RED SECRETARY GOES POOF

I asked the seller what happened.
Here is their reply:

hi , another person wanted to buy it for $85 so I relisted it with a buy it now price, and you snagged it up before he had a chance to purchase it. Lucky you. I was shocked to find out that it was worth that much. Now I have a question for you, if you don't mind? What makes it so valuable? Thank you.


Now my dilemma is do I tell them that it is worth significantly more than the Buy It Now sucker deal they accepted.

Steve

The seller just asked what made it valuable. They did not ask how much you thought it was worth which is a wide range as a Secretary recently didn't bring the $360 being asked for it therefore, is $85 that significantly less to land the seller in suckerville? A stickered example brought $1,236 in 2001 though I doubt it would bring that much currently. Honestly, I don't think any seller should ever move a piece over to BIN on the advice of a buyer (that might be sucker by definition). But in this case the pen may have brought $150-250 left to the open market though, I remember the band had issues, so I guess double to three times is significant but, this is not on big dollars.

I was watching a badly listed Sheaffer Cobra base listed for $40 that an acquaintance got to the seller with a BIN of $100. This is a $600 base so bigger multiple and larger dollars. The two of us were likely the only ones to have found it the way it was listed and the seller got 2 1/2 times the list price. If the seller had been in touch with me I would not tell them it was a $600 base that would simply be unkind. Anyway, this Cobra traded hands with me at the DC show for another Cobra with an unusual second drilled socket that another friend had that wanted one that was typical for the base the central single socket.

As for the Secretary I would have stuck with the fact that they do not come up that often and are desirable no need to have mentioned that $85 was likely not enough for it and they harmed themselves with the BIN. Maybe hint that you might have paid more had the auction ran so that they can conclude that the BIN was not the best option.





Roger W.

There was NO joy. In fact I apologized that a member of the pen community would take advantage of someone.
I didn't make the seller feel awful. The person that "tricked" them did.

No Steve,

The would-be buyer did not make him "feel" anything, other than perhaps some elation that his pen was worth even $85.

The only person, who made the seller feel awful, Steve was you. Watch out for that there Karma

Again, the seller ASKED me. I don't taunt them with the information.

No. The seller never asked you how valuable the pen was. You volunteered that, apparently with the goal to make him feel a sucker. Charming.

If One more semi-educated. Or certainly more skeptical seller is created. Then I'm satisfied.

Ah, so hurting the seller and addressing issues he never asked of you is ok if it meets your view of the greater good semi-educated, as you would deem necessary

I don't say hey this is just a red pen. You want 300 Will you take 50?

irrelevant to your initial thesis.

They had a follow up question. Specific to the pen's value and I honestly answered that one, too..

Conveniently offered after your other argument was dismembered

I've paid honest and fair prices for nearly all my pens. Yes I've gotten a few sumgais. Never under the cloak of deception, however.

Hmmm, then the backchannel deal that offers someone a better higher price than your front line sumgai still generates your abhorrence? Well... different strokes for different folks.

I bring up our past discussions to illustrate my abhorrence for back channel dealings.
It is quite applicable in this instance.

If you abhor chocolate ice cream on moral grounds, it is odd you invoke it to condemn others enjoyment vanilla soda, and about as relevant. Apples and oranges I suppose.

I did not in any way take advantage of the sucker's deal. I bought a pen that as far as I knew was offered by the seller for X price. Period. I bear no culpability whatsoever.

You took advantage exactly of that, assuming for the moment we grant it that status. Indeed you closed on the "sucker's deal". Which is fine. Why would it bother you to recognize that? Verily your post celebrated your good fortune in taking advantage of the sucker's deal, without calling it that.

Please don't degrade another's beliefs. It is very unbecoming. I don't poke fun at you when you won't eat shellfish. Right?

Strawman.

A. you are welcome to argue about shellfish yea or nay. I will not feel denigrated.

B. I have not degraded anyone's beliefs. I've merely explored various aspects of various beliefs, that are tossed around in casual fashion to assess a $85 pen deal.

What you don't know. Is that I did answer the question. I did explain that it is an uncommon, scarce, pen. The seller replied asking me what it should be "worth".

Too late. You defined a set of circumstances, and we have concluded rightly that you did wrong. Now you wish to define another set of circumstances. Perhaps sometime we can explore that in another thread. I'm sure there is a Karmic fee for making it it plainly clear to someone who sold you a pen that they screwed themselves selling you the pen.

Well, as you are obviously ignorant of the true laws of Karma. I'll make this brief.
Karma is not in play when honesty is invoked.

Embracing potential harm of another. Most unfortunate.

Once again. Your condescending attitude is quite disgusting

Mirrors. Powerful tools. When there are not actual arguments to be made, engage in ad hominem. Verily, one might find views telling someone who sells him something that he is a sucker. One might find disgusting one's universal abhorrence of back channel deals, avoiding all discussion of nuance and context. What is the parallel to racism... back channelism, I suppose. Topic too for another day.

-d

Per Hugh:Strange how such a simple issue can develop!! Steve , of course, has every right to answer the queries asked as he see fit, it's clear how he was going to answer . I'm not sure this was ever a real dilemma, more an observation of being in an "unpleasant" position. When it's all said and done the seller set the price, regardless of whether it was "market value" or not, his lack of knowledge and failure to research the pen is his problem. If a next time arises he will no doubt do some research.

On back channel dealings, is this really such an issue? From an ethical point if a fair market value is offered and accepted (on ebay for instance) then the purpose of the exercise ( selling the item) has been achieved to the satisfaction of both parties, while it may not seem fair to someone who may have been prepared to pay more are the actions of the seller wrong? Strangely it's not unethical to knowingly offer a low price ( morally not nice!!) as the seller is the one who accepts or declines. The simple way for a seller to respond is to change the starting price to the offer price. I have made a few back channel offers over the years ( the one in post 8, where I'd purchased a pen from the seller and it came with the wrong cap, he then offered another pen with the cap mine should have had....hence the offer to save swapping the caps) mainly when a group of pens comes along with one I'm interested in, I offer what I thinks a fair price to avoid ending up with a bunch I don't want.

Regards
Hugh

Apologies from Admin. While trying to remove duplicate post from another member, Hugh's was caught. It has been quoted here.

I wondered what happened....thankfully I won't have to re-type!!

No David you're wrong.

I'm done with it.

My only problem was I inadvertently deleted the messages from the seller.
Exception being the first one.

Enjoy your playground

Steve

No David you're wrong.

I'm done with it.

My only problem was I inadvertently deleted the messages from the seller.
Exception being the first one.

Enjoy your playground

Steve

Indeed,

We will try to keep policy of not abhorring in sweeping fashion

-d

Sorry if I offended, Steve. It appears I misunderstood "sucker deal". "Sumgai" does sound better, but one could easily argue that they are the same thing. On the other hand, it's a free market and barring context something is is worth exactly whatever it trades hands for. It looks like this pen is worth more every time it changes hands... sounds like a good deal all around.

I'm going to have to research Karma as a theological concept now (my previous point of reference was the final track of the 1977 Journey album Next ). I'm curious like that.



Tim