to an extent, if the new higher price is partially attributed to a bit of anger or frustration with the lack of seriousness. Then I get it... I hope nobody gets rubbed the wrong way by anything I just said. I'm honestly not passing judgment or trying to insinuate that anyone's in the wrong. Just state an unbiased opinion, with no interest in the card.. Last edited by novakjr; 03-18-2014 at 10:16 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
David, I agree with a lot of the points you make as a general rule, but I think it's also important to note that no one on this board offered him anywhere near his asking price.
I don't know how he offered the card in other places, but if he is receiving higher offers elsewhere... -Doesn't he have an obligation to update his message here? -Isn't it doing the right thing to let those who have bid $50, $52, $60, $100, $130 or whatever low offers they have sent that he is receiving much higher offers elsewhere so he needs to update his price here? -If someone here said, "I'll take it at your asking price", then he asked for more... Heck yes... rake him over the coals... Since nothing like this has happened here, why are people so upset? I say JJ did the right thing and has stayed classy by not turning this into a argumentative forum! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
"-If someone here said, "I'll take it at your asking price", then he asked for more... Heck yes... rake him over the coals... " The way I see this, is that someone DID offer him more than the $200(I believe he said this himself). Maybe not here, BUT somewhere. Honestly, I think that person may have a legitimate gripe if he doesn't get the card, given the original parameters of the sale(UNLESS, he was simply taking offers on the other sites, without a set SALE PRICE).. Again, I'm not angry, and could honestly not care less, but this mess here is getting into uncharted territory.. The game just keeps changing.. Last edited by novakjr; 03-18-2014 at 11:40 AM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I saw this yesterday at $200, looks like he was offered more twice, according to his post, and raised his price. Just my take.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Not one person on net54 offered me anywhere near my asking price. IF someone offered me 200 I would have taken it immediately. The other forum was listed as open to offers and I then received multiple offers for over 200.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I apologize. I saw the offer, and I wanted to best the offer. If that offended, I am sorry. HOWEVER, raising the price was a NON-classy move. I'm surprised he hasn't made it $300. Would be typical....
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
OK,
what NOW is the price on this card ? |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: 1963 Topps Pete Rose | jthorst75 | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 01-06-2014 11:36 AM |
1963 Topps Pete Rose | MacDice | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 5 | 11-07-2012 11:01 AM |
1963 Topps Pete Rose PSA 6 | sycks22 | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 11-17-2011 09:57 PM |
1963 topps Pete rose rc sgc 98 | ichieh | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 8 | 02-02-2011 04:01 PM |
Fs/ft 1963 topps pete rose rc psa 8 | where the gold at? | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 01-21-2011 09:31 AM |