Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'eBay Deals' started by freddairy, Apr 24, 2013.
Someone please explain to me how any used guitar isn't a "player". I mean am i missing something ??, that's all i do with mine.
You have a point there unless it's behind glass if you play it it's a player.
There are a lot of people out there with more guitars than time. I've bought a number of used guitars that look like they have never been played...I rarely buy new.
That would be a guitar with no cosmetic damage...as hard as that is for some to figure out.
How can anyone defend this? The seller described this as a player guitar so the buyer should assume damage because a 'player guitar' has hidden coded meaning to the guitarist world? In my circles a player guitar is not always one that is damaged. I and many others would consider any guitar that has no collector value to a particular player a 'players guitar' whether new, damaged, etc. I my opinion a yahama FG730 is a fine players guitar (even brand new and without a scratch) because I believe it to be a great guitar but also that no one would collect this guitar. It's subjective. There are probably folks who do treat their FG730s as careful as a Stradivarius and hold it high regard. Further what if the purchaser is new to the guitar world and is purchasing this based on a review? Does he have to pull out his guitarist to english dictionary and decode the add before buying? That's ridiculous.
Also including the word 'used' does not automatically excuse damage. I have plenty of guitars in mint condition without a scratch that I would have to sell as used. Why? Because they have been used. This does not imply cosmetic damage. It implies that the item is not brand new. It could be in the same or even better condition that it was when new.
As for the model number, why would someone go searching for the year based on the serial number when it is explicitly stated in the add? Why would the buyer assume it is anything other than what was stated? I thought the idea of having an item description area on ebay listings was to have an area to describe items accurately. Perhaps 'description' also has a hidden meaning in the guitarist lingo as does 'accurate'.
So by throwing out BS subjective guitarist lingo we have a listing that states the frets are " little to no fret wear". Apparenlty in guitarist lingo this mean 'may have small divots and require crowning'.
Let's take a look at the explicit statements made in the add as the implicit guitarist lingo is apparently too subjective between buyers and sellers.
1. 'little to no fret wear' - First we can deduce that the 'no fret wear' part of the arguement is completely false. The 'little fret wear' statement is a matter of opinion but in the context which includes 'little to no fret wear' I would argue the entire statement is false. There is clear fret wear from what can be seen in the pictures. Why not advertise as 'some fret wear but playable'?
2. '2007 Gibson Les Paul Custom Goldtop R7' - We can all agree this is false. While some might say you need to research the serial number I would argue 'why?' The seller clearly states it is a 2007. Why would I think it is anything but? It says it right there!
3. 'no cosmetic damage' - This appears to be where the biggest argument is. As a buyer I would take this as no dings, dents, or large visible scratches. I may or may not expect scratches on pic guard.There clearly are these things. As stated before simply calling something used or a 'player' means different things to different ppl and unless you provide a guide to your personal guitar lingo dictionary with a notice stating that it must be read and understood before and agreed to before bidding then we have to use the universally agreed upon english language that the add was created with. No cosmetic damage means....no cosmetic damage. The statement itself contradicts the arguements of it being used or a player. "It has no cosmetic damage but it is a player so you might expect some...." That makes no sense.
Why is it such a big deal? Because the condition affects the pricing. Even dangerdog stated that he would have worded it differntly. Had the seller stated honestly that there was some fretware, and there was a ding on the body, and there was a scratch on the back, and the back plate showed signs of wear, etc the there would have been no issue at all. Forget the strings and even the year (unless you were looking for that specific year which I doubt) the problem was the description. If you are a seller and have an issue with this then perhaps you should take notes and see what a buyer actually sees. It might help your business and even prevent the same shit from happening to you. But if you would rather use your personel guitar dictionary to describe something then go ahead. If someone starts claiming that you did not describe accuratly perhaps you can send that dictionary to ebay claims and they will see it your way all the while you have that money out of circulation and a guitar that you could have sold in a holding pattern.
I understand that there are some anal buyers out there who can be a pain in the ass and as a dealer you only see the bad buyers, but there are also quite a few pain in the ass sellers out there as well which only frequent buyers will see. IMO this one is on the seller. I doubt he even knew what he had. He did not know the year. He had old rusted strings on it. Who the hell doesn't change strings on a guitar like this?
Ok update time.
Last Wednesday I called eBay after the case had been escalated for 8 days. When you escalate the case you basically put it into eBay's hand to make a decision. The reason I called eBay was that after I made the escalation I was told eBay would make a decision in 48 hours. Once the 48 hours point passed I got a second message from eBay stating, "we need more time to make a decision." So at that point(6 days later) I decided to try and call them. I spoke with a guy who looked at my feedback and then proceeded to thank me for my 10 years of positive feedback and he asked me to state what was wrong. He said the pictures I provided were an excellent idea and that posting a link to Gibson's site regarding how to read the serial numbers helped as well.
