Worst Ebay Experience - Also On Soul Source

[Pete S]

:dash2: :dash2:

I know.

[paultp]

If Pete feels this way I'll remove it. This leaves the fist option the only one left and I do not feel that can be met. John Manship has listed this as a repro/boot in his book for over 5 years and if he was wrong you guys would have objected to it by now, but this has not happened.

I've seen lots of garage 45 listed as repros and in their ads the sellers make it clear and in bold print "This is not an original" which was lacking in Petes' ad. He had about least amount of info there that could be used. If he had this in his ad I would not have made the purchase. Also,his replies to me I felt were evasive and misleading giving me mistrust in him which lead to this. Hopefully, this is the end and we can move on and learn by it.

Why did you buy it then?

You had no idea what you were buying, bought it anyway, complained, returned it and got refunded.

Then left negative feedback.

The only good thing to come out of this (as you are obviously not going to withdraw the neg) is that record sellers reading this will hopefully add your ebay id to their blocked bidders list. There are so many stupid buyers on ebay it will be good to at least reduce them by one.

[Craig W]

I do not know who they are and them just saying it does not make it so. I would like to hear from them with proof in writing.

& $38.00 return postage!

[Briank]

Interesting that you are still avoiding the John Manship book.

I said those were my feelings as you were saying the record came out in 1967 and the Mercury Logo missing....are you standing by those statements?

[Pete S]

If anyone didn't see the comment that was removed by Brian, Brian said he would possibly remove the negative feedback if I paid him $38 to cover what it cost to post it back to me.

[Pete S]

Interesting that you are still avoiding the John Manship book.

I said those were my feelings as you were saying the record came out in 1967 and the Mercury Logo missing....are you standing by those statements?

Brian - f*ck off.

You're a blackmailer and nobody in their right mind will ever deal with you again.

Certainly not the 5000+ people I sent details out to.

Good luck in the future.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Pete S

[Soulsider]

briank - based on your meticulous, repetitive, drawn-out, argumentative and misplaced mistrust of Pete in buying ONE single record that you haven't actually bought now, you must have amassed at least...er.... maybe 5 or 6 records over the years if this episode is anything to go by?

Come on, remove the negative feedback, write a Dear John to Mr Manship and ask him to explain.

Then let us know how you get on.

[Sutty]

Pete, the problem with arguing with an idiot is that they're too stupid to know they've lost the argument. Thanks for alerting us to this clown so we can all avoid dealing with him.

[Pete S]

Pete, the problem with arguing with an idiot is that they're too stupid to know they've lost the argument. Thanks for alerting us to this clown so we can all avoid dealing with him.

Yeah sorry I snapped but I can't be polite any longer under this sort of provocation

[Biggordy]

The more this Brian guy posts, the more he's making himself look like a total arse.

If you want an original pal, I believe the asking price was £175. If you think you're gonna get an original for 25 quid think again.

[Linda4me]

Brian - f*ck off.

You're a blackmailer and nobody in their right mind will ever deal with you again.

Certainly not the 5000+ people I sent details out to.

Good luck in the future.

Pete,you are my hero I never thought you'd go this long without swearing What a bloke

[Soulboyrecords]

well ... what an unbelievable read .... as you say pete a fool with a Manship book is a dangerous beast. It's llike a kindergarten spat

[Sutty]

I'd have snapped way earlier, guys got no morals or intelligence it seems. Face up and be a man Brian, or do what Pete's already suggested, you are damaging someone's reputation through your actions, selling records puts the food in his family's mouth. Disgraceful, and certainly not 'soulful'

[Pete S]

I'd have snapped way earlier, guys got no morals or intelligence it seems. Face up and be a man Brian, or do what Pete's already suggested, you are damaging someone's reputation through your actions, selling records puts the food in his family's mouth. Disgraceful, and certainly not 'soulful'

Thats the problem with ebays feedback system though Paul, he can say whatever he likes about me, whether it's the truth or not, but I can't say a thing in return.

[Craig W]

This Ebay negative below just about sums BrianK up.

As Pete says he trades on Ebay under the username of Tapes.

Seems he is also as difficult to deal with as a seller as it appears he graded this record "right"

Just about sums him up really.

overgraded record, argumentative seller with bad attitude. do not trust

Member ID mountain_view_mod ( Feedback score of 2368) 18-Dec-10 17:58

• 
  
  Reply by tapes (18-Dec-10 23:58): agreed played better than graded but wanted 30% refund. I denied. graded right.
  
  

Great Garage 45 THE CHOCOLATE WATCH BAND TOWER LISTEN (#260703139818) US $104.01

[Guest julesp1905]

Might be a bit foolish for "Tapes" to list anything on ebay for a while, You could find out just how easy it is to have your feedback messed up

[Daz Mc]

if you read this braink send pete his £20 you f in twat

Ditto , ive dealt with Pete many times on soul source and ebay , one of the most honest and easy to deal with sellers around...braink needs hanging from a tree by his bollocks.

