I don't bring this up lightly...

[RR 314]

I’m sure he dictated that—or auto correct. Forum = Former. A priori reasoning. .

Oooops. Missed reply above. Carry on!

 

[franzfmdavis]

Hmm. Why would he say only "former" members would agree with him? Former members of what? Was the statement made in the context of African Hunting forum? If so, why would he want the jury selected from "former members"? It did sound like a challenge to go public ... but not entirely public.

Sorry, that was a voice text typo. I meant to say “forum”. The actual quote in his message to me is in my original post and I included here for easy reference:

 

[RR 314]

Happy January. Festivus is over. The “tree”has been put away. Positions have been established. I don’t see there’s anything else to be accomplished by beating a dead horse. If I dictated that, it may say, “beating a dead whore.” .

Endeavor to persevere.

 

[BJH65]

@BJH65 I certainly appreciate you sharing your opinion, but some of the things you say, indicate to me that you did not read my full post, albeit very long.

The only threat that was made to taking this public was by @Rare Breed when he said “ I’m 100% sure all former members would agree with me”. I interpreted this as a threat to keep quiet, or else.

Yes, I apologize, sometimes I have distractions at our place and this is getting to be a fairly comprehensive read! One thing I’ve found is nobody will ever be in 100%agreement, not on this forum!

Hmmm…on the second I didn’t read that as a threat, I didn’t interpret it that way, to keep quite or else. What the hell is anyone on this forum going to do to you?

Yes, there are longtime distinguished AH members, but your opinion is just as important as anybody else’s.

I see and concede your point regarding the disagreement about the shipping reimbursement. That is a legitimate complaint albeit not worth to hash out on AH in my opinion.

What you haven’t addressed in your response is your belief that Rare Breed was dishonest and deceptive. You are clearly conveying this. I simply don’t believe this to be true.

While you have had many suggestions one I might add that has served me well over the years with a variety of important transactions, tasks, assignments, etc:

TRUST BUT VERIFY

Whenever I have deviated from this policy, and I have, is when I’ve come into problems.

 

[Red Leg]

Yes, I apologize, sometimes I have distractions at our place and this is getting to be a fairly comprehensive read! One thing I’ve found is nobody will ever be in 100%agreement, not on this forum!

Hmmm…on the second I didn’t read that as a threat, I didn’t interpret it that way, to keep quite or else. What the hell is anyone on this forum going to do to you?

Yes, there are longtime distinguished AH members, but your opinion is just as important as anybody else’s.

I see and concede your point regarding the disagreement about the shipping reimbursement. That is a legitimate complaint albeit not worth to hash out on AH in my opinion.

What you haven’t addressed in your response is your belief that Rare Breed was dishonest and deceptive. You are clearly conveying this. I simply don’t believe this to be true.

While you have had many suggestions one I might add that has served me well over the years with a variety of important transactions, tasks, assignments, etc:

TRUST BUT VERIFY

Whenever I have deviated from this policy, and I have, is when I’ve come into problems.

He sold a firearm based on photos of a double rifle that truly no longer exists. Condition is everything in valuing a firearm, particularly one like a California Rigby with no real inherent name or collector interest. I have no idea if that was deception, laziness with respect to doing new photography, or a simple mistake. But the buyer has a very legitimate complaint that should have been resolved by the seller before this became a spectator sport.

 

[franzfmdavis]

Happy January. Festivus is over. The “tree”has been put away. Positions have been established. I don’t see there’s anything else to be accomplished by beating a dead horse. If I dictated that, it may say, “beating a dead whore.” .

Endeavor to persevere.

A great reference…and an important part of the festivities tradition!

 

[BJH65]

He sold a firearm based on photos of a double rifle that truly no longer exists. Condition is everything in valuing a firearm, particularly one like a California Rigby with no real inherent name or collector interest. I have no idea if that was deception, laziness with respect to doing new photography, or a simple mistake. But the buyer has a very legitimate complaint that should have been resolved by the seller before this became a spectator sport.

I’m not entirely in disagreement with your assessment sir but Rare Breed in his original listing and I’m paraphrasing now, clearly stated it had scratches that while not concerning to him could be of concern to potential buyers so I’m also assessing his written description. I agree, clear and comprehensive photos should have been shown with the listing but I also believe the OP should have asked for much more detailed photos showing the described scratches. I would for this kind of investment.

I simply don’t believe he has proven Rare Breed to be dishonest and deceptive. I’m hopeful all can be resolved as I believe both are worthwhile contributors.

 

[franzfmdavis]

@Rare Breed only wrote that his gun was scratched up after I had disputed the condition and sent it back. His original ad did not mention anything about “scratches” on the gun.

The original ad and the description upon which the gun was purchased was at the beginning of the his ad, and I have screenshoted it here for reference:

I don’t know if this alters your opinion, but it is a very important distinction.

