View Full Version : Selling Hi-Fi Equipment - The Rights and Wrongs
Starting this thread as we were having an intersting discussion about this on the Bargains on Ebay thread but the drift was getting a bit too much. It does seem to me that a lot of people think that hi-fi should be in some seperate compartment from any other commodity. People on forums complain about rip off dealers, blatent profiteering, overpricing due to opportunism and, buzz word of the moment, Greed.
Now I am of the opinion that unless soemone genuinally has cornered the market in a desirable item there is nothing wrong with asking whatever price you want. That does not mean it will sell. That does not mean you will push the price up. Does anyone ever stick stuff on their watch list just to see what it goes for? I do this and my experience is that the ridiculously priced stuff just does not sell. The seller then relists for slightly less. This does seem to be a common practice.
For example a while back someone on here pointed out that Donald Fagan's album 'Kamakiriad' was now valuable on vinyl. They linked to a listing asking for £100 for a used copy as a Buy it Now. Intrigued I followed it. 2 weeks later - No sale. Relisted at £95. Two more weeks - no sale. Conclusion? It aint worth £95.
Another common complaint is dealers selling people stuff that is not suitable for them, is not very good, is overpriced etc. Again I struggle with this. I would not walk into a Nissan showroom, chat with the salesman about my needs and then expect him to say 'I've got nothing here that will really suit you I suggest you pop into the Merc dealership down the road.' A salesman's job is to sell the product. If he fails he is out of a job and so is everyone else employed there. c.f 'Comet'
There is a certain mindset that says 'people are stupid, they need to be told what to do and always need to be saved from themselves' - I don't think this is a healthy attitude but in our current society it is gradually gaining ground over 'people are individuals and should be allowed to make their own decisions and learn from their own mistakes.'
Contrary (and all) opinions invited.
prestonchipfryer
29-12-2012, 13:59
The biggest bugbear (for me) with Ebay is those who list items as being 'RARE'. What TF does it mean? Usually it means that the product was rubbish to start with and has been disposed of many years ago.
Or the word 'GREAT', which means big or substantial.
I suppose that the people who do this are just thick twats.
Rare Bird
29-12-2012, 14:01
Very rare i use Auction now it's full of greed & liars, i totally refuse to sell on their anymore.. The only people i use are New record sellers.
losenotaminute
29-12-2012, 14:03
Martin
I completely agree. The alternative to a free market system is far worse. The lessons of history are clear. Pretty soon after you accept that the State can do things "better" than individuals you end up with a totalitarian society where those in power manipulate the system to their own ends.
No doubt someone will pop up and argue that it was the free market system that caused the financial crisis. This is not the case at all. We don't currently live in anything like a free market system, with government spending >50% of GDP we are in fact more socialist than China, economically speaking. The financial crisis was largely caused by incompetent regulation and the unintended consequences of US Federeal interventions in the US housing market.
The problem with socialists is that they always run out of other people's money.
hifi_dave
29-12-2012, 14:05
That all seems fair and straightforward, Martin.
I have been complaining, recently, about the high prices of 'vintage' equipment, because I want to buy certain items. Then again, a few years back, I was moaning that I had a shop full of 'vintage' equipment that was worth jack. You know those, 301, 401s, GL75s, Quad 33/303, ESL57, Leak, Radford etc. I couldn't even give it away in the mid 2000s but now it is escalating steadily in price. That's fine if you have some but not if you want to buy but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
As a dealer of Hi-Fi equipment, I have always tried my utmost to stock good, reliable and value for money equipment from steady companies offering great backup should anything go wrong. I always try to sell (or not) the most appropriate equipment for a customer's needs after demo'ing it against other sensible products. However, my choice might not always be the same as other dealers stock but that's competition for you.
The market prevails.
prestonchipfryer
29-12-2012, 14:07
Oh, and those who state that there are marks and scratches, AS TO BE EXPECTED, because the item is relatively old. :donk:
Why would anyone expect cosmetic damage as being AS EXPECTED. FIIK. :doh:
losenotaminute
29-12-2012, 14:07
Very rare i use Auction now it's full of greed & liars, i totally refuse to sell on their anymore.. The only people i use are New record sellers.
The risks of selling on eBay are too great now. There are thousands of scammers out there who buy something then complain that is was faulty, get a partial refund, or get a full refund and send back an empty box. eBay almost always come down on the side of the buyer, regardless of the circumstances.
But eBay isn't a free market - it's rigged in favour of buyers and populated by scammers.
walpurgis
29-12-2012, 14:28
I use eBay regularly and only extremely rarely have I had a problem. Certainly nothing that wasn't sorted out.
No good complaining about the prices people ask, if you don't like the price or terms of the sale, well, nobody's forcing you to buy. Prices tend to find their own level anyway, as people just won't buy if you look greedy!
If you sell, you must be scrupulously accurate and honest with descriptions and make sure any defects or wear on sale items are meticulously described and detailed in photos. If you aren't very careful, you can come unstuck!
I dare say some AOS members may be familiar with my eBay listings of Hi-Fi gear and could even have bought from me. I have nearly 1600 transaction to my credit and 100% positive feedback so far, that could change I suppose, there are stupid or vindictive people about.
I'm not a trader by the way, I just get through a lot of Hi-Fi equipment and other stuff, just for fun.
Rare Bird
29-12-2012, 14:46
Oh, and those who state that there are marks and scratches, AS TO BE EXPECTED, because the item is relatively old. :donk:
Why would anyone expect cosmetic damage as being AS EXPECTED. FIIK. :doh:
Don't get me going.
''Condition commensurate with age''
''A few marks but you wont notice them untill you look close''
''It's boxed up ready to go but i can't remember any scratches'' :lol:
etc etc
My fav one: ''If you want it like new i sugest you go buy a new one'' (Um..Unless i have a time machine its a slim chance this particular 40 year old amp will still be in production) :D
prestonchipfryer
29-12-2012, 20:40
Don't get me going.
''Condition commensurate with age''
''A few marks but you wont notice them untill you look close''
''It's boxed up ready to go but i can't remember any scratches'' :lol:
etc etc
My fav one: ''If you want it like new i sugest you go buy a new one'' (Um..Unless i have a time machine its a slim chance this particular 40 year old amp will still be in production) :D
Or: ''You cannot see the inch-deep scratch if you don't look at it.'' :lol:
For example a while back someone on here pointed out that Donald Fagan's album 'Kamakiriad' was now valuable on vinyl. They linked to a listing asking for £100 for a used copy as a Buy it Now. Intrigued I followed it. 2 weeks later - No sale. Relisted at £95. Two more weeks - no sale. Conclusion? It aint worth £95.
Contrary (and all) opinions invited.
Hi,
A copy went for £102 today on Ebay. Another went for £90 at the start of this month. Both were not in mint condition.
Having said that, copies also have gone for less than £50 recently.
Hi,
A copy went for £102 today on Ebay. Another went for £90 at the start of this month. Both were not in mint condition.
Having said that, copies also have gone for less than £50 recently.
:lol: Thanks for blowing my argument out of the water on that one Dean ;)- you been chasing a copy or just did a search?
:lol: Thanks for blowing my argument out of the water on that one Dean ;)- you been chasing a copy or just did a search?
Hi Martin,
I'm not after a copy but someone else was on another forum. I had a search out of curiosity.
Hi,
A copy went for £102 today on Ebay. Another went for £90 at the start of this month. Both were not in mint condition.
Having said that, copies also have gone for less than £50 recently.
Have you seen what mint copies of Kate Bush's 'Aerial', on vinyl, go for now? Madness! :eek:
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Prices can go for over £100! There has been a fair few this year that has sold for over £100. Having said that, a few have sold on Ebay for less than £100 over the last few weeks. £70 was the cheapest.
Hi Marco,
Prices can go for over £100! There has been a fair few this year that has sold for over £100. Having said that, a few have sold on Ebay for less than £100 over the last few weeks. £70 was the cheapest.
Uh? Sure I could have bought that 6 months ago for £20.. Bugger.
Martin
I completely agree. The alternative to a free market system is far worse. The lessons of history are clear. Pretty soon after you accept that the State can do things "better" than individuals you end up with a totalitarian society where those in power manipulate the system to their own ends.
No doubt someone will pop up and argue that it was the free market system that caused the financial crisis. This is not the case at all. We don't currently live in anything like a free market system, with government spending >50% of GDP we are in fact more socialist than China, economically speaking. The financial crisis was largely caused by incompetent regulation and the unintended consequences of US Federeal interventions in the US housing market.
The problem with socialists is that they always run out of other people's money.
That's a cliche isn't it that last sentence? I read that from staunched Republicans on economic websites, just before asking about Obama's religion or birth certificate..
The lax regulation that you rightly say has caused a lot of the crisis (is more of a catalyst than a cause) is bourne of free market fundamentalism and yet, as you say, the reality is that the market is not free, it's manipulated, controlled by the big, well connected players. The idealism of the free market is just that and is more enacted upon by idealist politicians yet exploited by the banks and similar institutions.
The 'free market' has come round full circle so that those who extol the virtues of it have set up a socialist system for themselves (with the tax payer as the provider) whilst the risk side and all the crumbs are left to the free market For the rest whereby no real gains are possible.