They said send it back to him and provide us the tracking #. I did. Ebay sided with me 100 percent. So, no cosmetic damage means..."no cosmetic damage"
He got it yesterday and I received a message from eBay saying "Please wait for the refund to be processed. It should be cleared on May 15, 2013." This morning Paypal says, "An eCheck payment from xxxx xxxxxx was declined by the sender's bank. We will automatically try to process this payment again in 3 business days. It then usually takes 3-5 days for the money to be deposited into your account. Please do not ship items until you receive payment."
So I may end up having to call eBay again. They said if he doesn't refund me they will cover the cost. So it looks like this guy is keeping the guitar and his money. But I have to wait until the 15th to do any of that.
OK, thanks for the update. Resolution in your favour. Congratulations. Hope that it has ended for you now. You will see your money back, I think.
Also, hope that the seller got it back in the same condition that he sent it to you. As for the seller, learn from the experience and move on.
That's F'd. They should have held the funds (like they do to almost everyone else) the transaction wasn't even a month ago.
Oh well...this will certainly show the character of the seller when he proceeds to act unethically twice. Something tells me that he has a history of unethical behavior so it won't be difficult for him.
I'll remember the name 'johnnybgd' - that's for sure.
We all have a different idea what "cosmetic damage" means. I look at the pictures of this guitar and I see pretty routine cosmetic wear. To me, damage would be more dramatic.
I buy and I sell and I try to be realistic. I think this situation is an overreaction to some pretty minor flaws. Almost trying to find as many reasons as possible to not like the guitar. It seems more like buyer's remorse to me, or maybe an inexperienced or unrealistic buyer (dirty strings?).
I don't think the seller ever responded to the case, and that's a sure way to lose. I guess you can return anything on ebay these days If you sell, include some disclaimer about cosmetic imperfections and wear and setup. If someone opens a case, get on the phone to ebay. Otherwise you're gonna have problems.
I think you're being a little harsh on that guy.
Anyone who looks over his listings should know it instantly he's a GREAT seller. He's providing fabulous deals, good pics, etc.
I also think you're being harsh on the seller. Yeah, his description wasn't the best, but I don't see him as having been intentionally dishonest. You're going to get your money back, so all's well.
Honestly, I would have kept it, but I would agree that it's not my opinion that counts here. If I had the cash at the moment, I'd bid on the re-listing!
Compared to similar condition and vintage R7s out there, $2300 is actually a decent price for it.
I wish the OP good luck in finding another used R7 with "no cosmetic damage, no fret wear and no signs of having been played" for $2300. Don't forget new strings.
P.S. I checked the Completed Listings for the R7 Goldtops a few days after OP's "winning" bid. The 3 auctions closed at $2125, $2080, $2000. So, I guess he realized he overbid...
They'll refund you and then collect on him, just like any bill that doesn't get paid. Congrats dude!
Does anyone know the seller. I'd like to make an offer on it. Looks like a nice guitar.
It sure does...and now there are no surprises about the condition so...bid away if that's what you are after.
Really?! There are other in this thread who agree and probably won't be buying from him. For a professional seller he's conducted himself like a grade-A a$$hole.
Really?! I'm being harsh on something I spent 2300 bucks on? eBay has sided with me on this one as well as a STRONG majority of the responses to this thread. If he wasn't "intentionally" dishonest he would have taken the guitar back and not refused a return which lead to the entire escalation of the case on eBay's behalf.
So I sent it back because I overbid on it? You knew my thought process?
It wouldn't have been a bad deal had it been in the shape it was described. The reason this guitar went back, and the reason eBay AGREED with me was it was not represented accurately.
I think furtom was referring to dangerdog, NOT the eBay seller you dealt with. dangerdog has only given his take on the story, but in no way was uncool about it (IMO).
I'm still shocked at responses like this one.
No = none, zero, not a single bit
Cosmetic = Involving or relating to appearance
Damage = Physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
Here's a test for those who think this is a gray area.... Imagine walking into your fav guitar store, and selecting a used guitar that is in tip-top condition. Not a scratch on it. You buy it, and on the way out the door, the manager says "hang on a second"... opens the case, and bangs up the guitar with the exact marks as were shown in this thread.
He hands it back to you, and you say "WTF?!!!!". You say "I want my money back" or "I want a discount".
He says "The changes I made are not cosmetic damage and have done nothing "to impair its value".
Your response would either be:
A) "Hey, you're right, there is no cosmetic damage to this guitar. I'm not bothered by this at all, and would have certainly paid the same price for this if I knew it would look like this by the time I got it home"
B) "WTF????!!!!" "I want my money back" or "I want a discount".
If you chose "A".....fine. But don't expect that others would agree with you. I chose "B".