[eric the red]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3030918625&category=3280&rd=1. I won this amp off of E-ripoff  thinking that it would be in "near mint" condition as advertised by the seller. When it arrived from San Diego, I couldn't help but notice that one of the corners of the faceplate was bent, there was a 3" dark scratch across the faceplate, the top cover had numerous scratches in it not to mention a dent that was so old it was rusted, the volume knob was bent and the input selector non-functioning. Not to mention the incredibly poor packing job consisting of a cardboard box filled with wadded-up newspaper that the seller had shipped it in. I emailed the seller describing the damage to the unit trying to get my money back and told him that I would send it back and would he reimburse me the 42.00 I paid for the unit plus the 20.00 shipping he charged (actual shipping costs were 12.00) and told him what I thought " near mint" meant when selling audio gear.  He emailed me back saying he would only pay me what I paid for the amp (42.00) if it did not work after he tested it. I reminded the dickhead that "near mint" to me didn't include bent knobs, scratches dents etc etc, and he emailed me back saying that maybe I had better think about what " near mint " meant on a piece of 20 year old audio gear and that he would refuse the amp if I left negative feedback for him and I would be stuck with the POS amp. I emailed Paypal and told them about the transaction and emailed Juan the dickhead seller and told him that if he did not reimburse me for the 62.00 I paid him for the amp and sent the amp back to me, that I would email his bidders on future auctions and tell them about this transaction. So from what I described, is the amp in "near mint" condition  

[Mad DOg]

doesn't sound like near mint condition to me...

[satfrat]

does sound like a dickhead to me

[Carlman]

In the pictures I could see a large scratch on the face plate and lots of scratches on the back and top.  Also, the RCA jacks look really oxidized.  No, it's not near mint and the photos are a clear indication that it's not.

I think he should return your money including your shipping, though since it doesn't work.

Good luck with it.

[JoshK]

Sometimes when doing transactions online you bump into a dickhead like this guy.  Clearly you are justified in your grievance and he was being totally dishonest.  If he said "near mint" and then didn't describe obvious omissions to this status then he was purposefully pull a fast one.  I wouldn't leave feedback until he paid you your money back.  

I have had something like this happen before twice and if they give you the full reimbursement then I don't leave NF, otherwise I do.

[hmen]

A couple of things - First of all the unit might have been closer to "near mint" before his lousy packing job. Bent knobs could easily be caused by bad packing. If this was the case it is definitely his responsibility. Also, I've found that when I've had a dispute where I've paid using paypal I got much better results by going stright to the credit card company with my complaint. They act much faster and will also force paypal to address the issue much more quickly than they would have otherwise.

[jcoat007]

I bought a "near-mint" Music Hall MMF-5.  When I got it, one of the rear corners had obviously been damaged and a very bad repair job had been attempted to cover it up.  The dust cover also had a crack on the same rear area as the damaged plinth.  I immediately e-mailed the seller about it and sent him photo's of the obvious damage.

He said that he had not noticed the damage, but would gladly refund my money, plus all shipping costs.  No big deal and the guy stepped up and did what was right.  When he tried to sell the unit again on a'gon, he clearly spelled out the damage and reduced his price.  

In another transaction I bought a vintage receiver from the late seventies.  It was touted as being in very good condition, not "near-mint".  When I got it, it took about ten minutes to unpack.  The packing was the best I had ever seen.  When I finally got it out, I was shocked to see this thing was as "near-mint" as you could possible get.  Now this thing was 25 years old, but looked like it had been in Grandmas den and only driven on Sundays.  So if somebody says, "near-mint" but then claims that "near-mint" has a diferent definition for a vintage piece, they are full of shit.

This guy should pay you back the full purchase price plus the shipping.  And you should leave negative feedback if he doesn't.  Personally, I would probably open it up and put some dog shit in it and send it back to him.  That's what he deserves.

[hmen]

Putting dog shit in it might actually provide some damping. Maybe you've found a new tweak.

[JohnR]

       

Thanks, I needed that !!  

[cjr888]

reminded the dickhead that "near mint" to me didn't include bent knobs, scratches dents etc etc, and he emailed me back saying that maybe I had better think about what " near mint " meant on a piece of 20 year old audio gear and that he would refuse the amp if I left negative feedback for him and I would be stuck with the POS amp.

I think the problem with him, outside of being an ass, is in the middle of the comment above.

That being "I had better think about what 'near mint' meant on a piece of 20 year old audio gear."

Ratings of condition are applied to things current and ancient.  I don't think the idiot realizes that "near mint" means "near mint" regardless of age.  The ratings apply regardless of age.

Say you are a collector, where condition means the most.  Could be early records, coins, or baseball cards.  You have an extremely, extremely rare coin, card or album where there are only four or five known copies existing in the world.

Even in that situation, near mint means near mint.  Even if the existing copies are in horrid shape, their rating is described as you would describe anything else, regardless of the value they command, regardless of their age.

Sounds like you have a seller that doesn't grasp the concept of ratings and describing things as what they are.  Whether he understands this or not is his issue to resolve, as it is false advertising, regardless of his ignorance, but has unfortunately become your problem to deal with as well.

Had been advertised 'as is', or not mentioning a specific grade, but leaving an inquiry for more detailed description or pictures, I would disagree with you and suggest 'buyer beware', but in this case, the simple fact that he decided to rate it negates this in my mind.