You should really though do some proper reading up on the financial crisis - its not as you say, not as it is normally reported on by fairly clueless commentators who simply repeat others parrot fashion. There's a lot of fraud involved, theres a massive failure in economic theory (that doesn't even have a model whereby crises are possible), a lot is down to private debt, and then there's yet more collusion and fraud and short-termism.
Going back to hifi selling...
I think people underestimate the power of price propaganda.
All that has to be done is for a very high price to be stuck to and highly visible And often repeated and slowly slowly, people start holding out for those prices hoping to get them too.
So then the expectation of the buyer is that a higher price needs to be paid and so eventually it is as they give up looking for the fewer reasonably priced ones, begin to feel they simply got it wrong.
Secondhand goods are not just the same as and other commodity. Secondhand goods are mostly in a market run by amateurs, individuals who don't have any deep thought or philosophy about selling and what would be best. They are in the main more driven by emotion, ego, not wanting to be made a fool of etc etc - NOT thinking of the bottom line.
Worst thing ever is for an individual to feel they've made a loss and not ever see an advantage in selling things off like a business might.
In a fully functioning free market, people lower prices so as to get business from competitors. In a market like eBay for example, there is a collective feeling that they don't want to miss out, to not do as well as the next seller and so this kind of emotional paranoia ends up with a situation as if there is collusion to raise prices. Simply a factor of this group felt emotion.
Therefore you see people holding out for high prices, people buy to speculate because they saw one go for a high price before.
It's not so much greed as market dysfunction and irrationality.
Same mentality happens in any bubble too and with investments. Rationally someone who wants to invest in something should buy when it's low and sell when it's high. The reality is, most people buy when it's high simply because they see others doing well and they don't want to miss out, but they do it too late and this is actually when a rational investor gets out before the bubble bursts..
I think anyone who baulks at high prices now should probably wait a few years and wait for a real economic crisis to happen, bond market collapse etc and see people really squeezed for cashi. Sure things will be pretty cheap then, but perhaps you won't have the funds then either..
What you seem to be saying Macca is that when people see these high pricesc, they should ignore them and wait for them to come down.
How long do they wait? Only takes one person to give in and suddenly the high price gains further credibility and others cave.
It's not how I see the world working in reality.
seoirse2002
30-12-2012, 11:26
:cool:
The risks of selling on eBay are too great now. There are thousands of scammers out there who buy something then complain that is was faulty, get a partial refund, or get a full refund and send back an empty box. eBay almost always come down on the side of the buyer, regardless of the circumstances.
But eBay isn't a free market - it's rigged in favour of buyers and populated by scammers.
I recently had a problem like that where the buyer said the item was faulty and wanted £100 partial refund(half its price!!) and I totally refused,saying I had no control over the way it was treated after he got it.
He escalated it to a formal claim with ebay,but ebay went on MY side...because I would not have been inviting an audition if the item was broken or faulty in the first place
A little tip for anyone selling hi fi....in the listing, state: "potential bidders are welcome to come along and see it working perfectly" and also, "Collection preferred,as I wont be responsible for damage incurred during shipping"
Ebay are aware that this scamming is going on,but if you cover yourself as much as possible in your description,you may prevent scammers from targetting you.:cool:
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 11:37
:cool:
I recently had a problem like that where the buyer said the item was faulty and wanted £100 partial refund(half its price!!) and I totally refused,saying I had no control over the way it was treated after he got it.
He escalated it to a formal claim with ebay,but ebay went on MY side...because I would not have been inviting an audition if the item was broken or faulty in the first place
A little tip for anyone selling hi fi....in the listing, state: "potential bidders are welcome to come along and see it working perfectly" and also, "Collection preferred,as I wont be responsible for damage incurred during shipping"
Ebay are aware that this scamming is going on,but if you cover yourself as much as possible in your description,you may prevent scammers from targetting you.:cool:
That's good to hear, I very rarely find that eBay come down on the side of the seller. What was the actual outcome, did you keep all of the sale proceeds?
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 11:42
That's a cliche isn't it that last sentence? I read that from staunched Republicans on economic websites, just before asking about Obama's religion or birth certificate..
The lax regulation that you rightly say has caused a lot of the crisis (is more of a catalyst than a cause) is bourne of free market fundamentalism and yet, as you say, the reality is that the market is not free, it's manipulated, controlled by the big, well connected players. The idealism of the free market is just that and is more enacted upon by idealist politicians yet exploited by the banks and similar institutions.
The 'free market' has come round full circle so that those who extol the virtues of it have set up a socialist system for themselves (with the tax payer as the provider) whilst the risk side and all the crumbs are left to the free market For the rest whereby no real gains are possible.
You should really though do some proper reading up on the financial crisis - its not as you say, not as it is normally reported on by fairly clueless commentators who simply repeat others parrot fashion. There's a lot of fraud involved, theres a massive failure in economic theory (that doesn't even have a model whereby crises are possible), a lot is down to private debt, and then there's yet more collusion and fraud and short-termism.
It's actually a quote from Mrs T. One of my favourites at it sums up economic theory very well.
I can assure you I have done quite a bit of reading, I have an economics degree :). The crisis is remarkably similar to the Wall Street Crash - the best book on this is JK Galbraith's classic.
One of the better analysts of the last financial crisis if Tim Morgan:
http://www.tullettprebon.com/strategyinsights/index.aspx
He captures the issues very well, can't say I disagree with anything he says.
I was shocked to see they gave a gong to Hector Sants, debases the whole system IMO, not that it wasn't ridiculous in the first place.
Lawrence
Have you seen what mint copies of Kate Bush's 'Aerial', on vinyl, go for now? Madness! :eek:
Marco.
That's why I bought her follow up album straight on release, unfortunately it was a bit of a departure from 'Aerial' - chamber music of sorts - and probably wont get the recognition it deserves and therefore the value. :lol: Not that I bought it to sell on mind.
I wish I had Aerial on vinyl - its a great album.
What you seem to be saying Macca is that when people see these high pricesc, they should ignore them and wait for them to come down.
How long do they wait? Only takes one person to give in and suddenly the high price gains further credibility and others cave.
It's not how I see the world working in reality.
Hi-fi is not like a fridge or a washing machine - it is not an essential purchase. I might have always wanted say a Naim Nait - I look on eBay prices are through the roof. 'Well I want one but I am not paying that' so you forget about it, you don't buy. I agree with your points about amateur sellers, etc. But that is drifiting off topic. I was more interested in what people thought was ethical selling or otherwise. If I buy an amp for £x and then sell it on for 2x, doubling my money - is that wrong? Should I have sold it at no profit? Is it wrong to make money out of hi-fi?
That's a cliche isn't it that last sentence? I read that from staunched Republicans on economic websites, just before asking about Obama's religion or birth certificate..
The lax regulation that you rightly say has caused a lot of the crisis (is more of a catalyst than a cause) is bourne of free market fundamentalism and yet, as you say, the reality is that the market is not free, it's manipulated, controlled by the big, well connected players. The idealism of the free market is just that and is more enacted upon by idealist politicians yet exploited by the banks and similar institutions.
The 'free market' has come round full circle so that those who extol the virtues of it have set up a socialist system for themselves (with the tax payer as the provider) whilst the risk side and all the crumbs are left to the free market For the rest whereby no real gains are possible.
spot on Nat
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 11:51
If I buy an amp for £x and then sell it on for 2x, doubling my money - is that wrong? Should I have sold it at no profit? Is it wrong to make money out of hi-fi?
Why wouldn't you sell it for as much as you can get? So long as there is no dishonesty involved (and to be honest it's largely caveat emptor as far as I'm concerned) then you would be a fool to sell it for any less.
It's "worth" what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller.
:cool:
I recently had a problem like that where the buyer said the item was faulty and wanted £100 partial refund(half its price!!) and I totally refused,saying I had no control over the way it was treated after he got it.
He escalated it to a formal claim with ebay,but ebay went on MY side...because I would not have been inviting an audition if the item was broken or faulty in the first place
A little tip for anyone selling hi fi....in the listing, state: "potential bidders are welcome to come along and see it working perfectly" and also, "Collection preferred,as I wont be responsible for damage incurred during shipping"
Ebay are aware that this scamming is going on,but if you cover yourself as much as possible in your description,you may prevent scammers from targetting you.:cool:
It's great to hear your ebay issue was sorted in your favour George, from your description of the circumstances I had a fair inkling that ebay would back you on this. I no longer ship hifi equipment, I mark it all for collection only, it's safer that way (not that I have sold much recently).
One of the better analysts of the last financial crisis if Tim Morgan:
http://www.tullettprebon.com/strategyinsights/index.aspx
He captures the issues very well, can't say I disagree with anything he says.
I'll add my endorsement to this recommendation; very clear explantation of the issues with miniumum bs. One of the depressing aspects of all this has been the truly lousy reporting from the main media outlets - especially the BBC - appearing to just uncritically regurgitate government "briefings".
I was shocked to see they gave a gong to Hector Sants, debases the whole system IMO, not that it wasn't ridiculous in the first place.
Perhaps there was an element of "please go away and we'll give you a shiny thing if you do"...
Why wouldn't you sell it for as much as you can get? So long as there is no dishonesty involved (and to be honest it's largely caveat emptor as far as I'm concerned) then you would be a fool to sell it for any less.
It's "worth" what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller.
