Almost done using Ebay

[Shraka]

eBay Australia is really terrible. Unless you want electronic gizmos, it seems to be a wasteland full of rubbish. And unless it is a brand you can buy at your locally, I wouldn't ever buy cloths online. If I can try it on then order it online then fine, but if I have to buy it without even testing the same product for size, forget it.

There's lots of dodgy people out there trying to pass things off as something else. There's a guy on a car sales website who has his Supra listed as an RZ "twin turbo" with a 'tough' 5 speed swapped in in place of the 6 speed gearbox. A glance at the engine bay photo shows it to actually be a non turbo, and logic would suggest that it's the standard non turbo gearbox.

 

[Nataku]

Originally Posted by Nataku

eBay is truely getting ridiculous..... the fact that eBay sales are down drastically......it's not worth it anymore....


Case in point. Couple years ago, something like this would have atleast went for $50....I remember even seeing Gap blazers going for $70.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESO:IT&ih=006

 

[RIDER]

Originally Posted by william

Well...I spent time taking pictures, listing the shoes, answering questions from buyers, etc...and then literally a few hours before the auction closes it gets taken down. That tends to make people angry. My initial response to his question was: "Crockett and Jones makes all the cordovan shoes for Ralph Lauren. This can be confirmed by emailing C&J." This wasn't good enough for the guy, so he then "reported me".

Only at that point did I let him know what I really felt about him.

One thing you have to realize, Ebay was just fined $63,000,000 for allowing LV goods to be sold without the proper checks for fakes......the Court found that Ebay, not the actual seller, was the 'vendor', and this leaves the brand to determine if the venue is suitable for the re-selling of it's goods. Will be interesting to see where this goes, and I feel for Ebay in this one. With this ruling, the burden of proof of authenticity lies with Ebay, not the seller.

For all that's been said - and the fees are getting pretty high - Ebay is far more effecient, for me, than any other venue for odds-and-ends and damages. If nothing else, the reporting system and overall organization for shipping/communication/marketing/payments beats going it alone hands down.....and sure is better than the local flea market. For people like me (who sell goods via Ebay at a huge loss) any reduction in time spent accounting for sales like this is an advantage....I prefer to let them keep track of everything.

For those that only sell pieces, I can see where it is a hassle; but for anyone selling 20+ items a month, Ebay is very good, IMO.

 

[well-kept]

I watched an eBay auction yesterday - a 20th Century repro of an 18th Century American antique, being offered as the real thing. Maybe the seller knew it was a repro, maybe he didn't. It would have been obvious to anyone who knew their stuff. There were many bidders and it went for a high price. twenty times its market value.

Did eBay have an obligation to police it? I'd guess that not one person in the organization had the expertise to make that determination.

Did I have an obligation to report the mis-statement of truth, alert the bidders, get the listing pulled?

I don't think so.

It's not like a LV handbag. It would have been pretty well impossible to prove. But I believe that in a democratic marketplace such as eBay the buyer needs to know his stuff. If you want an ironclad guarantee of authenticity you can shop at the Vuitton boutique in midtown, no problem.

If you have issues with who may have made Polo shoes, go to the Polo store nearest you. Ask them.

If you enjoy the game of seeking, finding, bidding, winning or losing on eBay, educate your eye. Know your stuff. If eBay needs to police these things there is a chance that it will all collapse. We will be the poorer for it.

 

[jcriswel]

Caveat emptor. The buyer and seller both are responsible for assessing authenticy. The judgement against eBay is a case of predatory lawyers for LV seeking deep pockets. It is disruptive to a free market and puts a resource that we benefit from (whether we want to agree or not) at risk. I live in Dallas and we have an area of town which carries knock off brands of all kinds, including Louis Vuitton. The City of Dallas has raided these stores and tried to shut them down. I think Louis Vuitton has the right to sue everyone of the owners of these stores for copyright infringement. Should they sue the City of Dallas for giving these store owners a permit to do business in Dallas (which was later revoked)? I think not.

