PSA vs. FS

As a NYker I see it all the time. I take it as a PSA when I see items pop up on the FS section. This lets me know to go to the store(s) & have my pick (of what's left) if I so desire.

Based on the brand I pretty much know which store it is.

One way to look at a FS thread as a PSA.

Originally Posted by ducky13

Click to expand...

I certainly agree with most of you here: there are definitely risks to re-selling, it is very time intensive, and clearly not everyone has access to a Daffy's or a Century's. But my real question hasn't fully been answered, or maybe it wasn't phrased properly to begin with:

As a SF 'community' do we owe it to fellow members to offer a PSA of these great deals before we take advantage of them and re-sell to other members at significantly higher prices?

While I enjoy the opinion of most people here, I trust any of you about as far as I can throw any of you. We ain't blood brothers or even remote relatives, so there is no such thing as "obligation"

I see this as a classic conflict between two basic principles that do not always go together well: capitalism and free flow of information.

See, in a truly market-driven capitalist system, a seller does NOT want buyers to be too informed about a value chain. A seller does not want the buyer to know about a less expensive venue for obtaining the same merchandise. Moreover, a seller does not want a potential buyer to even SUSPECT such things for fear that it might cause the buyer to begin questioning the value of the purchase in the first place. Therefore a seller has every incentive to make the buyer believe that the seller has jumped through all sorts of hoops, has taken on huge risk for no reward, etc. And the less that potential buyer knows, the better.

This of course is at odds with the notion of free, unfettered access to information that is definitely a strong undercurrent in American culture, and of course is also something of an architectural principle of the Internet itself. Even this forum serves to educate and inform potential consumers, which is a big red flag to many producers.

Eventually, there is going to be conflict and you have to pick which side of the fence you are on. Personally, I'm in favor of as much information as possible, even though it might undermine all those Incotex resellers. But, I'm not one of them, so it's easy for me to sit on this side of the fence and enjoy the view.

Great first post, ducky13.

Personally, as long as there is no fraud or misrepresentation involved (i.e., lying about the nature of the item you are selling, or selling damaged/worn good as new), then the source of the clothing is somewhat irrelevant. If someone has access to a Daffy's (for example) and wants to lay out all of their available cash/credit in the hopes of turning a profit, that's fine; they're also absorbing the risk of the "market" crashing and something happening to the goods before they can be returned. (Does Daffy's accept returns? I've only been in one once.)

Personally, I choose to live in a smaller town, because I enjoy the lifestyle, and the various advantages like the mountain hiking that I did just a few hours ago. City dwellers don't get to demand that I refrain from enjoying the benefits of my surroundings; I probably don't have the right to insist that they refrain from their's.

If the seller is picking up some heavily discounted items to try and flip, they probably cant return those items. The risk level is very high in that case, therefore I do not mind that they get some type of return. I have gotten some nice pieces at below retail anywhere else, but above the location's sale prices. It was a good deal for both me and the seller.

Originally Posted by MikeF

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with it? I'm not saying the seller has to disclose what he paid. In fact, I don't know why he would. But I frequently see sellers pretending they're selling at cost or even at a loss when in fact that are turning a tidy profit. I don't have a problem with the profit part, but there's no need to mislead.

I would agree with this. It would be a pretty quick way for a seller to lose credibility with other members. That said, I personally haven't noticed many blatant examples, and certainly not from established sellers. The ones I have noticed seemed to be mostly resales that are easily verifiable (e.g., "I bought this shirt from member xx, but it doesn't fit so I'm reselling at a loss to get rid of it...").

I would gladly pay that markup to have someone go out, find, and front the money for an item that I want and cannot find where I live.

I think it's wrong to charge near MSRP for items you buy in bulk on deep discount. By buying way more than you ever plan on using, you basically rip other people off of the chance to buy things on sale, all while hoping others will pay you for it. Not that there's anything legally or morally wrong with it, I just think it's a dick move.

I also have a problem with misrepresenting what you paid for something. I have a dickhead friend who flips guns frequently. He was offering a used pistol for $450 that you can very frequently find for $400 new. I sent him an offer of $375. He responded with a link showing a $600 MSRP, which we all know he didn't pay, saying the gun was worth way more than my offer, which he knew wasn't true. After he sold the gun he bragged about how he only paid $300 for the gun that he flipped for $450.

Originally Posted by gqreader239

Click to expand...

If the seller is picking up some heavily discounted items to try and flip, they probably cant return those items. The risk level is very high in that case, therefore I do not mind that they get some type of return. I have gotten some nice pieces at below retail anywhere else, but above the location's sale prices. It was a good deal for both me and the seller.

Again, this isnt really what I was getting at. I wholeheartedly agree that re-sellers can and should command a premium due to risk, time, advantageous location, etc.

swiego most eloquently phrased the issue, and I am just curious as to where people on SF stand.