What if you were selling to a friend? Would you double your money then or just take adrink or just pass it on to him for what you paid? My impression is that a lot of people in this hobby expect or even demand that there be no profit taking or at best a minimal amount of profit made on these deals because it is hi-fi and we are all enthusiasts and so all in it together.
For me I am happy if I buy what I want at what I consider a reasonable price - that the seller obtained it very cheaply and has made a good profit from me does not matter to me providing I am content with the price I paid. For others this would be profiteering and totally unacceptable behaviour.
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 12:07
I'll add my endorsement to this recommendation; very clear explantation of the issues with miniumum bs. One of the depressing aspects of all this has been the truly lousy reporting from the main media outlets - especially the BBC - appearing to just uncritically regurgitate government "briefings".
Perhaps there was an element of "please go away and we'll give you a shiny thing if you do"...
The BBC lost the plot several years ago. I tend to stick to other news sources if I want any analysis of what's going on. For example, they keep banging on about "cuts" but public spending is continuing to rise above inflation. If they can't even get that right, how are we expected to take them seriously on anything about economics?
I bought my DM2's for 90 quid on ebay and then drove to Sheffield to collect them. A short time later I discovered that Dingdong had bought his for £20. Did I feel ripped off? Of course not, I am pleased for Mark as it was a cracking deal. I also think I got a good deal for a couple of reasons: They look and sound brilliant and moreover, DM2's have been fetching £200+ on ebay recently so if I ever want to cash in on my investment, I can. I make no apologies for that...
Hi Marco,
Prices can go for over £100! There has been a fair few this year that has sold for over £100. Having said that, a few have sold on Ebay for less than £100 over the last few weeks. £70 was the cheapest.
Yup. I think that I remember seeing one once go for £150!! :mental:
Any idea what's going on? I paid about £25 for the album new, when it came out in 2005, which is not THAT long ago. I didn't realise that it was a limited edition, on vinyl, or why else are people paying mad prices for this album? :scratch:
Marco.
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 12:15
What if you were selling to a friend? Would you double your money then or just take adrink or just pass it on to him for what you paid?
It depends.
If they are a very good friend and don't have the funds I might just give it to them for free. If they have loads of cash I would sell it for a fair price, i.e. whatever I could get selling in the free market.
I wouldn't ripp anyone off, I'm not dishonest.
If you want to make a bit of profit then don't sell to a friend, simples. When I sell my equipment it is usually to fund upgrades so I am looking to sell for the best price, within reason.
seoirse2002
30-12-2012, 16:35
That's good to hear, I very rarely find that eBay come down on the side of the seller. What was the actual outcome, did you keep all of the sale proceeds?
Yes,and never heard a word back from him:)
Yes,and never heard a word back from him:)
Nice one:) Hope you had a good Christmas.
But that is drifiting off topic. I was more interested in what people thought was ethical selling or otherwise. If I buy an amp for £x and then sell it on for 2x, doubling my money - is that wrong? Should I have sold it at no profit? Is it wrong to make money out of hi-fi?
It's so grey that you can't say what's ethical or not without being specific about the situation.
Is ticket touting ethical and is it much different to snapping up rare hifi at cheap prices to sell on at high prices?
If a gig for a very big band is priced at £20 a ticket specifically so that most people can afford to go, so that it isn't just a gig for the rich, and touts deliberately buy them all up in order to make as much profit for themselves and sell on at £1000 each so that now only the rich can go - is that ethical?
Is that different to scouring small ads and ebay for cheap rare hifi so that you can then advertise with a buy it now and a high price?
All you're doing in those two cases is driving the wedge between the have and have-nots deeper for your own gain, you're creating larger problems in society for your own enrichment.
Yes, people may argue that it's not essential to have hifi but that is then saying that poorer people should not have be allowed to have the higher standard of living of a richer neighbour. That kind of thinking is almost one of deliberately pulling up the lader so that you remain at a higher standing in society (the reality being that wealth and luxuries give you a higher standing in human society and has been that way for millenia).
I'm certainly not saying that all selling for profit is unethical, far from it, but as in all situations in life you need to keep in mind the consequences, take a more holistic view rather than blinkered and individualistic one.
In hifi though, it's not necessary to get too hung up about prices and stuff as those without so much money can do so well, if not loads better via DIY with much less of an outlay than buying old classics. You just have to seperate yourself from this world of desire for certain products that has been created by industry past and present.
As a guide for myself, should I happen upon something very cheap I at least enjoy it for a while and get to know what it's like.
When it comes to selling, I take the view that I'll sell at an average going rate rather than hold out deliberately for top dollar or for making new high prices. Partly I do that for loose ethical reasons - not trying to take the piss - and partly for ease of sale as I don't want my money tied up for too long (although it often is as I find selling things a chore and they inevitably stay with me for longer than they need to).
I also like to think that I add some value to the item by being knowledgable enough to assess how well it's working, what condition it is in and being honest about that. I will also try to add value by making it work better, at least looking cosmetically better so that the new owner has more pleasure in owning it and so that it will last a long time too.
It's so grey that you can't say what's ethical or not without being specific about the situation.
Is ticket touting ethical and is it much different to snapping up rare hifi at cheap prices to sell on at high prices?
If a gig for a very big band is priced at £20 a ticket specifically so that most people can afford to go, so that it isn't just a gig for the rich, and touts deliberately buy them all up in order to make as much profit for themselves and sell on at £1000 each so that now only the rich can go - is that ethical?
Is that different to scouring small ads and ebay for cheap rare hifi so that you can then advertise with a buy it now and a high price?
All you're doing in those two cases is driving the wedge between the have and have-nots deeper for your own gain, you're creating larger problems in society for your own enrichment.
.
Ticket touting doesnot work like that in reality (I've posted about that before) but if it did then it would in my view be immoral. Right and wrong and moral and immoral are for an individual to decide, there is no absolute definition of right and wrong. In general we agree on the broader aspects of what is fair and moral and so human society works after a fashion. I just don't agree with attempting to impose my morality on someone else. The Hart loudspeaker thread was good example of people telling someone else what was right and wrong. If a law was being broken or lies being told to sell product, that is a different issue and everyone's duty to point it out. That distinction is very important.
I don't think the Hart speaker thread was telling anyone what was right or wrong.
It was opinion.
There was more to it than that too as he was making clear attempts in the press to take credit for the design of the cabinet and also was about to for the 211 valve amps.
Very different if he just advertised them honestly as someone elses design with his own choice of driver - then people can make up their own minds as to value with the full facts available to them.
How he handled it was very odd and he obviously couldn't give good enough reasoning back to justify the morals behind his actions (and so instead stamped his feet and ran crying into nannies apron until the thread was deleted).
Ticket touting doesnot work like that in reality (I've posted about that before) but if it did then it would in my view be immoral. Right and wrong and moral and immoral are for an individual to decide, there is no absolute definition of right and wrong. In general we agree on the broader aspects of what is fair and moral and so human society works after a fashion. I just don't agree with attempting to impose my morality on someone else. The Hart loudspeaker thread was good example of people telling someone else what was right and wrong. If a law was being broken or lies being told to sell product, that is a different issue and everyone's duty to point it out. That distinction is very important.
Why are lies or breaking laws immoral aspects that we CAN impose on others but other morals cannot be imposed?
Were do we draw the line?
If the consequences of an action are immoral and grave, then shouldn't we try to prevent those bad consequences from happening?
Sometimes, people just aren't able to see those consequences and we have to point them out. Then still others won't be able to see those consquences even after pointing them out, depending on their own ability to empathise and their compassion or their ability to think holistically.
People are different, including the working of people's brains. Some are just less able to think about the consequences of things than others, take autism as an extreme end of the scale.
We just have to be careful about what whether someone is dictating morals through ego or power-wielding. That's where discussion and debate come in..
seoirse2002
30-12-2012, 18:21
Nice one:) Hope you had a good Christmas.
Thanks Rob and a Happy New year to you and the family:)
I bought my DM2's for 90 quid on ebay and then drove to Sheffield to collect them. A short time later I discovered that Dingdong had bought his for £20. Did I feel ripped off? Of course not, I am pleased for Mark as it was a cracking deal. I also think I got a good deal for a couple of reasons: They look and sound brilliant and moreover, DM2's have been fetching £200+ on ebay recently so if I ever want to cash in on my investment, I can. I make no apologies for that...
See, you say they have been fetching £200+ recently and so kind of value them at that price.
In my mind, they still go for £40 or so as they come up so often and so many slip by the average ebay browser. The price increase to £200 IMO is more about people starting their listings at say £100 and new people coming along and thinking this is the norm. It's price propoganda via repetition.
Maybe though I'm out of touch and prices have justifiably gone up that much?
Why are lies or breaking laws immoral aspects that we CAN impose on others but other morals cannot be imposed?
..
My point is that with lies and laws they are factual based. Somrthing is illeagal or it is not. A statement or claim is a either a lie or it is true. These are absolutes, not opinion. There is no gray area.
On the other hand selling something for a huge profit may be seen by some as immoral and by others as superb business sense and very admirable. Big grey area.
So we can point out the truth and that they are telling lies or breaking the law.
But we shouldn't tell them it's wrong to tell those lies or wrong to break that law?
