The Steel Guitar Forum

I agree with Mike, demanding a jacked up price from an ignorant buyer is a scam and is unethical. If this seller posted a reasonable price and bidding drove it up, that's different. But he is clearly trying to mislead ignorant buyers into thinking his item is worth more than it is. It's false advertising. Call it business if you want. A lot of business stinks.

I don't think the flea market analogy is apt. An ignorant buyer paying too much to a scam artist is spending real money. The flea market seller is probably making a profit no matter what he gets. The point of a flea market is to sell something that is junk to you to someone who places more value on it for their own unique reasons. Also, it is expected and well known that collectors shop flea markets to find bargains for resell. This is part of the efficiency of the business. The flea market seller doesn't have the time or expertise to reach the market for specialty items. In a sense he is selling wholesale to the bargain hunter, who will then spend his time and expertise to reprice the item and find buyers on the specialty market. It is expected that he will work a price differential and occassionally get a windfall to make up for other times when he has to pay almost as much as he can resell the item for.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I'm glad the Consumer Protection Society is alive and well represented on the Forum, but that's not the way capitalism works, folks, like it or not. In a (relatively) free market, people can ask exhorbitant prices for whatever they sell and some poor schmucks will pay it. That's just life and human nature. Whatever morality you want to ascribe to it is your trip, but the reality is that the buyer is responsible for doing the homework. Like I said before, it's worth what someone will pay for it.

------------------
<small>Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

The issue has nothing to do with the dynamic of flea markets. It is about making the case for immorality. If it is considered immoral to take advantage of an ignorant buyer, then it is certainly immoral to take advantage of an ignorant seller. Making the case that it is ok to pay $500 for a $3000 item at a flea market because it will be resold if just sophistry. I see no difference in the moralities.

Well, Jeff, if you see everything in black and white, with no gray, and if sins of ommission are as bad as sins of commission, then both scenarios are unethical (I think immoral is too strong a word here). But at the flea market everyone gains and goes home happy. The wise buyer gains more, but he is profiting from his expertise. Knowledge is money. He deserves it, and I think people expect that at flea markets. It's considered serendipity. But jacking up prices for ignorant buyers is an intentional act of deception from the gitgo.

As for all the Adam Smith's out there, we all know how capitalism works. For enterpise to be free, it must allow for sharks and suckers, so that the market can find the right price. It's all legal, as it should be. The market knows legality, not ethics. But individual humans have free will and personal ethics. What is legal, and what is personally ethical are completely different things. For good reasons people just don't like scalpers and price gougers, legal or not.

Jeff, not too long ago I was approached by somebody with a 1930s era National Tricone. I could have bought it dirt cheap, and to be honest, I was tempted, but instead I called up Lorene Ruymar (former president of the Hawaiian Steel Guitar Assn.), and got the instruments true value and told the people who owned it.

I would have liked to have bought the guitar, but my conscience wouldn't let me.

Ok David, there is a distinction between sins of ommission and sins of commission, but if it isn't black and white, then there are all sorts of other distinctions that could be drawn as well. For example, while sellers may overcharge buyers, the degree which they overcharge will tend to be small (as a percentage of the "true" price, however you would define that). But when a buyer finds a good deal, there tend to be much larger descrepancies. I collect antique toy trains and there are usually several instances at a large train show where an uninformed seller sells a rare variation of a common item for a fraction (5 - 20%) of it's value. On the other hand, when sellers overcharge, they might do so at 10-30% at most. And since potential buyers are very wary of how they spend their money, the overcharged items, and even most fairly priced stuff, don't get sold right away and often drop in price as the show wears on. But man, when something is priced cheap, it goes in seconds. Doesn't the degree of difference have an "ethical" implication. Whereas buyers who overpay for an item can probably afford the amount, the uninformed seller is obviously not a dealer and may very possibly be someone who is selling because they severely need the cash and the difference between what they actually get and what they could have gotten could make a real difference in their lives. Also, I don't agree with the point that everyone goes home happy" is a justification. The seller is only happy because he doesn't know how cheap he sold it. I could also say that the buyer of an overpriced item is happy because of his new purchase (until he finds out he paid too much, of course). You also make the point that the buyer "profits from his expertise". Why should the buyer be rewarded for his expertise at the expense of the seller? Why is that ok? These are rhetorical questions. Obviously, there are many shades of gray, and that is why the lines (the law, the free market economy, etc.) are drawn in black in white and it's up to everyone else to decide on where they draw their own lines in terms of ethics and moralities.