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by jcriswel

Caveat emptor. The buyer and seller both are responsible for assessing authenticy. The judgement against eBay is a case of predatory lawyers for LV seeking deep pockets. It is disruptive to a free market and puts a resource that we benefit from (whether we want to agree or not) at risk. I live in Dallas and we have an area of town which carries knock off brands of all kinds, including Louis Vuitton. The City of Dallas has raided these stores and tried to shut them down. I think Louis Vuitton has the right to sue everyone of the owners of these stores for copyright infringement. Should they sue the City of Dallas for giving these store owners a permit to do business in Dallas (which was later revoked)? I think not.

This is where I stand also. A lot of people like to bring counterfeit auctions, or at least what they think are counterfeit auctions, to ebay's attention thinking that they are doing the "right thing" but what will end up happening will be a lot more cases like william's. Ebay is not going to take any chances or quite frankly even care about sellers proving an item is authentic, small and medium size sellers are going to get to the point where it's not worth selling stuff and the buyers
are going to suffer through less choices and higher prices. Ebay should not be policing every one of it's million or whatever auctions that go off a day. If you as a buyer are purchasing a $75 brand new Louis bag from China, you deserve what you get. Obviously LV and other large company's like Tiffany are going to have people policing ebay and ebay has no choice but to comply with whatever their lawyers tell them, but when I see a Zegna auction or Crockett auction getting pulled due to another ebayer, it's just ridiculous and will hurt more than it helps in the long run. I'm a proponent of letting the market take care of counterfeiters and letting noobs learn things the hard way. When I was involved in watches, there were some big watch sellers dealing in Frankenwatches. At first they were getting huge prices for their crap. After a while and after the market figured out what these guys were selling, their prices and sales went down huge. The issue with reporting to ebay is that the burden of proof is on the seller. Some guy doesn't like me and reports my auctions as fakes, I'm SOL.

 

[Harry Lean]

Originally Posted by william

Update:

My auction was taken down because of this ******* guy. I wish I had the chance to meet this ***** in person. I listed an honest auction with accurate details of the maker of the shoe and it gets pulled b/c some dude who hates himself and his small dick made a false accusation.

Good riddance ebay

You should send the offender a link to this topic. The loser would die ********** big time.

H.

 

[Tarmac]

How can I avoid this SOB? Do I have to refrain for listing any CJ/polo shoes as such? God what a moron.

 

[meister]

Originally Posted by koolhistorian

Same with Romania - also EU. Just use a Intl Signed for Parcel (or equivalent), or UPS, Fedex. etc. With the weak dollar and the strong euro, plus the fact that always prices were lower in the US (even when the dollar was very strong) you have a good bargain on state side shopping. Insure the package for lost in transit (it happens) so you and the buyer are protected!


I sent a pair of cordovans to Germany - never seen again... no tracking for Germany - goodbye USD250...Australia Post gave me back AUD117 compensation. Every crap pair I send sea mail to my brother in Germany arrives no problems...go figure!

 

[ccffm1]

Originally Posted by jcriswel

The City of Dallas has raided these stores and tried to shut them down. I think Louis Vuitton has the right to sue everyone of the owners of these stores for copyright infringement. Should they sue the City of Dallas for giving these store owners a permit to do business in Dallas (which was later revoked)? I think not.

Neither do I, but there is a huge difference between the City of Dallas and ebay. While the former does its best to prevent store owners from doing so, the latter encouraged all sorts of crooks by not enforcing the rules, because for quite a while it was something earned them big money.
From a buyer´s pov I have to say that the judgement is welcome.

Nonetheless, I think the guy who had William´s auction taken down is a nut case.

 

[chorse123]

Does anyone else think the new search result layout is atrocious?

And the ads obnoxious?

Also, I've been getting a lot of "oh I forgot to bid*" why don't you sell me that unsold item for well below your opening bid. One guy did it twice on the same item, even after it was relisted at a lower amount.

I did get a legitmate one of these from an SF member. I don't mean you!