Much selling for huge profit revolves around creating an image, an impression of something and that image is often a lie. Those profits rely entirely on that lie being believed as truth, as fact.
How many steps removed from that absolute does something just become a matter of opinion?
It's not ok to tell a lie but it is ok to make huge profits based on lies as long as you call it 'marketing' or 'creative license'?
I think that is what gets people's backs up - "Rare, top end, superb sounding Amstrad system - £5000" It's not rare, it never was top end, it has never been considered as superb sounding. But convince one sucker that it is and you've conned them out of £5000 (just make sure they never hear another system!). But I guess those statements are just opinion and it's the buyer's fault if they buy it?
Beechwoods
30-12-2012, 19:56
Anyone who believes the word 'rare' in an eBay auction deserves nothing but sympathy. A salesman's job is to sell, a buyers job is to research their purchase. Other than esoteric markets like pharmaceuticals under patent, I can't see what the issue is.
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 20:19
I think that is what gets people's backs up - "Rare, top end, superb sounding Amstrad system - £5000" It's not rare, it never was top end, it has never been considered as superb sounding. But convince one sucker that it is and you've conned them out of £5000 (just make sure they never hear another system!). But I guess those statements are just opinion and it's the buyer's fault if they buy it?
To a large extent it has to be. People soon learn the hard way if they get ripped-off. Are you suggesting we should change the whole system for the small minority of people who don't have sufficient savvy to look after their own interests or are you just pointing out that there are a lot of scumbags on eBay? If the latter, I would tend to agree. :)
If the seller mis-describes the item then the buyer can complain, ask for a refund and go through the buyer protection process. I'm not sure what alternative system you think would work better?
It's human nature to try and maximise the profit you make when selling an item. The alternative system is a socialist one where the State decides who can have what and at what "cost". Or are you proposing that we all join a hippie commune and hold everything in common?
You have to humour Nat, Lawrence, as he does have some rather 'quaint' ideas... ;)
Marco.
You have to humour Nat, Lawrence, as he does have some rather 'quaint' ideas... ;)
Marco.
*sigh * Please do humour me though rather than patronise.
If you don't agree with someone's opinion then say so and say why.
Dismissing someone's opinion without argument with the ad hominem statement that all their opinions are just 'quaint' shows intellectual lazyness or weakness. Telling others to do so too is just plain confrontational.
I'm sure you didn't mean to come across that way though and it was meant in good humour. :cool:
If my comments weren't meant in good humour, daftee-chops, I wouldn't have ended them with a 'winky' smiley!! ;)
Marco.
It's not ok to tell a lie but it is ok to make huge profits based on lies as long as you call it 'marketing' or 'creative license'?
I think that is what gets people's backs up - "Rare, top end, superb sounding Amstrad system - £5000" It's not rare, it never was top end, it has never been considered as superb sounding. But convince one sucker that it is and you've conned them out of £5000 (just make sure they never hear another system!). But I guess those statements are just opinion and it's the buyer's fault if they buy it?
Lets analyse that then
'Rare' - well Amstrad Hi-Fi does not have a reputation for reliability, assuming that is true there will no be many left working - so 'rare' is okay.
'top end' Well it could be the top end of what Amstrad did. Again, that's okay.
'superb sounding' subjective opinion. And not qualified. So that is okay. If he said 'superb sounding compared to my Mark Levinson pre and monoblock combo' then that is a lie and not okay.
If someone cannot be arsed to research and hits the BIN button then yes - it is their fault they just lost £5000.
To a large extent it has to be. People soon learn the hard way if they get ripped-off. Are you suggesting we should change the whole system for the small minority of people who don't have sufficient savvy to look after their own interests or are you just pointing out that there are a lot of scumbags on eBay? If the latter, I would tend to agree. :)
If the seller mis-describes the item then the buyer can complain, ask for a refund and go through the buyer protection process. I'm not sure what alternative system you think would work better?
It's human nature to try and maximise the profit you make when selling an item. The alternative system is a socialist one where the State decides who can have what and at what "cost". Or are you proposing that we all join a hippie commune and hold everything in common?
I'm suggesting that that is what get's people's backs up.
Personally, I don't feel I'm someone who is taken in by it and so mostly ignore it. Just mildly annoying to me.
I do however see a contempt for others in that kind of selling behaviour.
I don't think contempt for others should be encouraged.
I don't think it is human nature either to maximise profit - that is culturally learned behaviour, a system you get used to and individually thrive in.
Are you suggesting that it is, say, human nature and acceptable for a third party to step in and increase food prices during a famine so that they can maximise profits? Or would you say that it is human nature, upon seeing those dying people and desperate faces that profit is forgotten and people do what they can to help at their own expense?
If you can relate to the latter then it goes without saying that profit making is not human nature, it's just a job, a decision made in the context of a particular society and the roles played out within that society.
And what's with the black and white reference to political socialism as the only other choice versus all out individualism?
Lets analyse that then
'Rare' - well Amstrad Hi-Fi does not have a reputation for reliability, assuming that is true there will no be many left working - so 'rare' is okay.
'top end' Well it could be the top end of what Amstrad did. Again, that's okay.
'superb sounding' subjective opinion. And not qualified. So that is okay. If he said 'superb sounding compared to my Mark Levinson pre and monoblock combo' then that is a lie and not okay.
If someone cannot be arsed to research and hits the BIN button then yes - it is their fault they just lost £5000.
My example was off the cuff so easily picked apart :lol:
How can the 'better sounding than Mark Levinson pre and monoblock combo' be anything other than just opinion too though?
If those are not your true beliefs about the Amstrad system - i.e. you DON'T believe that the Amstrad is either rare, top end or superb sounding - yet you state them as true anyway, then that is a deliberate lie in order to deceive and to benefit from that deciet.
Fraud is immoral and a crime. What differentiates a mistake or belief or opinion from fraud is intent.
Intent is the issue here, intent to deceive. Are you saying that this intent is morally acceptable? Hard to proove as a crime but we can still make moral judgement.
We are talking hypothetically here, for discussion's sake, so no need to talk about whether it's proovable or not. For the sake of argument lets say we are omnipotent and KNOW there is intent to deceive.
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 21:39
It's a complex issue, I grant that. If it came down to a choice between a system which respected people's individual freedom to choose and one which had the State intervening in every economic decision I would opt for the former.
If I had my way we would see a bit less State interference in our lives but I accept that those of us who think like that are losing the battle at the moment (not necessarily the argument).
Your example of people exploiting food prices during a famine is an interesting one. Michael Sandel talks about this case in his recent book 'Justice'. I am not condoning such behaviour, but you will find that it is the law of supply and demand working. If food prices go up the suppliers will come into the market to meet the demand - Adam Smith's invisible hand is at work.
?
If those are not your true beliefs about the Amstrad system - i.e. you DON'T believe that the Amstrad is either rare, top end or superb sounding - yet you state them as true anyway, then that is a deliberate lie in order to deceive and to benefit from that deciet.
.
I'm guessing you have never worked in sales, Nat? - It's called painting a picture. You don't lie. you don't break the law, but you do portray a rosy image of what you are selling. That's why advertisments for pension plans always show some handsome bronzed fellar painting in a field in Provonce and not a knackered wheezy old geezer sat incontinent in the communal room of a nursing home in Bolton.
I consider it immoral - yes. That is just my opinion. As for legislating against it - ridiculous - you cannot pass a law against 'painting a picture' - there would be a lot of unintended conseqences.
The trick is for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Then they have no choice but to start to read betwen the lines a bit more.
+1... Anyone who can't see that is a SERIOUS daftee!
That's why advertisments for pension plans always show some handsome bronzed fellar painting in a field in Provonce and not a knackered wheezy old geezer sat incontinent in the communal room of a nursing home in Bolton.
Fooking hilarious... Although perhaps, just for devilment, they could be sponsored by Tena? :D
Marco.
P.S "Provonce" has an 'e' in it, instead of the second 'o'.
+
P.S "Provonce" has an 'e' in it, instead of the second 'o'.
That was a type - I mean a typo...
I'm guessing you have never worked in sales, Nat? - It's called painting a picture. You don't lie. you don't break the law, but you do portray a rosy image of what you are selling. That's why advertisments for pension plans always show some handsome bronzed fellar painting in a field in Provonce and not a knackered wheezy old geezer sat incontinent in the communal room of a nursing home in Bolton.
I consider it immoral - yes. That is just my opinion. As for legislating against it - ridiculous - you cannot pass a law against 'painting a picture' - there would be a lot of unintended conseqences.
The trick is for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Then they have no choice but to start to read betwen the lines a bit more.
but I guess not everyone is capable of taking responsibility for their own actions, some are more capable than others, and some are vulnerable and dare I say it, weak. Then again, every man for himself.
It's human nature to try and maximise the profit you make when selling an item.
Really? Is it some kind of capitalist gene?
but I guess not everyone is capable of taking responsibility for their own actions, some are more capable than others, and some are vulnerable and dare I say it, weak. Then again, every man for himself.
If you are talking about people who due to old age or learning difficulties or whatever are not compus mentis then I agree that these people should not be sold to and that legislation should exist to protect them - which it does.
I am not advocating 'every man for himself' as you well know. That was abit of a cheap shot.
losenotaminute
30-12-2012, 22:25
Really? Is it some kind of capitalist gene?
Yes - that's right. Did you watch the Milton Friedman video?
