Safe audiogon transactions; lowering the bar.

Bill, what you said...
"I'll never understand those who have little or no transaction history and are untrusting of others who have substantial immaculate transaction history, and believe that cod is the answer. It kinda makes me suspicious of them!!! "
I once had the pleasure of dealing with exactly that type of buyer & under those same circumstances; yes I was suspicious of someone who wouldn't even trust a seller with immaculate credentials. This guy wouldn't trust his own mother! I tried to accomodate him initially but the COD became such a hassle that I rescinded the offer. I then got slammed with 3 illegal neg. feedback postings (Audiogon fixed that of course). Later I found out from 2 other sellers that they had experienced significant problems with this clown. I was sure glad that I listened to my gut feelings; I could just tell that he was a jerk from the very beginning.

Bishopwill is correct re: leveling the playing field. I have always wondered why it's usually taken for granted that buyer take risk by sending $ on trust. I have and continue to urge Agon to set up a relationship with an escrow service to try and make it a more even and safe relationship for both buyer and seller. IMO, this is a very serious deficiency in the net transaction model. However, so far, I've been OK on all counts. Made a few mistakes, due to lack of research or not carefully reading ads. Ebay is way more of a risk than here, IMO.

Hi Bishopwill,

I read your Ebay feedback; 6 positives, 1 neutral, 3 negatives and your Audiogon feedback; zero. I think I understand the value of your experience on this subject.

Another proof that a logical extension of an illogical premise is still bull!

The playing field can never be level, it's always tilted to one side. Only question to me, irrespective of position, is can risk be eliminated? I did mention I'm an actuary, didn't I?

Best wishes,

Bill E. Not trying to turn this into a major battle, but I agree with Bishopwill and my feedback here and on ebay is all + as a buyer only (over 50 completed TRANSACTIONS). I'm not so sure if the playing field will ever be completely level, but us buyers are putting our $$ on the line with NO risk to the seller when we send M.O.s, cashiers check, paypal, whatever. Luckily I'm not talking from bitter experience but it IS appropriate to discuss ways to protect the buyer more.

Hi Swampwalker,

I'm curious what part of what Bishopwill wrote you agree with? I for one am more usually a buyer not a seller. I am not in the audio business and never will be. I write only as an interested party who wishes to reduce risk in transactions to the extent possible. The emotionalizing of buyer vs. seller seems a waste of time to me. Rather, risk reduction would be more useful.

Unless buyer/seller meet in person, there is no way I can think of to eliminate the possibility that one or the other potentially is acting in bad faith and that is still not foolproof. But, even in cash in person transactions, it is also remotely likely that the transfer takes place in a parking lot alongside a highway, the goods are stolen, or one or the other is a thief. Certainly possible as well given that large amounts of cash can be involved.

Unless one side can be certain of the other sides history and character, a risk is being taken.

I was speaking with my wife, a lawyer, about this a few minutes ago. We considered what we thought were all possibilities. Then I pondered whether I would send $60,000 for a pair of speakers(an exceptionally large amount of money) I want by wire to someone, dealer or otherwise or go in person to inspect first prior to delivery of payment. My conclusion is that I would only trust one person here on Audiogon with that much money and that's Jonathan Tinn. Anyone else and I go in person. And that's independent of wealth, history or contribution to this site.

I clearly understand and appreciate the risks we all take. Most of us who have spent large amounts here know them all too well. But, gut feelings, bank references and verification are the yardsticks to reduce risk by not which side of the transaction is more righteous.

Every arrangement has faults and risks. Imagine selling your pair of Levinson 33's for a bargain $16,000 and agreeing to an escrow. The "buyer" sends a legitimate certified check to the escrow agent, it is deposited and clears. You're notified of good funds and you ship to the "buyer". He then notifies the escrow agent upon receipt not to release the escrow. He alleges fraud, misrepresentation, condition reduction, you're a liar or whatever. He has your amps and you don't have your money and your not going to get it! Anyone here prepared to sue in Federal Court to recover $16,000? I'm not! I'm reasonably certain that no lawyer here is. Just what would we do?

Any arrangement other than payment to seller up front is seller at risk period. Perhaps someone here can find a hole in that logic? If so, please post.

Other side, buyer at risk. Buyer sends payment, seller doesn't ship or ships stuffed box or sends goods in lesser condition that represented. Unless we can arrange buyer insurance??? buyer is not protected as would be in a credit card transaction to a dealer. Maybe that's the answer. Induce a insurer to be willing to guaranty against fraud for a fee with due diligence being on the part of the insurer.

Now the $$$$$ question. Who here is prepared to pay the premium to insure the purchase or sale of the items they buy or sell presuming a cost factor of say 2%?

If we want absolute protection, then we've got to pay for it.