Links To Sales/Auctions; To Post or Not?

[DizRotus]

If you’re interested in this issue, please go to the following thread in the Alerts section of the Garage Sale forum.

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/147837/1522491.aspx#1522491

[Fjd]

In looking through all of the referenced threads, I found reasonable observations from both perspectives and did add my own perspective; however, while we can discuss the “theoretical” impact of each view, the actual impact from either view most likely cannot be isolated and quantified with any precision.

I do see where the forum threads show up in search engines such as Google more rapidly than the actual advertisements on Craig’s list shows up on Google. I suppose that this incongruity eliminates any advantage that the dedicated forager has over the common "profiteers" and “flippers” of merchandise, hence taking all the fun out of the old scavenger hunt. However, I believe we cannot quantify how many of the "profiteers" and “flippers” have already scanned Craig’s list and found an item there first rather than a Google search.

From what I have gathered by reading the various, expressed views on the referenced threads, I believe that there may be a much larger and immeasurable issue at hand.[]

Essentially, we may be finding out that the multitude of communication avenues available to us, as individuals with internet savvy, has made the “deal of the century” treasures more of the rare exception, rather than commonplace, and in the process we are exposed to more duplicitous people than ever before.[+o(]

Add ubiquitous shows like “antique road show,” “pawn shops,” “pickers” and “storage wars” to the equation and now everyone will want “top dollar” for every piece of “landfill scrap.”[:#]

Has the “big business and profits over everything else” mentality finally taken the fun out of the old scavenger hunt?[]

[DizRotus]

In looking through all of the referenced threads, I found reasonable observations from both perspectives and did add my own perspective; however, while we can discuss the “theoretical” impact of each view, the actual impact from either view most likely cannot be isolated and quantified with any precision.

I do see where the forum threads show up in search engines such as Google more rapidly than the actual advertisements on Craig’s list shows up on Google. I suppose that this incongruity eliminates any advantage that the dedicated forager has over the common "profiteers" and “flippers” of merchandise, hence taking all the fun out of the old scavenger hunt. However, I believe we cannot quantify how many of the "profiteers" and “flippers” have already scanned Craig’s list and found an item there first rather than a Google search.

From what I have gathered by reading the various, expressed views on the referenced threads, I believe that there may be a much larger and immeasurable issue at hand.

Essentially, we may be finding out that the multitude of communication avenues available to us, as individuals with internet savvy, has made the “deal of the century” treasures more of the rare exception, rather than commonplace, and in the process we are exposed to more duplicitous people than ever before.

Add ubiquitous shows like “antique road show,” “pawn shops,” “pickers” and “storage wars” to the equation and now everyone will want “top dollar” for every piece of “landfill scrap.”

Has the “big business and profits over everything else” mentality finally taken the fun out of the old scavenger hunt?

I agree that the dynamincs of selling used items has been seriously and permanently altered by the Internet, and the TV shows you mentioned. The balance of power seems to have shifted toward sellers. While it's harder to get a deal on a late husband's "ugly plywood boxes" (Las Scalas) that a widow wants hauled away, it's easier to eventually sell that windfall for a fair price.

We all take turns being buyers or sellers. I'm willing to share information to the ultimate benefit of all, even if sweetheart deals for buyers go extinct. No one forces buyers, whether informed or ignorant, to pay more than the buyer feels an item is worth. Contrast that to the uninformed seller who sells way below market to an informed buyer who can then turn the item at a more treasonable market price. If shared knowledge results in more bilaterally fair sales, I'm willing to sacrifice the opportunity for the individual's windfall.

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that a buyer doesn't have the right to score a great deal. But each person has to decide when a "great deal" for one party is unfair to the other party. Even Rick, on Pawn Stars, and Mike, on American Pickers, have offered sellers more than they were asking, when to do otherwise would have been unfair.

For me, I wouldn't scalp an individual, such as the aforementioned widow. Conversely, I wouldn't hesitate to skin a professional re-seller who hadn't done the research to know the market value of the item being sold. My opinions only. You're free to disagree.