Everyone needs to obtain the basics to survive, but the basics are never enough. Do you have a good hifi? Did someone give it to you for nothing in return?
Are you seriosuly suggesting that people aren't driven by the profit motive in their economic behaviours?
Yup. I think that I remember seeing one once go for £150!! :mental:
Any idea what's going on? I paid about £25 for the album new, when it came out in 2005, which is not THAT long ago. I didn't realise that it was a limited edition, on vinyl, or why else are people paying mad prices for this album? :scratch:
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Kate Bush is a popular artist with a lot of fans. Ariel was her first album in 12 years. It was a well received album. Since the early 90s, Albums have had a limited press run on vinyl as more copies were sold on cd.
Ariel was popular so the press runs would have sold out but demand was still strong for vinyl albums. People still want copies on vinyl are prepared to pay for them. It seems there are a number prepared pay big money.
Makes sense, Dean... Wish I'd bought half a dozen copies now! :doh: ;)
Marco.
sq225917
31-12-2012, 08:26
Wasn't the first pressing run all shagged anyway, loads of surface noise?
Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten about that. I think that my copy's pretty quiet though, certainly once it'd been put through the RCM a few times.
Wonder if the vinyl version of her last album '50 Words for Snow' will go the same way, value-wise?
Marco.
jandl100
31-12-2012, 09:33
I recently had a problem like that where the buyer said the item was faulty ---- He escalated it to a formal claim with ebay,but ebay went on MY side...because I would not have been inviting an audition if the item was broken or faulty in the first place
A little tip for anyone selling hi fi....in the listing, state: "potential bidders are welcome to come along and see it working perfectly" and also, "Collection preferred,as I wont be responsible for damage incurred during shipping"
Ooo - now that is interesting!
Ta for the tip. :cool:
killie99
31-12-2012, 09:40
This thread was an interesting read and I'm quite surprised by some of the posts.
Anything is worth what someone is willing to pay.
Take a look at the world of 'fine art'. I wouldn't give 2p for some of the paintings that have sold for millions - Mark Rothko's 'No 1' would be a fine example. And if you think hifi ads are full of bull then have a read of some of (in my opinion) the nonsense written about No 1:
'No. 1 (Royal Red and Blue) is seen by critics as one of the finest examples of Rothko's characteristic style - a seemingly simple, but arresting juxtaposition of blocks of color.' - no it's not, it's 3 blocks of colour that a 5 year old could have painted!!!!!
Back to ebay. I just don't believe that people are taken 'in' by a description on ebay. People are taken 'in' with the hope that this month's must have piece of kit will still be this month's must have piece of kit at some point down the line and that they'll make money from it OR they have a psychological condition which drives them to buy stuff regardless of the price because 'everybody else has one'. These traits are seen the world over, in every walk of life and with every commodity. Apple are a mighty fine example of where the 'everybody else has one' mentality has kicked in.
If i sell anything on ebay (including hifi) I'll list as a BIN at what I believe is the absolute very best price I will possibly be able to get PLUS 10%, but also with the option to the buyer to 'make me an offer' - irrespective of what I paid for it. I reckon 50% of the time the item sells at the top price without any offers being made. Does that mean I ripped anyone off or was greedy? I don't believe so, I didn't force anyone to bid and they were free to offer me a lower price if they thought the item wasn't worth it.
For anyone who thinks that my selling technique is immoral, have you ever sold a house? Did you sell it for exactly the same price you bought it for?
And with that, I'm off for a morning coffee.....
jandl100
31-12-2012, 09:44
Re: buyer research, or lack of it.
I am often surprised that a classical CD sells on eBay auction for FAR more than you can buy it with 1-click on Amazon Market Place.
I assume that also applies to non-classical CDs, and other items.
Strange, but a lot of folks simply don't check the market rate.
I don't think that's the norm for a dispute resolution.
PayPal are cowboys in the finance world. There is no rhyme or reason to the way things are settled. I've been unlucky with a sale once and it cost me £300! Worse still is the fact that I only found out the case had closed against me when I purchased a £6 cd and got charged £306 to bring the balance back to zero on the account. I could prove that the buyer was scamming me but I don't even think PayPal read my supporting documentation. I ended up ringing them and thanking them for teaching me how to use the system to commit fraud.
Seriously, I think any case could go any way. I really try not to use it at all if I can help it!
Sorry for rant, reminded me of a bad experience!!! Lol
If my comments weren't meant in good humour, daftee-chops, I wouldn't have ended them with a 'winky' smiley!! ;)
Marco.
Ah, well... could have been a sneaky get out clause.
Sorry if my reply came across too strongly.
"dafty-chops" :lol: I can almost feel you squeezing my (face!) cheek as you say that.
I consider it immoral - yes. That is just my opinion. As for legislating against it - ridiculous - you cannot pass a law against 'painting a picture' - there would be a lot of unintended conseqences.
Uh?
I've been arguing the case that it can easily be considered immoral too..
Of course it is everywhere but with private sales it is much more crude and so walks much more of a fine line between 'sales speak' and just plain lying, and that's what annoys people.
To deliberately be misleading AND in such a crude way AND to be the one individual responsible (rather than a team of faceless brand consultants) marks the seller as someone who has contempt for the potential buyer. On a societal level, it is not normally acceptable for an individual to behave like that and so people react emotionally to it with anger and hate.
Same goes for a one-man hifi company - once you can identify the indivdual responsible, people react on a personal level to their contempt for THEM - brands can get away with it because of the disconnect from a personal relationship with buyer.
I thought you stated from the outset, in the OP, that everything was fair game and nothing immoral about it and more fool those who fall for it? Seems as though we have the same view afterall. I don't think anyone has mentioned legislating against it though.
Yes - that's right. Did you watch the Milton Friedman video?
Everyone needs to obtain the basics to survive, but the basics are never enough. Do you have a good hifi? Did someone give it to you for nothing in return?
Are you seriosuly suggesting that people aren't driven by the profit motive in their economic behaviours?
and are seriously suggesting people are born with an innate desire to maximise the profit they make when selling an item.
Back to ebay. I just don't believe that people are taken 'in' by a description on ebay. People are taken 'in' with the hope that this month's must have piece of kit will still be this month's must have piece of kit at some point down the line and that they'll make money from it OR they have a psychological condition which drives them to buy stuff regardless of the price because 'everybody else has one'. These traits are seen the world over, in every walk of life and with every commodity. Apple are a mighty fine example of where the 'everybody else has one' mentality has kicked in.
If i sell anything on ebay (including hifi) I'll list as a BIN at what I believe is the absolute very best price I will possibly be able to get PLUS 10%, but also with the option to the buyer to 'make me an offer' - irrespective of what I paid for it. I reckon 50% of the time the item sells at the top price without any offers being made. Does that mean I ripped anyone off or was greedy? I don't believe so, I didn't force anyone to bid and they were free to offer me a lower price if they thought the item wasn't worth it.
For anyone who thinks that my selling technique is immoral, have you ever sold a house? Did you sell it for exactly the same price you bought it for?
And with that, I'm off for a morning coffee.....
Whether it is immoral is certainly up for discussion - I'm not really sure as it comes down to the attitude of the seller really and how they act in the whole thing, how they bought it, their motivations, how they sell. That you can't really know for sure.
Think though of the consequences of the way you sell - as much as you think you can get + 10%.
The consequence of that, should others do the same (which they do) is rapid price inflation. No-one can find the cheaper prices any more because sellers are refusing to sell at lower prices.
In comparison to the housing market, what you find is that it is the estate agents looking to take larger commisions who try to pump up value expectation by advertising at ever increasing prices whilst the truth of the actual sales is that the houses don't sell or the seller ends up taking a large discount off that over inflated sale price. The artificial high prices create a deliberate false impression so as to convince buyers that they must borrow more to even get a foot on the lader of the housing market, potentially putting them in a grave financial position further down the line as the economy collapses. The sellers are also adversly affected, first through wrongful expectation and then by having to wait so much longer to sell because of that attempt by the estate agent to increase their profits. Sod the consequences, just grab the commission!
Back in the hifi world, in the grand scheme of things you are harming yourself too, as well as the poorer hifi enthusiast, by reducing your future hifi buying power due to the price inflation you're helping create.
Now, the only way to counter that in pure hifi terms (hifi being the only commodity here) is to then deliberately prey on the ignorant, ignorant of the fast moving and rising value of their gear. To deliberately seek out and prey on someone's ignorance is to actively have a disrespect for them.
This can be countered if you act as a dealer by telling them you are a dealer and you can give them cash instantly for example - therefore they are trading that value for an instant sale. Fair enough, something other than money has been exchanged too.
Anyway, if people are deliberately setting out to set new high prices and to buy from the ignorant of those prices, then you're acting with exactly the same moral standards as the banks have coming upto and during this current crisis. You're whipping up bubbles for personal gain and to hell with the consequences for the secondhand market as long as you can get your profit in first !
Still, I wouldn't go as far as to say that makes the idea immoral but it does seem destructive to actively try to sell for higher and higher prices rather than give some kind of genuine value.
Free markets are supposed, in classical economic theory, to reduce prices through competition and affected by supply/demand. Time and again we see that the real results are increasing prices through control of the markets via control of financing, control of the commodity production, control of the demand even and all geared towards increasing prices in order to increase profits.
