Subject:
|
Auction Feedback (was: Re: 6067 with an added bonus!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:36:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
495 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Thompson writes:
> In lugnet.castle, David Eaton writes:
> > And just for completeness' sake, I'll give some public feedback for Tom:
>
> Do you feel that you were misled or that the condition of the sets
> were misrepresented to you before you bought or traded for them?
> You don't make that clear in your post.
Was I misled? I suppose so. To quote the set descriptions:
"Condition definitions:
good: The Sets are used but are still in good shape, and include
instruction book in similar condition.
All pieces and stickers are included, but no box, unless indicated.
good 2: The Sets are used but are still in good shape, and include
instruction book with some small rips and tears.
Again, all pieces and stickers are included.
good 3: The Sets are used but are still in good shape, and include
instruction book with some small rips and tears,or holes of that baste
some pieces and stickers are lost or exchanged"
and some of the specific sets from his auction updates:
"6009 Black Night 1992 good 2$ David E. G1
6044 King`s Carriage 1995 good2 15$ David E. G1
6067 Guarded inn 1986 good 100$ David E. G1
6082 Fire Breathing Fortress 1993 good 50$ David E. G1
6090 Royal King`s Castle one Knight feather exchanged to a yellow
one good 80$ David E. G1"
So... theoretically, each of these should have had all the correct pieces,
since they are all marked as "good" or "good2" rather than "good3". Of course,
in reality, I didn't ACTUALLY expect them to be complete. I think I also might
be more picky than most. To date I've never bought a used castle set that was
actually "complete". Usually they're missing the horse backings (the 1x2 plate
and bricks) and almost ALWAYS missing plumes. (of course I didn't count the
plumes as missing pieces, but I DID count the horse backings as missing
pieces.) But of course that's not all the sets were missing. They were also
missing some pretty hard-to-miss pieces, and there were some pieces (like
minifig helms and legs) that were exchanged with pieces of different colors.
But I expected about what I got. Which is fine, I feel. But that's also why I
wanted to post some info on Tom-- I imagine there could be people out there
that would be furious at the missing pieces, especially if they paid top dollar
for the sets. And for those people, at least now I've posted some feedback on
what to expect from Tom.
For the most part though, I'm not all that dissapointed. After all, most people
aren't as thorough as I am, and a lot of people are just selling their old sets
that they built and left standing years ago. So they assume their sets are
complete and advertise them as such. And I don't really care enough about the
completeness to avoid buying from these people.
So... anyway, I'm not going to go ranting at him-- but yes, he did misrepresent
his sets.
> I've bought sets from people that had missing elements, but I
> never thought to make a public post about it. I usually just sent
> them an email asking them if they had the missing pieces, and,
> if they didn't, I contacted LEGO Consumer Affairs (if I was really
> motivated) to try to get the missing elements. I never felt
> cheated, as I never bought something that was represented as
> "complete" or "MIB" that was missing significant elements.
Hmm... I haven't tried contacting Consumer affairs-- would they do that for
discontinued sets??? I would think they'd only do it for recent sets that were
bought recently and only missing a reasonable amount of pieces... And even I'd
think that they'd need to be all from one set as opposed to a bunch from
different sets...
> Posting "public feedback" about someone is an undertaking that
> should be done with *extreme* caution. From your post, it's
> hard for me to know if you felt misled or not. If you were
> told that the sets might not be complete, and then they came
> with missing pieces, then the trade was executed with integrity
> and I'm not sure I needed to know the details you mentioned.
Well... again, *I* didn't feel really misled since I was fairly sure what to
expect, but others could easily be. Hence, I felt that it might be good to let
people know that might otherwise experience problems. And as far as things like
this go, what I'd probably ULTIMATELY want is a huge message board for things
like this, where you can post DETAILED info on each transaction you are
involved with... more for the community's sake. I'm always of the mind that the
more information, the better, good or bad.
> By the way, I'm very envious! Sounds like you got some good
> stuff.
:)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 6067 with an added bonus!
|
| (...) Do you feel that you were misled or that the condition of the sets were misrepresented to you before you bought or traded for them? You don't make that clear in your post. I've bought sets from people that had missing elements, but I never (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
