FormCritic wrote:
I bought three items from Troll and Toad off Ebay this week.  I asked for a combined shipping price.  They responded within 24 hours with true* combined shipping and I happily paid for it.

That is my usual experience with Troll and Toad.  They are one of my favorite sellers.   The one time I was unhappy with my order they fixed it after I made clear what was wrong.

*Actual cost of shipping multiple items together.

Alas, as many people have found out to their cost, that is not the common experience.

I could say the same about Cougie. I've bought things from him for years. Never had a bad experience, and never been screwed on postage. The one time I did have an issue with an item that was incomplete, he refunded me in full without question. I even got to keep the item.

As some have pointed out I am in the UK. Maybe T&T only decide to screw non-Americans.

deimos3428 wrote:Sure, as a seller you'd think that.  As a buyer I'm thinking precisely the opposite.  Guess we'll agree to disagree, Mike, but there's no way the auction staff should be taking sides in the matter.

The standard rule is that the auctioneer acts for the seller, at least until the bidder wins.  From Christie's Conditions of Sale for a recent auction:

The property will be offered by us as agent for the Consignor, unless the catalogue indicates otherwise.

The seller signs a consignment agreement with the auction house, where they agree to act as the seller's agent.  Under New York law, as I understand it, once the bidding is complete, the auction house also becomes agent for the buyer; but by then, the price has been set.

It's not too surprising, since the auction houses make their money on sales commissions.  And at least until the economy tanked, they were often offering guaranteed sales prices to consignors.  Then, if the final sale price wasn't high enough, the auction house had to pay the difference to the seller.

I interpret commercial reasonableness to mean that unless the auctioneer expressly makes a stupid claim...  like "I guarantee you the best price on the planet"...



all the auction has to do is meet the commercial reasonableness standard... ie. provide the service and be reasonable diligent in their pursuit of buyers.  



.... ie the GenCon auction doesn't have to compete with Ebay.... and I doubt the consignors legitimately expect it to do so.  



If consignors want to bring stuff last minute to pay for their trip.... and a buyer wants to invest in there stuff to sell on ebay....  seems like a reasonable situation for buyers and sellers.  



The link to the Maine Antiques Digest auction law article is worth reading.  And, his regular monthly column would be interesting reading for most of the people here and might clarify some of the routine misconceptions about ebay, mail fraud, etc.



I personally wish he would do a column on tortious interference.  That could stir up a hornets nest here since accusations of such proliferate.  (and possibly the practice).

Tharizdun wrote: It's redundant, what "obligations" the auctioneer guy has because I think everyone agrees that his job is to secure the best and highest possible bid for an item. Why all the posts about this? Who is the dumbfuck that doesn't agree with this point? Does someone think otherwise and I missed something?

Well, a few posts back, deimos and Badmike were discussing the responsibilities of an auctioneer, and whether they should seek the highest price for the seller, or be neutral.  I thought that it was worth a post, since there was an answer to the question they were raising.

Apologies if I have disturbed your repose.

Actually, someone did suggest a page or two back that the auctioneer should be a "disinterested arbiter".  And, there was recently a long thread that included the concept that one distinct company should not bid in the other company's auction because it was unfair to buyers!  So noting that the auctioneers responsibility is to the seller seems relevant to the discussion.

The auction/law column is fascinating reading.  I would be shocked if some here didn't find it interesting.  

But, you never know!  hehe.

Oh, and Mars seemed spot on.

Pipswich wrote:It seems clear that international shipping is a common denominator for many problems and strongly opined long standing disputes.

I don't know. I've been selling mostly to the US for about six years now, and I've never had an item arrive damaged, and I've never had an item go from EX/clean condition to Poor condition in the journey through the mail either, or had a package opened and a book drawn in and highlighted, or pages removed either.

There is a big difference between being honest about what you sell, and 'misrepresenting', shall we say, the condition of your products. And for that to be just an issue with international buyers is fairly naive.

As regards mailing costs, we all know it costs a helluva lot to ship international. I for one am more than happy to be paying $40-60 for shipping packages abroad, and I've paid a lot more to ensure I have tracking.

The point is, if T&T told the truth about what they were selling, if they were honest beyond reproach, and could be trusted by default, then most of the problems people have with them would not exist. Most people have no issue with other people making money, but when a company misleads buyers and is beligerant about it, all in the name of making a quick buck, people have an issue. That is why people run threads on T&T, I can only assume that's why there's been a 4 year thread on Cougie, and that is why people will question 'The Partnership' and their decision to sell out to such an organisation.

There was a long standing trust and feel of honesty built up around the GenCon auctions, that had grown between the GenCon organisation and the buying public, most of the big money men or which reside here from time to time. That bond of trust was fostered by the auctioneer who as far as everyone was concerned, was a passionate and well informed auctioneer. By selling out to an organisation like T&T who are purely money driven and quite blatently have little regard for the buyer and little knowledge about what they're selling, completely destroys that trust and brings into question the honesty and motivations of everyone involved. To then hand a charity hat on a portion of this is rediculous.

Badmike wrote:
"...the cast of "High School Musical" auction the rares?  That would seem more relevant, and would prove the point (If that woodgrain goes for less than $1000, we can see Vanessa Hudgins is totally inept at auctioning D&D rares...."

Is she dressed as a 1st ed female fighter or a 3.x+ edition? THAT will make a big difference!  

To get this all in perspective, everyone is pretty much agreeing now that you will make MORE money on the RARE items selling on Ebay then you would selling at GenCon? If this is true, why take anything even semi-rare to the auction at GenCon?

MsB.

I think you are to be commended for that track record.  And, I assume you are an owner/operator.  Several of the strident voices here also appear to be owner operators who are competing with larger businesses and expect their mundane employees to provide the same service that you provide.  They can't.

I can imagine the owners would like to match your service, and even that they get frustrated when they can't.  And, even that some are rude to customers from time to time.  And, I do believe that customers appreciate great service and come back to owner/operators when they are confident that they will get what they want.  I think many will even pay a little more money for things when our confidence in the product description and the quality of shipping is high.

Nonetheless, the large retailers offer wide variety of goods, can hold inventory longer to find retail buyers and appear to get it right quite frequently.  Larger than would be possible without employees.  Painting these businesses with a broad brush as dishonest is unseemly and fails to acknowledge that some of them obviously have thousands upon thousands of satisfied customers.  Attacking them for participating in a charity auction is downright reprehensible.  Attacking them based upon the fact that there motivation is to make a profit... is absurd.

Clearly, there are personal and cultural differences at play.  Your explanation that things changed at some point with the auction... and that the change was not satisfying to many people is telling.  So what.  A business made a decision some people don't like.  It's their business; not yours or mine.  A business and it's owners are free to make their own business decisions.  Some of them may be stupid to you, but that's the beauty of ownership, it entails the right to make stupid decisions.

Maybe some of you could do better.  Incorporate, pool resources and see if you can manage a mega retailer better than those you complain about.  I don't doubt that you can.  I certainly have seen nothing but extraordinary shipping from anyone here.

For the record, there is a difference between questioning and accusing.  We all know that.  It's not a fine distinction.  And broad sweeping generalized accusations erode the credibility of the poster.  

If someone had a bad employee a year ago... and the problem is gone... it is gone.  They may also hire another bad employee in six weeks.  Certainly, we can not predict with certainty that a large retailer (any large retailer) can provide perfect service across time and thousands of transaction.  And, perhaps an owner/operator can come closer to guaranteeing that service.  Kudos to both of them for trying!