I'd continue the dispute.  Remember that if he's this ignorant to ratings, he's obviously an individual, and obviously someone new to the selling game.  If he refuses, find some nice references to ratings, and if he ends up refusing any deal during a dispute, mention that you're sending him a lovely Hallmark card for the 4th of July from your lawyer.  I doubt the dispute will continue upon mention.

[Tonto Yoder]

Seller did list "as is" in description:
" [unit is]tested and is in great working condition. however it is sold as is due to it's[sic] age and i only promise that it will arrive as described and not DOA"

Of course, "as described" was "near mint" which obviously is the bone of contention.  Perhaps the lawyer will take this case on a percentage basis--remember this is a $42 amp.

[jcoat007]

I say we take up a collection to make ETR whole.  If we can get 128 people to send 50 cents each, ETR won't be out any money.  Then I say you take a sledge hammer to it, or drop it off a building or run over it with a steam roller.  Whatever you do, make sure it is damaged so much that it is almost unrecognizable.  

Then you send it back to him and demand a refund.  

The reason you are still demanding a refund is that based on his rating system, the unit is in "near-mint" condition, but unfortunately was DOA on arrival.  

"Oh gee, it must have been damaged during shipping."

I would pay 50 cents to see the unit after you take a sledge hammer to it.  I would pay 50 bucks to see the guy's face when he opens the package.  I would still throw some dog shit in the box for good measure.  

C'mon.  Anyone up for 50 cents each?

[jcoat007]

I would give Letterman a call.  I'm sure he's up to a good building drop or a steam roller.    

[nathanm]

The silly mistake the seller made was using the words "near mint" which is clearly contradicted by the pictures.  If the seller focused his camera it would be even more apparent that the amp was a bit roughed up.  The proof of its less-than-minty condition is proven by the images regardless of what the description says.  If there were no images it would be a different story entirely and the seller would be held to his words in the description.  

The serious mistake he made was packing the thing in newspaper.   Bent corners and knobs most likely a result of the amp having no support whatsoever when being hammered around by UPS.  Did the box itself show impact damage?

The listing isn't to blame, but rather foolish packing.  Caveat emptor...

[eric the red]

The money is obviously not the problem here as it's only 62.00. The ad clearly states that he guarantees it to be as described ("near mint") and not DOA.  If I do get it back, I'm thinking about either filling it full of dogshit (I have a 120 lb dog) and sending it back to him anonomously or running it over with my truck a few times and sending it back in a flat box or both. I also live near a Borders bookstore that carries about 1000 different magazines which all have those little subscription cards with a "Bill me later" on them and what a coincidence if he just happened to start getting a few hundred magazines showing up in his mailbox. Thanks for the tip about getting ahold of my credit card company.

[satfrat]

Eric, don`t forget $62 worth of negative feedback for this "gentleman". He`s seems to have earned every penny plus the public needs to be warned! dogshit`s good too,,, Regards, Robin

[randog]

I hate to hear shit like this. I was looking recently at an ES-1 turntable on eBay that had never been used. NOS. Except it sat on a shelf for 20 years... not in its box. I could make out some scuffs on the plinth and scratches on the lid. The seller had it listed as MINT. I asked about the cosmetic issues and he curtly responded that he listed it as NEAR MINT. I copied and pasted his original statement and fired it off to him with some unkind words. I never buy anything when a response is curt... I don't care how much I want it.

To me, 'near mint' means cosmetically 'mint' with the 'near' just thrown in because of age or use. Sort of like the Audiogon rules for 9/10. Mint means taken out of the box for a looksie... maybe a test fire... but that's it. Webster describes it as new.

I really get rubbed wrong by misrepresented items.   I see those people as sleeze-bags. I don't go for the shit that people really misunderstand these terms, they're trying to pull something over on you, plain and simple.

Randog

[warnerwh]

Clearly the guy was intentionally trying to defraud you. Ebay does have a place for complaints for items that are misrepresented and this one certainly is not even questionable.  The original question though is interesting as what is the best way to describe vintage equipment. I do personally give more latitute to something in excellent condtion that was made in the 70's compared to the 90's.  A couple of minor scratches that are hardly noticeable without very close examination on the face are still by me considered excellent if it is from the 70's but not the 90's. Mint though is mint whether it's from the 1870's for 1990's.  Only problem with negative feedback is they will retaliate and give you one. I've only got 2 out of almost 200 but in both cases I went out of my way. It's also important to warn the rest of us, which is why I take the hit if necessary.  One thing I've learned too is people with low feedback can be great or terrible. People with healthy amount say 50 or more and 98%+ feedback can be relied upon much more reliably. Bottom line is you are bound to run into some of the 2%.

[eric the red]

So after all the dust settles I end up with no amp, am out 75.00 (42.00 for the amp, 20.00 for original shipping plus 13.00 more to send it back) have my first negative Ebay feedback ever from this clown, plus Ebay and Paypal will not help resolve this transaction nor will my credit card company. I canceled my Paypal account, left shitty feedback for the seller, created a phony Ebay user name and profile using another email address and am going to high bid on everything Ebay member Juanmm sells until Ebay shuts my phony account down.  

[Marbles]

After you win the auctions, don't forget to leave feedback.