It is a kind of subconcious collusion via the minority who set out to make profit for themselves without regard to the consequences.
Ultimately a point is reached though where that is unsustainable and there are many learned people who will give very convincing reasons as to why that unsustainable point is now at our door..
Same could be squashed down and applied to the eBay market. Those higher and higher Buy It Nows also effect the auction listings as people take those Buy It Nows as the price guide.
If you are talking about people who due to old age or learning difficulties or whatever are not compus mentis then I agree that these people should not be sold to and that legislation should exist to protect them - which it does.
I am not advocating 'every man for himself' as you well know. That was abit of a cheap shot.
apologies macca if you felt it was a cheap shot.
I think the net you cast above is somewhat narrow - elderly and disabled for sure - but there are plenty of others in society who through no fault of there own carry a certain amount of naivety or emotional problems. None of us are perfect, especially me! I'm ashamed to say I've probably been taken for a ride a good few times in my life.
advertising succeeds because it speaks of the future whilst deferring the present. without presenting to us the promise of what we 'one day might become' it would surely not exist. in fact, advertising and the modern cult of 'celebrity' aren't that much different. sometimes i just think people would be better off concentrating a little less on the future and a little more on the present, if know you what I mean.
losenotaminute
31-12-2012, 12:08
and are seriously suggesting people are born with an innate desire to maximise the profit they make when selling an item.
Yes, evolution has made us that way. Please show me someone how isn't wired like that? I don't mean the odd example of charitable giving, I mean someone who is entirely altruistic.
killie99
31-12-2012, 14:35
The consequence of that, should others do the same (which they do) is rapid price inflation. No-one can find the cheaper prices any more because sellers are refusing to sell at lower prices.
Totally disagree. People will pay what 'they' think something is worth - if there is a buzz about a particular item or brand then the prices will rise, if not then the prices will be pretty stagnant or will lower. In the 2nd hand market buyers ultimately set the prices because it's they who hand over the cash. People will pay way over the odds for a name (or a Naim), just like if it's Apple, Hollister, BMW etc. This is not something particular to hifi, it's just the way it is - keeping up with the Jones', willy waving - call it what you like.
There are plenty of superb hifi bargains to be had on ebay but because there isn't a buzz about a brand they sell for peanuts. For example, there's a crappy old beat up LP12 on ebay for £730 that looks like it fell out of a skip, there shouldn't be a cat in hell's chance of it selling for that price but it might because someone wants to tell their mates they've bought an 'LP12' - I wouldn't give you £300 for it. A Manticore Mantra with an RB250 and Ortofon MC15 sold last week for £148 and I'll bet you it sounds better than that stinking old LP12. Why did the Mantra sell for such a low price? Because it hasn't been bigged up on a forum and unless you're over 40 you've probably never heard of it - exactly the same position a Garrard turntable was in about 10 years ago.
It's a free market, that's how it works so if you don't like it then I'm sure North Korea will be a pleasant place to live.
There are plenty of superb hifi bargains to be had on ebay but because there isn't a buzz about a brand they sell for peanuts. For example, there's a crappy old beat up LP12 on ebay for £730 that looks like it fell out of a skip, there shouldn't be a cat in hell's chance of it selling for that price but it might because someone wants to tell their mates they've bought an 'LP12' - I wouldn't give you £300 for it. A Manticore Mantra with an RB250 and Ortofon MC15 sold last week for £148 and I'll bet you it sounds better than that stinking old LP12. Why did the Mantra sell for such a low price? Because it hasn't been bigged up on a forum and unless you're over 40 you've probably never heard of it - exactly the same position a Garrard turntable was in about 10 years ago.
It's a free market, that's how it works so if you don't like it then I'm sure North Korea will be a pleasant place to live.
Hear, hear, Stuart!! :clap: :clap:
Possibly a late entry for post of the year?
Marco.
Yes, evolution has made us that way. Please show me someone how isn't wired like that? I don't mean the odd example of charitable giving, I mean someone who is entirely altruistic.
brilliant
The two phrases "Let the buyer beware" and "Free market" come to mind. Don't rail against someone supposedly 'being greedy' or misleading through their description. Simply don't buy it! It's a free market - no-one is forcing you to participate. If no-one buys their item then the market has decided that it doesn't offer value for money. If it is sold, then it's value for money for that person.
It's rather like those people who complain that, after they've bought an item, the price went down or the product was upgraded. Well, hang on! At the time they bought it, they performed a cost/benefit analysis in their mind and decided that it was a value for money proposition (they may not have realised they were doing it, but they did anyway). So how can a subsequent price reduction or replacement change that? It hasn't become a lesser product all of a sudden!
Too much emotion, too little logic being applied, I would say.
People will pay way over the odds for a name (or a Naim), just like if it's Apple, Hollister, BMW etc.
You are comparing a truly superior product (BMW) with two companies that sell on their brand alone.
:)
Here is a scenario. Someone close to you decides to buy you a gift for your birthday, Christmas whatever. They know you have been hankering after product X and decide to buy it as a surprise. They go to an auction site, and there, they come across ' Mr. Get for it, what you can get away with'. They purchase product X at a price way over the top. They have, in their ignorance, been ripped off. Larger market forces, as some have described, eventually come into play, he is found out and finds it difficult to keep selling at inflated prices. This does not help our purchaser though, they have already suffered. Hard luck you might say, but it could have been avoided if the seller had examined his conscience. Most of us know what is fair, it's just some of us choose to ignore it.
Audioman
31-12-2012, 16:17
You are comparing a truly superior product (BMW) with two companies that sell on their brand alone.
:)
The company who are such stupid fekers that thay install an alarm system that thieves get round in a few seconds! Then won't admit they are at fault. Also ran Rover cars into the ground with the help of Blair and Brown.
As for prices of records on ebay as mentioned earlier. I can only say there are enough buyers with apparant limitless resources to pay over the odds for anything 'rare'.
As far as the records mentioned are concerned 'Kamikiriad' is actualy pretty rare but it's not particularly outstanding IMO and is on typical early 90's thin vinyL. I would advise avoiding Arial unless it is opened and play graded as there were multiple pressing issues with it. Took me 3 copies from Amazon when released to put together a clean set. SQ and music wise it is worth a resonable outlay in genuine mint condition.
A lot of the 90's pressings which people think are extremely rare are realy not at all. A rare record that fetches £100's would normaly be a 500 to 1000 pressing run. I would bet that most of these titles with high auction values were pressed in runs of 5000 to 20000. My limit for any pressing is governed by the price of a top audiophile reissue (£50) and that is for near mint. Anything over that and I am not bothered. If you are patient a decent copy usualy comes up within this price range.
Paul.
They purchase product X at a price way over the top. They have, in their ignorance, been ripped off.
There's the error. What is a 'price way over the top'? The buyer bought it, so presumably didn't think it was way over the top. Therefore, it wasn't for that buyer! There isn't really such thing as being ripped off, the market finds its own level. Once again, let the buyer beware.
Just because they are ignorant, naive or innocent, and just because they do not know they have, does not mean they have not been ripped off. They have been taken advantage of and I am sure if it was someone close to you, you would not be so comfortable with it.
killie99
31-12-2012, 17:15
Here is a scenario. Someone close to you decides to buy you a gift for your birthday, Christmas whatever. They know you have been hankering after product X and decide to buy it as a surprise. They go to an auction site, and there, they come across ' Mr. Get for it, what you can get away with'. They purchase product X at a price way over the top. They have, in their ignorance, been ripped off. Larger market forces, as some have described, eventually come into play, he is found out and finds it difficult to keep selling at inflated prices. This does not help our purchaser though, they have already suffered. Hard luck you might say, but it could have been avoided if the seller had examined his conscience. Most of us know what is fair, it's just some of us choose to ignore it.
This epitomises for me is one of the biggest problems in our society today:
'it's someone else's fault'
Take responsibility for your own actions, if you can't be arsed or are incapable or are too stupid to figure out what you should pay for something then I'm afraid I have no sympathy for you - IT'S YOUR FAULT!
Similar, I suppose to the handbag on the car seat example. Some might blame the person who left it there. Some would blame the thief who stole it. Whilst one is naive, there is really only one person responsible, I would blame the thief.
losenotaminute
31-12-2012, 17:39
Similar, I suppose to the handbag on the car seat example. Some might blame the person who left it there. Some would blame the thief who stole it. Whilst one is naive, there is really only one person responsible, I would blame the thief.
Not really all that similar IMO. Stealing a handbag from a car is quite different from asking a high price in an on-line auction. Not even counting the legal differences (one is illegal, the other isn't), on a moral basis there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking whatever price you like. It does actually sound like you would be much happier in North Korea where this kind of behaviour is policed by the State :scratch:
Similar, I suppose to the handbag on the car seat example. Some might blame the person who left it there. Some would blame the thief who stole it. Whilst one is naive, there is really only one person responsible, I would blame the thief.
The thief is definitely an utter scumbag, Andrew. However, if the car was unlocked and the handbag left in full view, then whoever left it like that was a careless idiot.
At the end of the day, you have to take responsibility for your own actions and/or stupidity.
Marco.
I do not think we should rely on what is legal or not to set our moral compass'. Both examples show one person taking advantage of another's ignorance or naivety. For some, innocent people are just there for the taking.
