Discussion on a BTR

[MagickalMemories]

This thread is open for comment from anyone interested in doing so.
Before commenting, please read the entire thread:

viewtopic.php?f=103&t=139398&start=0

I opened this discussion thread so as to keep the actual BTR as uncluttered as possible.

Eric

[reegsk]

IMO, I think it was a lack of diligence from both parties. On the one hand, the seller did not take an accurate inventory of his items, which is obvious by his loose language, i.e. "I think", "so are a few of the others", etc. I feel he should have been a bit more exact when asked for numbers of plastic and metal bikes, but I can also understand his reluctance to tear open packages for what could turn out to be a failed sale, which is very frustrating even when you don't have to remove packed up models and repack them. On the other hand, however, the buyer didn't press the issue, and while he state that he was "mainly interested in the older metal bikes", he never comes anywhere close to stating that he's entirely disinterested in plastic ones, which I would take to mean that he's willing to take the whole lot if the price is right. The point at which I think he is not diligent enough is when he states in his second message that he's looking mainly for metal bikes, but also makes an offer on the entire lot, as is, without any stipulations, such as "$180 shipped if those are actually metals".

I also feel that this entire issue springs from a miscommunication. To a gamer that's only been playing for the last ten or so years, the plastic/metal hybrids are the old metals, as the new kits have no metal whatsoever. However, they're not entirely metal, so saying "the old metals" instead of "the old metal and plastics" isn't describing them to a T.

Overall, I suppose the BTR is warranted, although since there was a bit of a failing on both parts, I think an amicable, reasonable resolution is most warranted, which seems to be where this is heading (refund/return of items).

[blackspade]

I tend to agree with reegsk.
I think that the description of the models was poor on the part of the seller but the pictures are pretty clear as to what the actual figures to be traded were.
I don't think that the description of the 'old metal ones' was wildly inacurate if the seller had not played before the metal/plastic hybrids came out.
What I don't get is that the seller had presumably played with the figures for some time and didn't know what he had?
That is what is nagging at me the most.
The buyer was also not clear on which metal ones he was looking for as there are two all metal editions of the space marine bike that preceeded the hybrid ones.
A good look at the pics should have been enough to show what was being offered.

Overall, I would say that the bikes should be shipped back and the money refunded.
If I were seller, I would offer to pay for the return due to my descriptive error (that's just me. I feel that the seller bares the burden of describing his/her wares accurately as possible).
I think that the buyer is being entirely reasonable in sending the figures back at his expense.

[MagickalMemories]

...but I can also understand his reluctance to tear open packages for what could turn out to be a failed sale, which is very frustrating even when you don't have to remove packed up models and repack them.

I AM MAKING NO ACCUSATIONS AND AM MERELY POINTING THIS OUT FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION...
(There. That should be clear. LOL)

The fact that this was mentioned (items are already boxed up) *could* be a psycological ploy, as well. Someone who wants to unload "crap" on someone else could throw in the 'already boxed up' line to the other guy as a way of deterring him from asking for more pictures.
"I don't want to make the guy unwrap & open everything after he's already gone and packed it up and seem like an a-hole."

Overall, I suppose the BTR is warranted, although since there was a bit of a failing on both parts, I think an amicable, reasonable resolution is most warranted, which seems to be where this is heading (refund/return of items).

I agree with this entirely.

What I don't get is that the seller had presumably played with the figures for some time and didn't know what he had?
That is what is nagging at me the most.

VERY valid point.

I also agree that, as a seller, *I* would offer to pay the shipping. I think it speaks volumes of the buyer that he is willing to pay it.

Eric

[kturock]

As someone who's had most all of the minis or known someone who has, remebering exact minis is difficult.
So I can understand the seller not knowing for sure what he wrapped up.

BUT he should have checked.

The buyer, whating specific minis should have stated I want all metal minis; rider/bike/sidecar. If that's not what you have, them I'm not interested. [or less interested.]
He should have asked for better pics once he got the ones shown. Or even sent a link from source of legends, showing exactly what he wanted.

It's another case of neither party, buyer or seller, being specific in the deal.

Both are wrong. Who should pay the return shipping?
If the buyer paid to receive it, the seller should pay to get it back. Both were wrong and that should split the total shipping costs.
Both get to chaulk it up to poor communication.

[norsehawk]

Having read the thread up to the point that the link to this discussion was posted, looking at the pictures on my tiny little 10" screen on my netbook, both zoomed out and zoomed in, the quality of the photos was more than enough to tell that all of the bikes were the 2nd edition or modern all plastic bikes. Having owned all varieties of the bikes, and not obtaining any of the RT era ones until a few years ago, If you told me it was a metal attack bike, I would have assumed it was the 2nd edition hybrid plastic metal one that I own a few of. the entire sidecar, gunner, and gun option are in metal and do make for a fairly heavy figure.

The look of the bikes, even on a zoomed out tiny screen of a laptop tells me that they are in the style of the more modern bikes. Seeing how 2nd edition goes back to 1993, I think up to 18 years of backhistory would be enough that it would be allowed to be forgiven if they didn't know of a model from pre '93 (not sure what the exact year the newer bike kit came out)
(this kind of scares me in a bit that the space marine bike kit is that old with no upgrades/updates since that time however)

If the seller would agree, I would think an undoing of the deal would be a good thing to do, if he was so amenable. However, I would put fault on the seller for not doing his due diligence in making sure that he is purchasing exactly what he wants if he is only interested in a very specific extremely long out of production model type.

(Note I don't know either of them so I am unbiased, I just have way too many models to ever be able to paint them)