The Diecast Zone · Model Car Club Since 1994
Diecast Collector Forums
Eight forums, every scale, and thirty years of shop talk — new arrivals, restorations, reviews, and the finds you won’t see posted anywhere else, with the full archive back to 2002 restored and searchable. Free to Register.
8Forums
195,000+Topics
1,276,000+Posts
10,000+Members
Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/02/2011 4:17 pm
My tale of woe concerning an EMC Cadillac - and a question
In December I spotted an EMC Eldorado - in the desirable metallic burgundy color - and decided to bid since it was advertised as new. I got it for a mere $204, a real bargain, so I thought. Should have looked at the pictures much more closely.
When it arrived I immediately saw that the hood ornament had broken off and was nowhere in the box. Check ebay pics again - nope, was never there. But, I thought, if I can get an ornament from the original seller (Aleksandr Bourlatski) I could repair it and have a perfect Eldo. Well, long story short, he didn't have any and it would be a long time before EMC could provide any. So, back to the seller.
First he told be it was there and it must have been lost when I opened it. Nuh-uh, check your pics, fellah. Then there was the fine print: "returns not accepted". Sorry, when you state new and it isn't, that's misrepresentation. Off I go to ebay's resolution center.
So I ship it back for a promised refund. Seller gets it, relists it again without calling it new but WITH NO MENTION OF THE MISSING EMBLEM. He waits until within 3 hours of the time limit to make amends before refunding my PayPal account (by then the relisted item had been up for 2-3 days).
So, here's the question: what feedback do I give? I have everything back except the return postage, But he denied there was a problem, drug his heels on the refund, and continues to keep mum about a defect he cannot deny is there.
Search EMC Cadillac on ebay and you will see it - BEWARE if you were thinking of bidding. His feedback is 99.4%, and he got a negative a few days ago. Curiously, the price on this item keeps changing: first $279, then $229, then $199, now back up to $299 - what's up with that?
Any suggestions?
10/02/2011 5:23 pm
I think I would give him a neutral. Although the seller did not mention the missing hood ornament,as you say,it was in the picture so you paying the returned postage would be appropriate although I understand your frustration. As for listing the item as new unfortunately just because something is new doesn't mean it doesn't have any defects although I would point them out. As for the dragging of feet, he did refund you in the required time. As for not mentioning the missing item in the new auction, that's deceptive but not part of your dealing. I don't approve of any of this with a seller like this and I have run into a few where they are less than truthful by way of omission. It would be nice if people dealt with people as they would like to be treated but sometimes it just isn't so. I know how you feel, I've been there. My two cents.
10/02/2011 10:05 pm
I asked the seller a question...
It looks like the hood ornament is missing. Is it?
Regards,
JWR
Here is his response:
This Cadillac is priced well below the normal going price of $400.00 plus because their is no hood ornament!
Notice the exclamation point at the end, as if I was being overly critical or something! BUT my question and his answer are now on his auction.
11/02/2011 12:32 am
I'd go with Negative, an undisclosed broken mascot is not unimportant.
11/02/2011 1:51 am
Same here. He was trying to sneak one past the buyer, including you. Shameful.
11/02/2011 3:24 am
NEGATIVE.
11/02/2011 4:26 am
I would give Negative feedback...... I have a very low tolerance for...
the all too often B.S. and misrepresentation from sellers like him. My time has value as does yours. Time and added aggravation never get refunded and seem not to be understood by many sellers who misrepresent, give dishonest answers and get upset with a buyer when the real blame and fault lies with them.
Topic starter
11/02/2011 11:37 am
Thanks John - at least others now have the full story.
11/02/2011 11:54 am
Negative. What a schmoe.