For some, innocent people are just there for the taking.
Yup. No-one is condoning that, but unfortunately bad or unfair things happen, and are part of life. You or I, nor anyone else, aren't going to change that anytime soon.
At the risk of repeating the same thing again and again, it boils down to taking responsibility for your own actions.
I know that if it had been my wife who'd left her handbag there, she'd have been kicking herself for how stupidly careless she'd been, much more than she'd have been upset at 'what a bad man' the thief was.
I would've reacted the same, had it been my wallet.
We need to see more of that type of attitude in today's society, rather than the ridiculous blame culture that currently exists!
Marco.
I do not think we should rely on what is legal or not to set our moral compass'. Both examples show one person taking advantage of another's ignorance or naivety. For some, innocent people are just there for the taking.
No, sorry. You cannot equate someone who doesn't know the price of something (not value, since the value to the buyer is clear if they buy it) with having something stolen.
killie99
31-12-2012, 18:16
Andrew, I can only assume you have started celebrating New Year early and you have consumed a bottle of Vodka or 2 as your thought processes seem to be somewhat skewed.
Here's a scenario for you. There is an auction on ebay for 'brand new still in box PL12 Sundek turntable' (please note my deliberate miss-spelling). The auction starts at £100 and you are the only person that bids due to the spelling error. The turntable in reality is worth a great deal more. Would you pay the £100 and do a jig around your living room for managing to bag an brand new LP12 for a fraction of the true cost or would you email the seller and offer to pay him £1000 due to realising his mistake and you wouldn't want him to be out of pocket?
Answers on a postcard please to : Andrew, c/o Planet Zanussi.
Would I be happy at taking advantage of someones innocent error? No. I may be out of step, but the idea of absolving the unscrupulous whilst at the same time reserving criticism for someone for being not clever, savvy or whatever to stop themselves being taken advantage of is odd. It says a lot about where we are up to that we are having this exchange at all.
but the idea of absolving the unscrupulous whilst at the same time reserving criticism for someone for being not clever, savvy or whatever to stop themselves being taken advantage of is odd.
Yes, but no-one here is doing that. We're simply saying 'take responsibility for your actions' and accept that, at some point in life, you're liable to suffer at the hands of your own failings, whatever those may be, or at the hands of some unscrupulous fuckwit.
*That* is no-one's 'fault' - it's just life! Those with the nous to do so, use the experience as a learning curve from which to moderate their future actions, and life goes on... Do you appreciate the difference between this and what you're claiming?
I'll ask you a question... If it had been you who'd had your wallet stolen, after having left it lying out in full view to all and sundry, in an unlocked car, who would you be more angry with: the thief who stole it, or yourself for being so careless?
Marco.
losenotaminute
31-12-2012, 18:58
Would I be happy at taking advantage of someones innocent error? No. I may be out of step, but the idea of absolving the unscrupulous whilst at the same time reserving criticism for someone for being not clever, savvy or whatever to stop themselves being taken advantage of is odd. It says a lot about where we are up to that we are having this exchange at all.
Who is absolving the unscrupulous? We have all condemned people who are dishonest or break the law. You can climb down off your high horse. I hope and think that we are all decent people, just trying to have an interesting debate.
With eBay, if you ask too much for something (i.e. put a high reserve) it usually won't sell. Your best bet to get a high price is to put a low reserve and get some competitive bidders. If some of them are suckers, that is life, I'm not going to refund them, unless I find out they are an 80 year old pensioner or someone with a mental illness for example, in which case I would happily cancel the auction and start again.
You can't build an economic system which protects everyone all of the time - Mao tried it and millions of Chinese suffered starvation and torture as a result. The societies where poor people have seen the quickest increase in living standards are ones with capitalist economic systems and vice versa. It's no coincidence that European living standards have been steadily declining in line with the growth in the size of the State.
In reality the best thing we can do is to urge your friends and family to look out for one another, and has been said take some personal responsibility for your actions.
You can't build an economic system which protects everyone all of the time...
Indeed!
Marco.
We all seem to be agreeing that we don't condone the actions of the unscrupulous and dishonest.
There seems to be some confusion in the thread where it's then immediately stated that we shouldn't feel any negativity towards those who are unscrupulous and dishonest because victims of that dishonesty should exclusively hold themselves responsible.
Is that what is being said? Or is there some kind of 'with us or against us' free-market relgiousness going on here that defies rationality? It's ok to have faith in free markets as the best way but there should surely also be coherence with the rest of your thoughts.
Isn't it society's responsibility to discourage dishonesty and unscroupulousness by each member of that society taking individual resposibility for their own actions?
Some people's way of doing that is to point out those they feel are being dishonest and get angry about it on forums (hence the catalyst for this thread).
There seems to be some confusion in the thread where it's then immediately stated that we shouldn't feel any negativity towards those who are unscrupulous and dishonest because victims of that dishonesty should exclusively hold themselves responsible.
Is that what is being said?
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Of course one should feel negativity towards those who are unscrupulous and dishonest, but not to the extent that it overrides the ability to accept the consequences of one's own carelessness, lack of thoroughness or just plain stupidity.
There should be less of a propensity to blame the behaviour of others for unfortunate incidents that occur in life, and more of a predisposition to hold our hands up and take responsibility for the consequences of our own actions.
That's it in a nutshell :exactly:
Do you fancy having a go at the question I asked Andrew earlier:
If it had been you who'd had your wallet stolen, after having left it lying out in full view to all and sundry, in an unlocked car, who would you be more angry with: the thief who stole it, or yourself for being so careless?
I'd be curious to know your answer :)
Marco.
The thief is still entirely to blame - he knows it is not his but he takes it anyway. I come round your house leave £100 on the table, I'm going out the door you see it you say ' hey you left your money.' Like any normal person would.
So maybe the thief has a starving family? What then?
Do you fancy having a go at the question I asked Andrew earlier:
If it had been you who'd had your wallet stolen, after having left it lying out in full view to all and sundry, in an unlocked car, who would you be more angry with: the thief who stole it, or yourself for being so careless?
I'd be curious to know your answer :)
:popcorn: :popcorn:
Hey, it looks like neither Nat nor Andrew fancy answering this... I wonder why?
Marco.
I hate selling hifi, for two reasons. Firstly, I'm hopeless at haggling, so I price low. Then get even lower offers. Secondly, I'm paranoid that anything I sell will blow up or fall to pieces the day after I've sold it.
On the general point though, I'm with those who say that anything is 'worth' what anyone is prepared to pay for it, so if it doesn't sell, you've either priced it too high or advertised it in the wrong place.
Nor do I see anything wrong morally in selling something on at a profit; I'd guess it's swings and roundabouts here as the bargains will be balanced out over time by the odd 'impulse buys' where you paid over the odds.
Caveat emptor rules; different rules might apply of buying/selling to friends or family, but IMO, it's always best to keep away from commerial transactions with family and friends, as I've known them go horribly wrong.
As for handbag theft, that's entirely the fault of the thief. Stealing is wrong, however 'easy' it might be.
As for handbag theft, that's entirely the fault of the thief. Stealing is wrong, however 'easy' it might be.
Of course stealing is wrong - it is BIG TIME wrong. However, that doesn't excuse someone's stupidity in the first place for leaving said handbag in an unsecured area, inviting it to be stolen by some unscrupulous dickhead! :mental:
Like I said, be as angry then with yourself for being so bloody careless, as you are at the deplorable actions of the scumbag thief. *That* is the healthiest and most constructive attitude to have, by holding yourself accountable for your OWN actions - hopefully learning from the experience and adjusting your future behaviour accordingly.
Marco.
walpurgis
04-01-2013, 20:32
'Caveat emptor' or 'buyer beware' is the traditional term applied to people who are let loose upon the world with money! In other words, you only have yourself to blame if you are stupid (who else could you blame?). By stupid, I mean not having the sense to check market values, not really knowing what expectations to have of your purchase, not checking the safety of any transaction, etc., etc. These are just basic aspects, there is much to consider.
Sellers can also be very naive. You see examples often on eBay, in the Hi-Fi arena for instance, people who don't know how to describe what they are selling, don't have a clue what it's worth, won't display effective photos showing the goods and their condition properly, can't make proper dispatch arrangements or forget to state that an item is 'collection only' and find themselves wondering how to get a big pair of loudspeakers to maybe Singapore and not being out of pocket. I see many listings that I know will end in disaster for all concerned.
Everybody has their own responsibilty to be or get informed about what they are getting involved in.
Nothing is 100% guaranteed, so take nothing for granted! Happily, things generally go well, but an occasional glitch occurs.
The Grand Wazoo
04-01-2013, 23:47
Never mind all that stuff - Let's test the theories - Who wants to buy my vinyl copy of Kamakiriad?
Heh-heh!
Stratmangler
04-01-2013, 23:53
Never mind all that stuff - Let's test the theories - Who wants to buy my vinyl copy of Kamakiriad?
Heh-heh!
Already got one.
I'll give you what I paid for mine as a backup copy.
Plus P&P, natch ;)
The Grand Wazoo
04-01-2013, 23:58
Ha!
Stratmangler
05-01-2013, 00:04
Ha!
Shall I take that as a no then? :eyebrows:
The Grand Wazoo
05-01-2013, 00:12
I bought it on the day it was released and played it twice or three times - I don't like it, not one little bit.
