[Slraep]

Originally Posted by Pearl_dreams

It goes beyond that...if you look at the bidding history, the winning bidder's proxy bids were driven up repeatedly by a single, zero-feedback bidder whose bidding activity with this seller is 71% (last time I checked.).......

Oh my, that's very, very interesting. I didn't see that either!

Slraep

[gravityalwayswins]

Originally Posted by Pearl_dreams

I'm sorry, but my personal conclusion is that your buyer received an item that really was not represented correctly, though you didn't realize this. Consider refunding her voluntarily. I do not mean to offend you, just giving my opinion.

You make an excellent point, Pearl_dreams, about the item and the buyer's potential thoughts. But the buyer asked Bo to offer it to the underbidder, which Bo agreed to do, then the buyer refused to return the item to Bo so she could offer it to the underbidder! (to quote Bo from her initial post, she offered to let the buyer "Send it back and then I can offer it to the under bidder.", which the buyer refused). That's what I found so weird about Bo's story. Who knows - it's definitely a weird situation regardless (and per Jeremy's email, not as uncommon as many of us would imagine ).

[pearlescence]

It could be that the buyer thought she had been misled (emerald/glass),and thought that if she returned there would be no refund
so there may have been an outbreak of mutual mistrust.

[Pearl_dreams]

The buyer would also be out a significant amount of money to return it speedily to Australia.

Here is what I think the ideal outcome would be at this point--and I mean ideal in that Dawn is less likely to get a very negative feedback if she does this. When a seller makes a mistake, they are usually advised to pay for the return shipping as the buyer should not be out any money for a misrepresented item.

Dawn should apologize to the buyer and explain that she herself thought the ring was older and more valuable (and had bought it as such), but that she has since learned otherwise.

She should offer a full refund including return shipping upon receipt of the ring and the pendant. (A generous alternative would be to let the buyer keep the pendant as a good will gesture and compensation for her trouble.)

Then she should revise her listing if she plans to resell it-- though judging from her stated feelings about the ring, she may prefer to keep it. (The underbidder should not be offered the ring because it was not represented correctly anyway and the same problem would arise.)

It is a reminder to us that items sold in an antique shop cannot be assumed to be antiques-- sorry you had this problem, Dawn. But it's never too late to do the right thing.

[Slraep]

The buyer has re-listed the ring with eBay for a lot less than she paid, so I guess she and Dawn did not come to any agreement after all.

Slraep

[Pearl_dreams]

I hope she sells it and recovers some of her money.

[silverseajewelry]

Hey! Anyone out there wanna be my shill? I sure could use one! I pay in pearls!

No, seriously...it's not a joking matter. Ebay should have some sort of detection program to find that sort of thing and suspend questionable accounts. That's not to say I believe anyone here has been involved in shill bidder action...

Selling on ebay is very hard, unless you are Care Ehret with a *big* reputation and a long list of repeat customers. I am starting small and careful and setting my prices very attractively low until I pick up some momentum.

[Pearl_dreams]

eBay does have a way to detect shilling, but it isn't investigated unless someone who thinks they have been shilled reports their suspicions.

However, what usually happens then is that the shill ID is the one suspended, while the selling ID is allowed to go on and make more money for eBay.

I don't believe any shilling went on here, but the reduction in transparency on eBay is very troubling and off-putting. The upcoming changes in feedback are even worse. A lot of sellers are throwing in the towel in May when the new rules kick in. Can't say I blame them.

[knotty panda]

Aye carumba! I couldn't get into this here thread one iota. I just kept thinking, "she paid you, and your problem is????" Sleepless nights, worries, it all didn't make sense. But it makes perfect sense now. Somethin', ain't it.

[silverseajewelry]

What exactly are the new changes in feedback rules?

Great summary, knotty!

[Pearl_dreams]

The upcoming changes to feedback:

http://pages.ebay.com/services/forum/new.html

[Pearl_dreams]

Originally Posted by Bodecia

...
I leave great feedback for customers and generally they do the same for me but this time I am sure I will be Slammed... I guess what is distressing me is that I will slam her back, but there is not enough room to explain why and it will just look like I am a nasty piece of work.

This is one of the reasons why eBay is changing the feedback rules.
Buyers who give a seller a negative often get a retaliatory negative from the seller-- which, from her post, is apparently what Dawn is intending to do to this buyer.

Dawn, you sold this buyer a piece of green glass in modern 10K gold for $455.00, leading her to believe it was vintage or antique and an emerald. If this happened to me as a buyer, I would be giving out my first negative feedback ever.

If she does give you a negative feedback, take it --and learn from it to be absolutely sure of what you are selling before listing it. Don't neg her back. It will make you look bad if you do-- and anyway, she may wait until the feedback changes are instituted to be sure that you can't neg her back.

Don't waffle in your descriptions about what your item is or isn't-- find out what it is, then stand behind your description. It's an issue of integrity.

[Sueki]

The whole concept of ebay - and any on-line selling - is based on trust.
Whoever is right or wrong here, sellers make mistakes occasionally, and honest sellers will be mortified and insist on a full refund when the item is returned. And sometimes, the item just doesn't suit the buyer when seen in reality.
Dawn states that a refund was offered, but her buyer was reluctant to do this.
However, I see that the buyer has this on her auction page "NO RETURNS". What's that all about ?
Seeing as the original reason for the ring being unsuitable was given as "the ring doesn't suit me", I'd have thought that the buyer (now the seller) would be the last person to have those terms on their listings.....
The words pot, kettle, and black come to mind.

[Slraep]

Originally Posted by Sueki

However, I see that the buyer has this on her auction page "NO RETURNS". What's that all about ?

Hi Sueki,

Any seller can have a "no return" policy. And many do. Of course, it limits the number of bidders on their merchandise, but the seller knows that. Dawn is free to do the same, but she does not have a no return policy. A generous return policy makes people know they have a recourse if the bidding gets high and the merchandise is perhaps not what it's suppose to be, or alluded to be. Or they have strong suspicions of seller shilling.(I'm not saying this is the case either)

The reseller is being upfront, I think. She describes the ring very well with no iffiness as to what the stone could be. Someone who collects these Black Hills gold rings would get a "fair" deal if it went for 200 bucks(starting bid).

Slraep

[Pearl_dreams]

She ought to have shown the inside of the ring so the buyer would know it's hollow, especially as she has in her description, "it has a very substantial shank." I find hollow rings very uncomfortable --they make grooved indentations in my finger-- and I never buy them.

The fact that she talks about the "very substantial shank" but doesn't mention that it is hollow may lay her open to a Significantly Not As Described dispute with PayPal, if the buyer pays that way-- sellers find out that there is no such thing as "no returns" if PayPal finds in a buyer's favor.