 

[BGGMKLR]

I would expect the photos used to sell an item are the photos of the item being sold at the time. I see no excuses for that.

A very reasonable expectation....however.
In an effort to mostly eliminate the possibility of old, deceptive pics I have, on several occasions , requested that the seller provide additional photos...with an apple, or orange, or screwdriver...something I designate... in each pic, to guarantee that they were taken after my request.
As we all know very well, there is no substitute for an in- person eyes- on inspection, but long distance transactions make that impossible at times.
Best
Spike

 

[Fixfire]

The fact that the seller used photos of a rifle that no longer existed is ALL you need to know. No effing way that was by mistake. Sad.

 

[BJH65]

@Rare Breed only wrote that his gun was scratched up after I had disputed the condition and sent it back. His original ad did not mention anything about “scratches” on the gun.

The original ad and the description upon which the gun was purchased was at the beginning of the his ad, and I have screenshoted it here for reference:


View attachment 658538View attachment 658539

I don’t know if this alters your opinion, but it is a very important distinction.

Yes, I apologize, I thought the scratches were listed in Rare Breeds’s original listing, sorry I got confused. The scratches and or any damage should always be mentioned. While they are amplified from the blown up high definition photos, it is minor damage to the wood nonetheless. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and do not believe him to be dishonest or deceptive. I hope this can be resolved to all parties.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

The fact that the seller used photos of a rifle that no longer existed is ALL you need to know. No effing way that was by mistake. Sad.

I think that's the most bothersome part of the story to me? Maybe there is a reason that set of photos was used, and it's very possible those reasons were unintentional. But the photos clearly didn't match the gun.

I know a few aren't totally fans of GunBroker, but living where I do, that's often where I get my fix. I've bought maybe 20 firearms on there over the years - obviously sight unseen, based on where I live - and I have never had a bad transaction. In fact, in many cases, the gun winds up looking better than the posted photos. Maybe I've just gotten lucky?

 

[BJH65]

I’m not entirely in disagreement with your assessment sir but Rare Breed in his original listing and I’m paraphrasing now, clearly stated it had scratches that while not concerning to him could be of concern to potential buyers so I’m also assessing his written description. I agree, clear and comprehensive photos should have been shown with the listing but I also believe the OP should have asked for much more detailed photos showing the described scratches. I would for this kind of investment.

I simply don’t believe he has proven Rare Breed to be dishonest and deceptive. I’m hopeful all can be resolved as I believe both are worthwhile contributors.

Sorry General I got lost in the reeds reading this entire thread. The scratches were not listed apparently in Rare Breed’s original listing so I was wrong. I still give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t deliberately deceptive and dishonest. Hopefully all can be resolved to all involved.

 

[franzfmdavis]

Sorry General I got lost in the reeds reading this entire thread. The scratches were not listed apparently in Rare Breed’s original listing so I was wrong. I still give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t deliberately deceptive and dishonest. Hopefully all can be resolved to all involved.

I have no way of knowing what was the intent in his heart when he posted those pictures either.

If previous request I made of him is too onerous or offensive, he can clean this up by saying something along the lines:

1. I should have posted current and accurate pictures of the gun.
2. Even though I changed my mind afterward, I should have refunded him everything I originally promised in writing.
3. I should have responded to his private requests to resolve this.
4. I will donate the amount of the refund I didn’t give him to africahunting.com.

This is about as vanilla of a mea culpa as it gets.

 

[PARA45]

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. Despite te copies of my emails I know what I meant and clearly voiced it on my phone call with Frantz. While anyone is free to chime in I am done with this and will make no further comment. Have fun with further posting if you choose. I have helped hundreds of our members and have had 27 great transactions. I will continue to help people who ask

I don't believe @Rare Breed is watching this thread anymore.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

A very reasonable expectation....however.
In an effort to mostly eliminate the possibility of old, deceptive pics I have, on several occasions , requested that the seller provide additional photos...with an apple, or orange, or screwdriver...something I designate... in each pic, to guarantee that they were taken after my request.
As we all know very well, there is no substitute for an in- person eyes- on inspection, but long distance transactions make that impossible at times.
Best
Spike

Good tip there, Spike. Very good. You should post it in my thread "Little tips that can make a big difference."

 

[BGGMKLR]

Good tip there, Spike. Very good. You should post it in my thread "Little tips that can make a big difference."

Will do.
Spike

 

[Quest#1]

He sold a firearm based on photos of a double rifle that truly no longer exists. Condition is everything in valuing a firearm, particularly one like a California Rigby with no real inherent name or collector interest. I have no idea if that was deception, laziness with respect to doing new photography, or a simple mistake. But the buyer has a very legitimate complaint that should have been resolved by the seller before this became a spectator sport.

Sums it up perfectly! Literally shouldn’t be anything to argue…. If gun was same condition of posted pic we don’t hear about it and buyer is happy.