Originally Posted by swiego

Click to expand...

I see this as a classic conflict between two basic principles that do not always go together well: capitalism and free flow of information.

See, in a truly market-driven capitalist system, a seller does NOT want buyers to be too informed about a value chain. A seller does not want the buyer to know about a less expensive venue for obtaining the same merchandise. Moreover, a seller does not want a potential buyer to even SUSPECT such things for fear that it might cause the buyer to begin questioning the value of the purchase in the first place. Therefore a seller has every incentive to make the buyer believe that the seller has jumped through all sorts of hoops, has taken on huge risk for no reward, etc. And the less that potential buyer knows, the better.

This of course is at odds with the notion of free, unfettered access to information that is definitely a strong undercurrent in American culture, and of course is also something of an architectural principle of the Internet itself. Even this forum serves to educate and inform potential consumers, which is a big red flag to many producers.

I guess I'll chime in since I do (quite) a bit of selling here.

Basically, I am a full time student without a job. I sell on SF and eBay as a fun way to put some cash in my pocket. My school's proximity to Off 5th, Daffy's, C21 and Nordstrom Rack (all w/in 15 minutes) gives me great opportunity to do some reselling.

I try to stay as fair as possible with my prices - often even to my detriment. Honestly, I do feel something of a sense of community with SF - warranted or not.

Take Century 21, for instance. For ages, they sold Holliday & Brown ties for $39.97 (now $45.97). I know that many members here like H+B ties so I have sold one or two at absolutely no profit since I felt that some member here would probably want specific ties that I encountered. I sold one or two ties this way. I also recently sold an RLPL sweater at cost. The Armani cashmere t-shirt I currently have listed somewhere is also non-profit. I saw that people enjoyed the post about the world's most expensive t-shirt so when I saw one, I picked it up to send to someone who may want it.

Recently, as the clearance prices have been falling, my prices have gone down as well. I may have sold $30 H+B ties for $45-$50 Shipped Priority but when the price went down to $18 I reduced my price to $30 Shipped. Honestly, that small amount of profit is hardly worth the time I invest driving, shopping, listing, packaging, labeling and shipping but it does add up and I enjoy it. Of course there are also higher profit items that make it worth the time I spend like the alligator Valextra bags I sold on eBay.

Having said all that, if I would find a new pair of RLPL Grants for $50 I would never sell them for $100, but my asking prices almost always reflect my purchase price. For example, during the last sale I sold cotton Incotex pants for $35 shipped with no price drops.

Finally, if an item is "sellable" I will probably buy a few before posting PSAs but I've never shied away from giving away sources of good deals such as the pocket squares at C21 (which I almost never sell).

i have to admit as ive sold a couple pairs of AE's here i take into account the cost in gas and the cost in shipping when selling my AE's. i can almost rest assured that not more than a handful of members live here so i dont think twice when i used to pick up a bunch of pairs thinking members would want them. after the intial craze fell through, i was stuck with a couple pairs that no one wanted and i ended up selling at a loss. i got out of selling for that reason but i have to admit that it truly is seller beware. if the seller has the chance to buy as many as they can thinking they are going to make a profit, all it takes is one member telling the rest that prices are well below what the seller is selling them for and people should wait till prices drop.

point in case. osprey guy (dennis) ripped me a new asshole via PM regarding me selling the nagranis for under chorse's price back when he was selling them. he preached integrity but in reality if someone is going to take above what is a reasonable amount of profit, then is it so wrong to undercut him?

To me, it's a free market, buy and sell at your own risk. In general, I don't see anything wrong with people flipping items here. It gives people a chance to buy items they normally wouldn't have acceess to.

There are limits of course, and blatently ripping people off or lying is not ok with me.

I had more fun watching people pick up $110 Romano Martegani shoes off Amazon the other day after I PSA'd that sale, than I would have making $50/pair on B&S if I had bought all the pairs myself. With the ties that I sold here, it was more about people not being able to have access to the ties themselves (purchased at a brick and mortar store), whereas everyone has access to Amazon.

It's a sticky issue. With reference to incotex, I'm much happier paying extra to someone like ed, who I know picked the best pieces possible and is a very accommodating seller. As I see it, I'm paying a reasonable markup for someone to do work I might not have the time nor inclination to do myself.

I think there is no obligation to put a PSA up if you discover a good deal and want to do some re-selling- it's a lot more work than people think. If you try to gouge, chances are you will be undercut by someone else.

And thank you again for that PSA

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

Click to expand...

I had more fun watching people pick up $110 Romano Martegani shoes off Amazon the other day after I PSA'd that sale, than I would have making $50/pair on B&S if I had bought all the pairs myself. With the ties that I sold here, it was more about people not being able to have access to the ties themselves (purchased at a brick and mortar store), whereas everyone has access to Amazon.