Chris, if selling it and one or two other choice cuts wasn't part of my grand plan for world domination in 2013, I'd deliver it to you by hand and pay you to take it from me.
Stratmangler
05-01-2013, 00:26
I remembered your complimentary appraisal of the album a while back ;)
I'm also astounded at asking price on Amazon (couldn't find it on Ebay UK).
I bought mine 2nd hand from a notorious shop in South Manchester for £ 3-99.
That's why I offered to pay the postage :eyebrows:
The Grand Wazoo
05-01-2013, 00:37
I think I paid £4.99 or something for my new copy.
As a record, it's worthless to me as I never play it and it's taking up valuable shelf space. However, if someone would like to stick seventy quid or so in my back pocket, then here's to the free market economy! I might even splash out the £1.87 for a CD copy that's being asked on Amazon marketplace ......just for nostalgic reasons, you understand!
The same goes for my copies of 'No Code' by Pearl Jam and 'Different Class' by Pulp. I quite like both of those albums but I can live with the CDs if push comes to shove and my life won't be too spoiled by not having the card inners.
Stratmangler
05-01-2013, 00:45
Now I did fork out some cash for the last two Donald Fagen albums, one on Amazon, and the other at Diverse http://www.diversevinyl.com/item.php?id=c04848daafa7e440ae034ae56323c078
Chris I think you should give Kamakiriad another chance - can't understand why you don't like it if you like later period Dan and Fagen's other solo albums as it is all the same sound really - side 2 is better than side one. The production is the best of all the solo efforts imo, and almost as good as Aja/Gaucho.
The production is the best of all the solo efforts imo, and almost as good as Aja/Gaucho.
But not nearly as good musically as those two stellar efforts.
But not nearly as good musically as those two stellar efforts.
Agreed - in fact side 2 of Aja is pretty much unsurpassed by anything :)
I do like a bit of Steely Dan/DF, occasionally, but I tend to find the output all rather samey and lacking in diversity. The style of music definitely divides opinions, and I feel is probably best appreciated by people of a certain generation.
I'd simply file it as 'ok but nothing special', as is the recording quality of most SD/DF fare. IMO, it's far from being audiophile quality, as it is often referred to by some. The rather rich bass and overall 'warm tone' imbued on these recordings, is something that some systems will either revel in or reveal for what it is.
It's all rather too 'polished and studio-smooth', if you know what I mean. I prefer recordings that are more raw and stripped back. Give me a bit of Jimi Hendrix any day!!
Marco.
It's all rather too 'polished and studio-smooth', if you know what I mean. I prefer recordings that are more raw and stripped back. Give me a bit of Jimi Hendrix any day!!
Marco.
I also love Hendrix, especially live recordings - but it's down to the mood I am in what I listen too. There is something to be said for both lush and raw recordings in their right place and time. Later Dan material just would not work with a raw production. The production and the music are inseperable. I apreciate why some purists find that an unacceptable situation.
I do agree, Martin, and "lush" is a very apt description. These days I find myself less into lush than I perhaps was at one time. Steely Dan albums have a certain 'sound' (groove and vibe) to them, which is very much 'of its time'.
Whether you appreciate that sound or not, I think largely depends if you were also 'of that time', if you see what I mean, and a fan of what they did. I'm rather lukewarm towards it all.
Marco.
I have about half a dozen Steely Dan LPs. Don't ask me why as I'm not sure I really like them. They only get played once in a blue moon.
Agree the production is superb - but the sound is just too smooth, 'lush' and 'laid back': the acme of AOR. :eyebrows:
Spectral Morn
05-01-2013, 19:00
I have about half a dozen Steely Dan LPs. Don't ask me why as I'm not sure I really like them. They only get played once in a blue moon.
Agree the production is superb - but the sound is just too smooth, 'lush' and 'laid back': the acme of AOR. :eyebrows:
I love AOR (Journey, Styx, Foreigner etc) but this genre has a number of sub genres and I have never felt entirely sure that Steely Dan belong in any of them comfortably. If you define AOR as music played on American Rock FM radio stations during the 70s and early 80s then they are AOR.
However regardless I do like them and Donald Fagan's solo material.
Regards Neil
Audioman
05-01-2013, 22:24
I do like a bit of Steely Dan/DF, occasionally, but I tend to find the output all rather samey and lacking in diversity. The style of music definitely divides opinions, and I feel is probably best appreciated by people of a certain generation.
I'd simply file it as 'ok but nothing special', as is the recording quality of most SD/DF fare. IMO, it's far from being audiophile quality, as it is often referred to by some. The rather rich bass and overall 'warm tone' imbued on these recordings, is something that some systems will either revel in or reveal for what it is.
It's all rather too 'polished and studio-smooth', if you know what I mean. I prefer recordings that are more raw and stripped back. Give me a bit of Jimi Hendrix any day!!
Marco.
Marco if you are talking about Aja, Goucho + Night Fly onwards I would agree to a certain extent. However those recordings while not specificaly audiophile were the peak of multitracked sound at the time. If you want variety and a bit more rawness the earlier albums are better and very well recorded. Count Down To Ecstacy and Pretzel logic are my favourites. The later records are much closer to Jazz than rock or AOR.
Also Electric Ladyland could not be described as a raw recording. In fact I would judge it as pretty sophisticated for 1968 and making early use of 'heavy' multitracking. Born out by the fact that it was deemed fit to be released only in Stereo. You can't realy generalise that Hendrix's recordings are all raw and with a live to desk feel as much as Steely Dan's are all undiverse smooth jazz. Both however approach the peak of what was possible for commercial pop/rock recordings at the time of their release.
Paul.
Absolutely, Paul. You make some valid points. I'm just not a major fan of the Dan, or the 'sound' associated with the majority of their output. Even DF's current album 'Sunken Condos' has that rather cloying 'lush' quality to the production, which annoys the hell out of me!
Agreed that not all Hendrix recordings are stripped back and raw, but my favourites are.
It's that "live to desk feel", you refer to: the sense that you're listening to something which is pure and unadulterated (I hate recordings that sound deliberately processed, in order to create a specific sonic effect), which for me, defines a true 'audiophile quality' recording. I want the sound of the band to be as least 'pissed about with' as possible, and super-lifelike, so that my system can then reproduce the sound of that recording as closely as possible...
*That* is what true high-fidelity sound is all about, and trying to achieve that goal, is why I've spend so much time and money building my system! :)
Marco.
If you take, for example, Third World Man from Gaucho, the layering of the song is superb and the ache to hear that final key change gives it real emotion. I don't find the production lush (at least, not on my original vinyl pressing and SACD), only incredibly well executed, dynamic and occupying all of the soundstage. If it's at all warm, it's only slightly so, but the impact makes the album, for me, one of the pinnacles of modern album production.
I can understand if the music is not for you, but it should sound outstanding on a well performing system.
I guess it depends on what you consider as "outstanding", Martin. I've heard Gaucho on your system, and granted it sounds very good, as it does on mine, but "outstanding" (judged from my benchmark of such), on either system, it is not.
"Outstanding", for me, in terms of recording quality, is that 1950s album you've got of, is it Harry Belafonte, live at Carnegie Hall? That sounds utterly INCREDIBLE on your system, played on either your Techy or mine. You know the one I mean, where valves were used throughout the recording process and the sound is so shockingly vivid, dynamic and 'real' - or play Sinatra, Live at The Sands, for a similar effect.
*Those* are what I would call outstanding 'audiophile quality' recordings, or some of the best jazz ones from the 1950s, on the likes of Blue Note. SD albums do not sound like that (nor should they do, of course). By comparison, they sound rather lush and 'artificially processed'. I'm talking purely about out-and-out sound quality here, and for me, the best of those early recordings on vinyl, represent the benchmark for sonic excellence and genuine realism.
Those are the type of results studios should be striving to achieve today with supposedly 'audiophile quality' pressings on vinyl, and not some of the uninspiring sounding pish that is being produced instead! :exactly:
Marco.
*Those* are what I would call outstanding 'audiophile quality' recordings, or some of the best jazz ones from the 1950s, on the likes of Blue Note. SD albums do not sound like that (nor should they do, of course). By comparison, they sound rather lush and 'artificially processed'. I'm talking purely about out-and-out sound quality here, and for me, the best of those early recordings on vinyl, represent the benchmark for sonic excellence and genuine realism.
Those are the type of results studios should be striving to achieve today with supposedly 'audiophile quality' pressings on vinyl, and not some of the uninspiring sounding pish that is being produced instead! :exactly:
Marco.
You are comparing very good live recordings with very good studio recordings or apples with oranges. Live at The Sands is a termendous recording but you cannot record everything the way that was done, and it is the way it was recorded that gives it that quality you like.
Indeed; I completely agree! I'm just saying, Martin, that if we're talking about "outstanding" recordings, in purely high-fidelity terms, then *that* is my benchmark, not the sound of Gaucho! ;)
The valves and the superb quality all-analogue equipment, used in the recording chain back then, when those early recordings were produced, also played a major role in the amazing sound achieved! :trust:
It's that "live to desk feel" which I love so much in recordings of music, as for me, when those types of recordings are reproduced, that is when the best hi-fi systems truly come to life and can be assessed as such!
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.