Very recently I shipped a Pioneer receiver to a buyer in Alberta.
He had looked at its pictures,then sent payment and I then shipped it to him.
Which he received,then promptly sent me this:
I received the unit today, and I was impressed by your superior packing methods.
I unpacked slowly- and carefully anticipating the gem that we talked about and found something other. The unit was rated as an 8 by CAM standards.
There is a scrape in the center front glass-on the inside.
There is a deep gouge front and center on the top front aluminum trim- along side other lesser GOUGES.
There are "aberrations" -repair attempts, to the cabinet at top centre.
There is a chunk of (wooden) material missing from top rear right edge.
There is a deep impression along the right upper wooden edge.
All of these nicks and dents considered, I would rate the unit at 5.
I believe that you have had a misunderstanding of the CAM rating system and that WE need to come to terms on this point, and that you would not have ever misrepresent your item for sale, knowingly. I would not accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting the unit's condition, but I do think that you did not fully understand CAM's rating system and/or its importance to the process of negotiations on the CAM site.
I have detailed photos of todays immediate unpacking.
Contact me at once, please, to resolve.
The resolve is the buyer now demands some partial refund.
I feel this is an unfair business practice where some buyers are by nature looking to be compensated (that means bribe them so they won't leave the seller negative feedback) In closing it seems the seller is more at risk having to defend themselves even after the sale?
I replied:
I'm at a sad loss!
Most likely as you suggest, perhaps I don't fully grasp the rating system,yet with you now rating the unit only a 5, I ponder we both may have a misunderstanding of CAM's rating system!
However I'm one of those old school purists who actually listen to these vintage gems and judge them by sound performance, putting a greater emphasis on how they sound over minor cosmetic imperfections!
It seems to me that cutting through the layers,on my part I certainly meant well never thinking for a moment I was at all ever misrepresenting its appearance. I'm quite flabbergastedshocked that you choose to rate the receiver only 5 ?
I had acquired this very receiver from another CAM member,and I was thrilled with it!
My concern/question is; when buyers receive shipment it seems to me they can choose to say, its not what I thought it would be,or its now damaged due to shipping. Or they falsely state that the seller sent it knowingly damaged.
As aforementioned, I tend to be one of those old school purists who actually listen to these vintage 40-50 year old audio gems and judge them by sound performance, putting a greater emphasis on how they sound over minor cosmetic imperfections!
Perhaps sellers such as I should not even offer any rating,as it seems to me there are others who perceive this a means to after the fact ask the seller for compensation,further reducing the selling price.
I feel this is an unfair practice!
I have also purchased from out of province CAM members where on receiving my shipment I found the item(s) either not to be working,or not as the seller discribed. I always have accepted;if I looked at the photos provided and then sent means to purchase it, then when the seller sends it,I have always acknowledged "caveat emptor". I'm not excessively busy with trifles; anxious or particular about petty details/anal. Just call me old school honest!