Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey all! Just a friendly warning not to purchase ebay lots from a user there.

I purchased a lot of out of print harlequins from him. I was surprised to find, when I got them, that a few of them were damaged (in ways that his distant and blurry photographs did not show). In addition, two of them were armed with weapons that harlequins can no longer (or never could?) take, making them useless.

Initially, I was just going to shrug it off, since it wasn't that big an amount of money and I could turn them to other uses. I went to leave negative feedback, and ebay told me I had to contact him first to resolve the issue. When he got back to me, he just blew me off. He even told me that I should have expected this when purchasing older GW models.

I looked at some of his other auctions, and this isn't his only auction that looks shifty. He has several figures up that are listed as out of print despite being the current, very much in-print plastic kits.

I know it isn't the level of dastardly mayhem one associates with say, Mandelbaum, but I just thought I'd give people a heads' up.

If I'm seriously the one being out of line, I can admit that I was wrong. Things on ebay are a bit more cutthroat and wild west-y than I realized, but now I know!

I've deleted the user's name from the original post, and I hereby apologize for saying anything about him.

That's too bad man, thanks for the warning, I purchase from Ebay when I find a good deal.

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep it in mind when avoiding Ebay scum...

I dunno really.
You bought from blurry pics and the models you bought were outdated.
As to the damage, hmm tough call, I'd need specifics to make up my mind.
You said you didn't spend much money, the guy has replied to your questions, it's eBay that has the sort it out yourself before negative feedback policy, I assume the models arrived on time?
A link to the finished auctions would be good to help me make up my mind but at the moment you're as much to blame as this guy may or may not be.
I know you may be a little disappointed but this hardly seems reason to start a witch hunt and tell people not to purchase from him.

At the moment I'm going with the classic Dakka stance of Blame the Victim until I've got more information.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I purchased a lot of out of print harlequins from him. I was surprised to find, when I got them, that a few of them were damaged (in ways that his distant and blurry photographs did not show). In addition, two of them were armed with weapons that harlequins can no longer (or never could?) take, making them useless.

I don't understand the second half of this complaint. They're old figures, sometimes rules change and they aren't appropriately equipped any more. I have space marines armed with shuriken catapults, it's not a scam to sell them.

More like "don't bid on something you can't see properly"

I'm not trying to take the stance of "I should get my money back." To be honest, I didn't know what he was supposed to do, but ebay required me to give him the opportunity anyway.

The issue, Howard, is that I can't use the models. I might have been willing to bid on them anyway, it's just deceitful not to mention it, and to take the pictures to conceal it.

To be totally honest, if I were looking at this from an outsider's perspective I'd probably blame me too. If I was a more experienced Eldar player (or had played with these models when they were current) then I might have been armed with the knowledge to know what I was looking at a little better. Don't think for a second I'm trying to avoid any blame: I did a stupid thing and bid on an auction before bringing it to other people for additional research.

I'm not trying to start a riot or get support for some kind of action, I just wanted to warn people that the guy shows a clear pattern of deceit. I don't even really want my money back. If it hadn't been for ebay's 'you have to talk to him' thing, I wouldn't even be thinking about this now.

Providing the models were relatively as described this is plainly your fault. As a confessed buyer of oop harlies it places a higher standard on you as well. Buying from blurry photos and then not been happy is plainly your fault and no-one elses.

I don't understand why this thread exists. It was your fault. Unless the purpose is a generalwarning not to make your mistake of buying from blurry photos and not asking questions before you purchased.

Nice to see you on Dakka jimbo.

On a more serious note, of course I'm to blame. I bought a lot where I knew something was shifty. (There wasn't enough time on the auction to ask questions when I discovered it, by the way.) At fifty cents a harlie, how can something NOT be wrong? However, the missing weapons (which the pictures did NOT show--the models were turned so you couldn't see the damage) were something I wasn't expecting. They appeared intact, blurry or not. (I figured the blurry photos were put up to obscure the horrible paint job.) Since there was no reason for me to suspect that weapons had been clipped off, why would I have asked for additional photos?

But it takes a special kind of person to look at his behavior here and say that he didn't approach the situation intending to deceive a buyer. Buy from him if you want. Just beware that he posts misleading photos (and in other auctions, blatantly false tags).

The auction in question...

URL removed --yakface


Dude, you got them for about a fiver including postage. Talk about a storm in a teacup.

You've had a 'mare here.

You got them cheap. They are OOP, it's not the sellers fault the weapon fit is not current codex. They are sold as seen, it states in the description. You've named a seller as poor when in fact it's the buyer that's the chimp.

TBH you could strip those down and take some better pics and make a fair bit of money on those.

They are classic sculpts and stand up pretty well - in reality, think you actually got a very good deal!