Edited November 12, 2012 by daz mc

[Guest Donny Soulie]

Pete is one the most honest guys you will ever want to know, and I'm sure 1000's of other people who have dealt with him will back me up!

Briank.....just go away and read your John Manship book again, after al its in the fiction area of the library.

Phil

[Pete S]

I don't think it's about whether I'm honest though, I sell a record, the customer is not happy, he asks for a refund, I say ok no problem, he sends it back and I refund the money.

That's how simple it is, and that's what should have happened.

[Guest soulchasers]

If Pete feels this way I'll remove it. This leaves the fist option the only one left and I do not feel that can be met. John Manship has listed this as a repro/boot in his book for over 5 years and if he was wrong you guys would have objected to it by now, but this has not happened.

I've seen lots of garage 45 listed as repros and in their ads the sellers make it clear and in bold print "This is not an original" which was lacking in Petes' ad. He had about least amount of info there that could be used. If he had this in his ad I would not have made the purchase. Also,his replies to me I felt were evasive and misleading giving me mistrust in him which lead to this. Hopefully, this is the end and we can move on and learn by it.

I was kinda on your side for a while as the record may have been a boot, saying 2nd pressing is a bit ambiguous when it comes to selling boots (even tho' it's now been established that this particular record may not be a boot after all).

But that comment which you state should have been on the listing i.e. "This is not an original" proves that you thought you were buying an original copy, when in fact Pete clearly stated it was a 2nd press, think you should just "man up" about it and remove that negative feedback.

[Mick Reed]

Brian - f*ck off.

You're a blackmailer and nobody in their right mind will ever deal with you again.

Certainly not the 5000+ people I sent details out to.

Good luck in the future.

thank f-ck for that pete.

[Guest MrC]

Interesting that you are still avoiding the John Manship book.

I said those were my feelings as you were saying the record came out in 1967 and the Mercury Logo missing....are you standing by those statements?

Avoiding the book?! Pete & Mr Manship get on very well in person and John doesn't feel the need to check what Pete says against what he has written in his book! Mind you, the fact that John Manship respects Pete and his knowledge of 60s music, and trusts him enough to work with him on an equal footing might have something to do with that.

Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake 'tapes'? If you re read everything you'll see Pete never said the copy he was selling had the mercury logo missing, he said the fact it had the logo on was more in keeping with it being a legitimate release and not a bootleg. It seems most of your argument stems from the fact you thought you were getting one over on a record dealer by getting a 175 pound record for 25! There was no misrepresentation on Petes part, you just thought he didnt realise what he was selling, and when you realised you'd made a mistake, tried to shift the spotlight from yourself by crying 'FOUL'

I bvet the floor by your pram is littered with dummies.....

[Simsy]

[Peter99]

Briank appears to me to be a complete knob - just in my very simple and humblist opinion.

Peter

[Pete S]

Maybe this has run it's course now, thanks again to everyone for their support, not a positive result in one way but a massive positive result in another - sticking together!

If anyone wants it re-opening to add a comment you can always PM me or if there are any more developments I'll re-open it.

It's taken too much of a toll on me these last couple of weeks though, and me with my blood pressure...

[Pete S]

Just to make sure there are no more mistakes made, and so that people who are unable to understand the term SECOND ISSUE don't get confused, I have now added the following to my latest Ebay sales:

THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL IT IS A REISSUE

THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL AS IT HAS NO STAMP IN THE RUN OFF.

REISSUE FROM 1977

THIS IS A REISSUE.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Pete S

[Benji]

THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL IT IS A REISSUE

THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL AS IT HAS NO STAMP IN THE RUN OFF.

REISSUE FROM 1977

THIS IS A REISSUE.

I bet you'd still get somebody asking if it's a bootleg.

[Pete S]

I bet you'd still get somebody asking if it's a bootleg.

You are right. But when it comes down to it, in many cases, who knows. If you see the example I gave a page or two back, Paula Durante: 37 years have passed since that 'pressing' appeared. I do not know who manufactured it, does anyone know who manufactured it? Is it a pressing, a reissue, a second issue, a boot, a legit second pressing? The answer is that nobody knows in many cases. Things were a lot easier when people just used one all encompassing term - "PRESSING". There were no autopsies, you just knew it wasn't the original.

[Pete S]

I apologise for closing/opening this topic but I said I'd reopen it if I had something relevant to add.

I spoke to the man himself John Manship this morning about various matters, and mentioned this, the Kelly Garrett record and whether it was legit, licensed, bootleg or what.

His answer? He didn't really know one way or another and said exactly the same as I did above - who actually does know everything about these records, how are we supposed to know who made them, where they made them and how they made them. His term repro meant the same as my term second issue did - it's not an original, which is all you need to know really.

[Simsy]

His term repro meant the same as my term second issue did - it's not an original, which is all you need to know really.

Unless you're an ignorant ill informed ass..