[chisoxpurdue]

Exactly, I did not want to rip someone off on a single La Scala at one point. He had it mislabled on eBay and it could have been had for about $200. I did not want to rip the guy off. He made a mistake on the listing and could not pull it in the last 24 hours. Instead of letting someone snipe it, we worked out a deal where I bed $300 and if anyone beat it, he would take the money. If I won it, we would not make the transaction. He was extremely happy especially when two people tried snipe it at $150 and $175. So he was happy. He ended up making a good deal with a friend of mine in the area. It became a kind of "Pay It Forward" thing.

[DizRotus]

Exactly, I did not want to rip someone off on a single La Scala at one point. He had it mislabled on eBay and it could have been had for about $200. I did not want to rip the guy off. He made a mistake on the listing and could not pull it in the last 24 hours. Instead of letting someone snipe it, we worked out a deal where I bed $300 and if anyone beat it, he would take the money. If I won it, we would not make the transaction. He was extremely happy especially when two people tried snipe it at $150 and $175. So he was happy. He ended up making a good deal with a friend of mine in the area. It became a kind of "Pay It Forward" thing.

First, I think you did a good thing, under the circumstances. But the person who "sniped" at $175, as well as eBay, would probably disagree. You probably volated eBay's rules regarding "straw bidders", but the spirit of your actions was well intended.

Conversely, I wouldn't criticize anyone who feels the eBay seller sould have listed the item properly and set a reserve, if less than $300 was acceptable. An eBay user is not the wholly innocent widow at her garage sale.

Did you put in an eBay maximum bid at $300, or a sniped bid with a $300 maximum? If neither, how did the otherwise high bid ($175?) not win the auction?

Last, the way you use the term "snipe" suggests a negative view of sniped bids. In any case, please share your thoughts on the merits of sniping.

[chisoxpurdue]

I did put a bid in in the last two minutes of the Auction. Before I bid, there were no bids. After a bit, two more bids were made and that is how I won at $180 or whatever. I am sure whoever bid $175 was not happy. But the seller was happy, and so was my friend. The seller found out how good La Scalas were, and went and found a second one. When he listed, he tried to set a $400 reserve and such, but it was his first sale on eBay. He helped my friend out with some other Home Theater stuff.

Sniping is how things are done. If I will not be around, I put in my max bid and do not watch. If I will be around, I wait to place my bid. Putting in a bid early attract more attention in my opinion, and if someone else gets close to your max, they may change there mind and raise their max. This is the reason I wait to post my max bid. I set a price in my head, and that is what I will pay. Things go better for me the later I wait in the auction it seems.

There is nothing here against sniping. It is how things are done. I do not see myself doing it electronically ever. But I have nothing against those who do. The only reason I was helping the seller, is because he screwed up his listing and it was his first sale. It was a short sale, so it was less than 24 hours left and he could not pull the sale. I feel justified in what I did. And at least 4 people have benefited: Seller>My Friend> Friend of my Friend> Acquaintance. This is how far the "pay it forward" went at least. Each of these people went out of there way to help someone else that could use it when it came to home audio/theater.

[DizRotus]

Thanks for the additional info.

Glad to understand that you're not critical of sniping.

I ONLY bid through a sniping service. The cost of 10 cents/winning bid is insignificant. My bids get placed with 5 seconds left in the auction. It's impossibvle for someone to raise my bid. A manual bid is too risky, IMO.

You and the seller were lucky there was not a sniped bid with a max of $299. Your $180 bid would have been automatically raised to $185 (or whatever the bid increment). At two minutes, there was time for someone to manually raise your bid. If you tried to bid $190 at the close of the auction, a last second sniped bid with a max greater than $190 would have won.

[chisoxpurdue]

No i put a max bid in at $305 with less than two minutes to go. So the seller would have gotten at least that. And had someone bid me up into the $250 range, I think the seller might have contacted them to work something out.