Just treat them as plain generic harlequins with close combat weapon and shuriken pistol. Who cares if they have an axe or shotgun?

 Jimsolo wrote:


I'm not trying to start a riot or get support for some kind of action, I just wanted to warn people that the guy shows a clear pattern of deceit. I don't even really want my money back. If it hadn't been for ebay's 'you have to talk to him' thing, I wouldn't even be thinking about this now.

Except he doesn't show a clear pattern of deceit, just a moderately sloppy auction which you got at a super cheap price. And now he's stuck with negative feedback because you cant buy things responsibly and be a damn grownup over a $5 purchase? The auction even indicates you can ask questions or request additional pictures, which you didn't bother to do. Can you please post your ebay ID so the rest of us know not to sell to you?.

You got 10 RT era harlequins for £3 and you're complaining. Unbelievable.

Yeah, whack your eBay ID up so we can make a thread mentioning you in the same sentence as Mandelbaum.

Or apologise, apologise to the eBayer And get this awful thread deleted.

Dakka and 40k in general have just gotten bad. Cant wait to get rid of the rest of my 40k stuff

So...

it's perfectly acceptable to not mention damage to items (the weapons that had been clipped off) and to take your pictures from an angle that conceals said damage if you're selling them cheap?

Really?

I mean, I was willing to meet halfway and be like, "yeah, I did something stupid, and got taken advantage of by someone shady." Am I seriously the one out of line here? It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that concealing the damage can be considered acceptable.

And as a side note, ever since this happened everyone keeps saying "you should have asked" and "you should ask for more pictures." Does any ebay seller EVER respond to this stuff? I've never had ANY ebay seller give me clearer pictures (even if they promised to) and I've never had one answer a question with any detail.

When I sell something on ebay I am clear about what is missing, what is damaged, and what is wrong. Is it really out of line to expect the same? If people are seriously saying that he did nothing untoward whatsoever, that all of his actions here are on the up-and-up, if that's for REAL the community opinion, then I'll apologize go ahead and try to get a mod to delete this thread.

I understand your complaints, but OOP harlequins for 5$ is a steal, fix them and sell them for 500$ Problem solved.

The only "shenanigans" and "gakky" things about that auction is you man. You screwed up yourself and then you blame him for it? The pictures are pretty clear and not taken at an "angle to conceal the damage". Hell it even says "oop" and "as is" in item description. You obviously didn't look very hard. As for not being usable yet again that's still your fault for not knowing. Then you go and leave negative feedback...

 Jimsolo wrote:
So...

it's perfectly acceptable to not mention damage to items (the weapons that had been clipped off) and to take your pictures from an angle that conceals said damage if you're selling them cheap?

Really?

I mean, I was willing to meet halfway and be like, "yeah, I did something stupid, and got taken advantage of by someone shady." Am I seriously the one out of line here? It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that concealing the damage can be considered acceptable.

And as a side note, ever since this happened everyone keeps saying "you should have asked" and "you should ask for more pictures." Does any ebay seller EVER respond to this stuff? I've never had ANY ebay seller give me clearer pictures (even if they promised to) and I've never had one answer a question with any detail.

When I sell something on ebay I am clear about what is missing, what is damaged, and what is wrong. Is it really out of line to expect the same? If people are seriously saying that he did nothing untoward whatsoever, that all of his actions here are on the up-and-up, if that's for REAL the community opinion, then I'll apologize go ahead and try to get a mod to delete this thread.

I have no idea what you are on about with the "deceptive" pictures. The guy clearly cannot take photos if you look at the other auctions (macro function anyone?). They were "sold as seen". There are numerous catalogue archives such as SoLegends where you could compare and contrast to the pictures in the auction to see how they had been modified. I can clearly see just from a quick glance the guy on the far left appears to be missing his kiss/pistol, the guy to the right might not even be a Harlie (or even a GW) mini and one of the ones modded to hold some form of shotgun for some reason (Necromunda gang?) is missing his left arm. All is pretty damn clear from the pictures, which you paid the obviously exorbitant sum of a cup of coffee for.

Storm.
In.
A.
Teacup.

No, matter what you guys say, I just do not see how the OP is at fault here, selling 'as is' does not exempt you from disclosing whether or not something is damaged. Had the seller been from AUS, he would have broken the law and have been in serious gak right now, I'm sure that there are other countries with similar legislation as well.

Anyway i've reported the thread since all you guys are doing.is flame the OP.

No worries, mate!

If I'm seriously the one being out of line, I can admit that I was wrong. Things on ebay are a bit more cutthroat and wild west-y than I realized, but now I know!

I've deleted the user's name from the original post, and I hereby apologize for saying anything about him.

I think this thread has reached it's conclusion.