Mike, you're true to yourself and your core values. Very, very few people can make such claims.

You're right, Jeff. The size of the discrepancy between value and price makes a difference. The guy selling the Maverick was asking over twice its value. That seems excessive.

Your conduct at flea markets sounds commendably ethical. Another ethical way to handle a bargain that is too big at a flea market would be to buy the item at the asking price. Then tell the seller you think you can get a lot more, and if you do you will cut him in on the profit. Then if you manage to sell it for a windfall, send the seller half the profits. How's that?

Meanwhile, over on e-bay it looks like fair value competition might correct that situation. It is nice that the market sometimes corrects itself. But I don't think that exonerates the bad ethics of the guy with the jacked up price (provided he did it knowingly, which is not clear).

<SMALL>Your conduct at flea markets sounds commendably ethical</SMALL>

Sorry to dissapoint. I was only making an intellectual discussion of how arbitrary ideas of ethics are. As a collector, I have at times in the past engaged in many transactions over short perioids of time. When I have had the opportunity to buy something that is undervalued, I did. But then, I took full repsonsibility for overpaying for something, which has happened to me many times. I believe that either you take the trouble to be properly informed, or you risk losing, either as a buyer or seller. But that's just me. I was taking exception with the disucssion because of the one-sideness of it, that only the seller could be unethical (whatever that means), not the buyer, and I was being theoretical in my examples. Mile P. said that it's unethical for the seller to intentionally overcharge an uninformed buyer, but he also said that he would not take advantage of an uninformed seller. He is consistent in his ethics. And wheresas I would purchase an undervalued item from a seller (who is a stranger), I also take full responsibility when I overpay (or make any other kind of mistake for that matter). I don't say the seller is evil, I say that I'm an idiot for not knowing better. I feel we are both true to our principles, it's just that our principles are differrent. I have a real issue with changing the ethics to fit the situation and personal agendas. All IMO.

..I agree with Jeff Lampert in most circumstances...for example, not long ago there was a topic here about getting cheap deals, and someone made a comment about a friend getting vintage Strat for $50 or so at a garage sale from an old woman whose son bought it and then was killed in Vietnam..

..that was clearly immoral in my opinion (bordering on despicable), beyond even the aspect of the money, and my comment was that the guy should have been ashamed of himself..

...on the other hand, if someone bought a vintage Strat for $50 from a seller who was in the business of selling used guitars and should have known better than to sell it at that price, I don't see it as immoral..<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Pat Burns on 05 August 2003 at 08:53 AM.]</p></FONT>

If you take (some lost buyers) ignorance and gullability (spelling?) as a fundamental for your perception of capitalism, you will soon find out that you are wealthy up to the point where even the contents of your daily garbage bin may affect your net worth (e-bay again being just one oh so friendly source for your evaluation), AS LONG you DON'T plan on CASHING OUT... An experience which the poor soul that would pay up those 1099.- for that guitar will have to find out about, the day he decides to get rid of that thing (which may be sooner than later).

I don't think that the result of some high bid auctions can be used to evaluate the actual worth of articles that on top of the auction's excitement carry a high and many times questionable extrinsic value.
Auctions tend many times to be more about winning. So, the question could much rather be "IS WINNING worth USD 1099.-?". Now, this one's tough to answer.

Low bid auctions may give a completely different picture.

No, a Maverick is not worth that, never was and never will. There are far superior Student guitars available for far less than that and brand spanking new!

... J-D.

Well this raises the interesting situation. Let's assume the Strat is worth $2500. Now, the buyer decides to tell the lady who is selling it "You have this priced too cheap at $50. I'll give you $1000 for it". The buyer feels that it would give the lady a nice bunch of cash and leave value built in for himself, which only seems fair (whatever that means). Now the lady realizes she's got something speical, and thinks "if he is offering me $1000, then it could be worth $10,000, so I'm not selling it". And now the guy finds out that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. It happens.

I have to say that if I had wanted the national for myself, I probably would have bought it. I saw it as a potential investment rather than an instrument I was going to play.

..Jeff, as the buyer, I could live with that. I didn't have anything to begin with, so I didn't lose anything...and I didn't screw anybody...

..and if the lady gets what the guitar is worth, who loses? Nobody. Being honest is a no-lose situation..