 

[jcriswel]

Originally Posted by jcriswel

Caveat emptor. The buyer and seller both are responsible for assessing authenticy. The judgement against eBay is a case of predatory lawyers for LV seeking deep pockets. It is disruptive to a free market and puts a resource that we benefit from (whether we want to agree or not) at risk. I live in Dallas and we have an area of town which carries knock off brands of all kinds, including Louis Vuitton. The City of Dallas has raided these stores and tried to shut them down. I think Louis Vuitton has the right to sue everyone of the owners of these stores for copyright infringement. Should they sue the City of Dallas for giving these store owners a permit to do business in Dallas (which was later revoked)? I think not.

Originally Posted by ccffm1

Neither do I, but there is a huge difference between the City of Dallas and ebay. While the former does its best to prevent store owners from doing so, the latter encouraged all sorts of crooks by not enforcing the rules, because for quite a while it was something earned them big money.
From a buyer´s pov I have to say that the judgement is welcome.

Nonetheless, I think the guy who had William´s auction taken down is a nut case.

Sorry, I have to disagree with your assertion. I don't see a "huge difference". The City of Dallas assesses a sales tax on all retail sales in Dallas. This revenue in addition to property tax revenue is what funds the coffers of the city. The city has an interest in every sale that is made within the city. If they shut down stores because they are selling fake merchandise, they are losing revenue.

 

[jon836]

I have been selling on eBay for over a year now as my sole source of income, and cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to throw in the towel; but can find no other means to sell my items. The problem with eBay concerning this topic is simple; they have tens of thousands of complaints coming in every day, and even if they had the time to investigate each one, they don't have the expertise in that field to make a responsible decision on the matter. Chances are, the person who pulled your auction was wearing hush puppies, and the other pair of shoes they have are nike; they don't have the slightest clue about what you were selling. Nor do they care. They simply want to resolve the issue before them, so that they can move on to the next one. More often than not, they don't even read the email that is sent to them; no matter if it is a complaint, suggestion, or request. The fact that they do hold a monopoly in the market re-enforces this attitude; you know they sit around in a board room saying "where else are they going to go?". Raising the rates, making the feedback one-sided and generally viewing all sellers as thieves, are all a result of the belief that if a small vendor wants to sell on the internet, eBay is the only option. Until there is viable competition, I am forced to view losses like that as a cost of business in general.
Just remember, K-Mart once held a monopoly as a large discount chain, and treated their customers accordingly. They always justified their poor customer service by assuming that people would always eventually come back, because the need to save money outweighed their anger over poor customer service. Then Wal-Mart came along... I can't remember the last time I saw a K-Mart; which wasn't closed that is.

 

[luftvier]

Just a friendly note- I would break up your responses into paragraphs in future posts. Makes it easier on the eyes

Like this:

Originally Posted by jon836

I have been selling on eBay for over a year now as my sole source of income, and cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to throw in the towel; but can find no other means to sell my items. The problem with eBay concerning this topic is simple; they have tens of thousands of complaints coming in every day, and even if they had the time to investigate each one, they don't have the expertise in that field to make a responsible decision on the matter. Chances are, the person who pulled your auction was wearing hush puppies, and the other pair of shoes they have are nike; they don't have the slightest clue about what you were selling. Nor do they care. They simply want to resolve the issue before them, so that they can move on to the next one. More often than not, they don't even read the email that is sent to them; no matter if it is a complaint, suggestion, or request. The fact that they do hold a monopoly in the market re-enforces this attitude; you know they sit around in a board room saying "where else are they going to go?". Raising the rates, making the feedback one-sided and generally viewing all sellers as thieves, are all a result of the belief that if a small vendor wants to sell on the internet, eBay is the only option. Until there is viable competition, I am forced to view losses like that as a cost of business in general. Just remember, K-Mart once held a monopoly as a large discount chain, and treated their customers accordingly. They always justified their poor customer service by assuming that people would always eventually come back, because the need to save money outweighed their anger over poor customer service. Then Wal-Mart came along... I can't remember the last time I saw a K-Mart; which wasn't closed that is.

 

[Shraka]

K Mart lives on in Australia!

However, it has a lot of competition from Big W and Target down here.