Here are a few thoughts on a rainy, windy October afternoon.
In the vintage bicycle hobby, I think we should push back against the practice of sellers setting reproduction or knockoff parts alongside originals where no warning is given that some of the parts are reproduction or knock-off.
Let's look at an example. A seller has 10 sets of chrome fenders that appear to be for a Schwinn Black Phantom. Eight of the sets are originals and two are reproductions. The reproductions are not obviously different at first glance from the originals being offered, but they certainly are not as well-made in general. All sets are laid out on a table or seller's mat. There is no obvious difference in the prices and no description offered. The seller simply says he is selling "fenders" and puts a price on each, all within the same range. This kind of behavior is going to mislead a buyer into paying top-dollar original prices for a lesser, reproduction part. The seller comes out way ahead and the buyer gets burned.
I think, as hobbyists, we should collectively push back against this kind of behavior. There is no active statement misrepresenting the items, but there certainly is a level of deception present. This is a sin of omission. The seller tries to mislead the buyer by camouflaging the reproduction parts alongside originals. The buyer is ultimately burned when he gets home with his item and finds it's a reproduction that was placed alongside originals, or when the item shows up in the mail and something turns out to be amiss. It leaves a bitter taste, and if the buyer is a newbie, burns him on the hobby.
I've seen this happen a few times - fenders, handlebars, vintage bicycle advertising signs, etc. It's something that is not necessarily "common" in the hobby, but it happens frequently enough that it is a problem. I think people in our hobby should be better-behaved than that.
I think the right way to do things is if you list several similar items together, and one of the five things you listed is a reproduction, you should call that out rather than using the originals around it as camouflage to pass off a reproduction or knock-off as original.
I sometimes see this kind of behavior utilized along with "shill" bidding. Shill bidding is where a seller or a friend of the seller acts as a straw bidder to artificially raise the price of an item. Sometimes the same guys who "camouflage" knock-offs and reproductions, as described above, use shills to raise the prices of items (which may or may not be the camouflaged items).
I've seen quite a few auctions for parts, or even whole bikes, where the bike is listed on eBay and "sells" on eBay, but then a week later I see the same original seller pushing the bike for sale on another website or at a swap for a much higher price. This isn't a case of a bidder backing out, but rather the seller being unhappy with the eBay price, and with the failure of the shill to draw higher bids from the real bidders. Evidently, the shill bidder won the no reserve eBay auction, and the seller is still stuck with the item or bike. Again, as hobbyists, we should push back against this kind of behavior. "Times are tough" is never a justification for outright dishonesty.
I'll end my Friday editorial with that.
I agree--this is an abhorrent practice, and we buyers are indeed the ones who need to push back. In normal commerce, the answer is to "vote with our wallets," and not patronize companies who engage in practices with which we do not agree. In the case of small time sellers, a savvy buyer is already doing this by default, and I feel this is not enough, although what exactly is enough, I'm uncertain. Helping our fellow hobbyists (particularly newer ones) educate themselves, and warning them of these practices (as your editorial is doing) is probably the best strategy. I think asking the seller if the item is authentic (for those like myself who may not know), would suss out the majority of these sophistic representations. I suspect most of these sellers are of the "Caveat Emptor" mentality, and honestly believe that it's the buyer's responsibility to know the difference. That would make an outright lie more difficult for them. Then, if it's discovered that the seller is engaging in this practice, I personally would walk away, even if I could have purchased a legitimate item for a good price. That's how we send a message. No berating of the seller is necessary; that would likely put them on the defensive, and reinforce the notion that they are dealing with an idiot buyer, rather than the other way 'round.
ReplyDeleteAs for protecting ourselves with auctions, the only strategy that I see is to decide what to pay upfront, and stick to it. It's easy to justify "just another dollar (or ten)," but do that a few times, and that leads to inflated prices, even if I only drove the bidding up without winning. This protects me from getting shilled, because regardless of how the bidding goes down, I stuck to my guns, and should be happy with the result, even if it's at the limit of what I wanted to pay (less is always nice). In the case of online auctions, I sometimes employ a sniping tool, as that lets me set my price, then walk away. I realize this is a divisive practice, and my point isn't to recommend it or defend it. I'm only saying that's my strategy. It's one thing to say I'm only going to pay X dollars, and quite another to stick to that in the excitement of an auction. In the overwhelming majority of auctions I snipe, I lose the item. Hence, I don't feel as though I'm "stealing" the auction, as I tend to not be a real player in practice. Of course I can simply place my proxy bid at any time during the auction, and hope for the best, but I know that puts me at a disadvantage when there may be fellow bidders deciding on market price in real time. My rationale is that if I were bidding in person, I'd place the exact bid at (hopefully) the exact moment. I'm always a last minute bidder, regardless of how I place my bid. Of course not bothering to attend the auction in person might itself be viewed as an unfair advantage. Perhaps I'm guilty of "Caveat Emptor" as well...
Sniping has become an accepted practice for online auctions. If you're bidding your best price and sticking to it, everything comes down to who will bid the highest and sniping is not a big deal.
DeleteWorse though, the shill bidder breaks the rules. The bid is made in bad faith with a concealed identity. The bid is the lie at hand. The shill is a strawman trying to get people to effectively "bid against themselves". You're quite right that the answer for the honest bidder is to stick to his limits. This is the best piece of advice for online bidding on any item. The disappointment remains that you were bidding on a "no reserve" auction, but the shill is deceiving by acting as the "reserve".