Absolutely deplorable actions by a fellow forum member!

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by canjond

I've dealt with Jamie in the past and had a good transaction. However, there is something that worries me about this, too - so feel I should speak up. I contacted Jamie last night (10:30pm) about the Uzit and asked for a scan. I received an email back almost immediately. The email I received stated as follows "top offer is 1300. Are you interested at 1400? If so I will send pic tomorrow." What worries me about this is if the card was already sold for $1300, what would have happened if I agreed to the transaction?

Again, my past dealings with Jamie have been good and I don't really want to be involved in a board fight (I'd rather stay out of it). However, I did not receive full disclosure and it sounds like the other potential buyer did not receive full disclosure (that his $1300 offer was the "floor."

Jamie told me that I was "locked in" at $1300 and not to worry if he got an offer of $1400. Basically, the card was "sold" to me. This of course was BEFORE I had realized he was using me as leverage to bid on an auction lot!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Jamie told me that I was "locked in" at $1300 and not to worry if he got an offer of $1400.

Yes gecko, and somebody else was probably locked in at $1000 until your $1300 offer came along.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes gecko, and somebody else was probably locked in at $1000 until your $1300 offer came along.

Blame the seller for that, if its true. I had no knowlege of the card being sold already...if in fact it even was, as you speculate. You have a serious hard on for me though. Im beginning to see that much.

[carrigansghost]

I do not have deep pockets but will also overpay for cards that I really want.

Rawn

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by carrigansghost

I do not have deep pockets but will also overpay for cards that I really want.

Rawn

Likewise. However that is usually an auction style format. Sometimes we bid more than what we think the card may be worth to ensure that we win it when we know we are (or may be) in competition with others. A fixed price sale is totally different. The seller quotes his asking price and the buyer can either choose to purchase it or not. Until this day (and I've been collecting for 26 years) I have never heard of a buyer offer a seller 30% more (or any more) than his asking price on a card. It just doesn't make sense to me. In all my years of collecting I have never been at a show or in a shop and have a dealer quote me a price on a card and then turn around and offer him more than what he's asking. Am I missing something or is that just common practice?

[carrigansghost]

Don't get me wrong, I'm with the buyer here and would hold the seller to the agreed price.

Rawn

[bcornell]

2 threads in 2 weeks about 'BST problems' from the same guy. I've used it 100+ times in 6 years and have yet to have an issue with anyone. Either I'm lucky, or something else is the root cause.

This thread reminds me why my one year of moderating this forum was a lifetime's worth.


Bill

[carrigansghost]

No problems with "BST" here either and no problems with ebay. Guess I'm one of the lucky few.

Rawn

[forazzurri2axz]

this originally posted by vintagetopps collector
Likewise. However that is usually an auction style format. Sometimes we bid more than what we think the card may be worth to ensure that we win it when we know we are (or may be) in competition with others. A fixed price sale is totally different. The seller quotes his asking price and the buyer can either choose to purchase it or not. Until this day (and I've been collecting for 26 years) I have never heard of a buyer offer a seller 30% more (or any more) than his asking price on a card. It just doesn't make sense to me. In all my years of collecting I have never been at a show or in a shop and have a dealer quote me a price on a card and then turn around and offer him more than what he's asking. Am I missing something or is that just common practice?

.... IFthe seller has a price and it SEEMS like he may be shopping around for a better price, and IF I really want the card, then at times I have offered more than the asking price to "finalize" the transaction and have the seller commit to me at that point...it seems to me that while his price may have originally been $1000.00, it was almost like a "make a best offer " type situation...my 2 cents

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by bcornell

This thread reminds me why my one year of moderating this forum was a lifetime's worth.


Bill

The last 2-3 weeks haven't been fun.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by bcornell

2 threads in 2 weeks about 'BST problems' from the same guy. I've used it 100+ times in 6 years and have yet to have an issue with anyone. Either I'm lucky, or something else is the root cause.

This thread reminds me why my one year of moderating this forum was a lifetime's worth.


Bill

Yeah, its all my fault on this one. Shame on me for not wanting to be used as leverage for another guy's bid in an auction without being told thats what it was. By the way, perhaps you missed my follow-up on the other BST topic....it was a PUBLIC APOLOGY. Either you missed it, or convienently failed to mention it in your above post.

[carrigansghost]

Chicago, I think you are taking it wrong. It;s a reference to the drama on here and the morals of some that do business on the forum.

Rawn

[jb217676]

My understanding of this situation is Jamie is auctioning a card to the highest bidder before he actually owns the card. His thinking is, the higher the price he gets for the Uzit, the more money he has towards the other card he wants. If I were Chicago206, I would outbid Jamie on the pair and sell him the one he wants. Or another member with 'deep pockets' could win the pair and put an end to this story. That would be funny!

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Yeah, its all my fault on this one. Shame on me for not wanting to be used as leverage for another guy's bid in an auction without being told thats what it was. By the way, perhaps you missed my follow-up on the other BST topic....it was a PUBLIC APOLOGY. Either you missed it, or convienently failed to mention it in your above post.

Yeah, I missed it, but thanks for the all caps emphasis. I'll make sure I pay special attention to your weekly BST blowup in the new few days.

[Chicago206]

"If your pockets are really that deep, then why are you slumming by looking at $194K houses when the median home price in Chicago is $238K? "


Im not quite sure of your intent at embarassing me, perhaps Jamie is your buddy, but I digress. To answer your question, 4 years ago my wife and I had no kids, and we both enjoyed traveling as well as buying nice things (cars, gold/silver bullion, etc). The $194k house fit into our lifestyle very well at that time. It was a 2 bedroom ranch in a neighborhood full of city workers (im a Chicago firefighter). So it was safe, and large enough for us to be happy, yet the mortgage was small enough to allow us to do whatever we wanted to do...ie we wouldnt be "married to a mortgage". We ended up buying a bigger house not far from the one we wanted for $224k that was even nicer. The small difference in price didnt bother us, but in retrospect, its a good thing we didnt get the other one. My wife became pregnant with our son a few months after we closed on the home! We really appreciate the extra space now.