# What would you do? GC Ethics & Etiquette 101.



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Curious about other people's perspective on a particular situation. Let's call it GC Ethics & Etiquette 101!

What would you do if you had a few interactions (not transactions though) with a member regarding gear they were selling and determined they had _knowingly_ tried to mislead you (and others)...where their "explanations" for inconsistencies pointed out to them are convoluted to the point of absurdity. To provide additional context, let's say potential buyers (i.e. other members) would definitely be getting something_ other _than what was advertised. 

So...how would you address the situation or would you even bother? Take it up with them directly, warn others who may intend to deal with them, question things publicly, or just leave it alone. Just curious about the response of others here and wondering where one draws the line with respect to protecting our membership...


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

Full disclosure, IMHO.
That being said, if they didn't know, then take it at their word. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -& All Round Nice Guy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2014)

If you have the 'facts' to disprove their claim, 
I would call them out on it. To educate and inform.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I would make the knowledge very public, and shame the person in question for being shady about it. We have a good thing going here, It's in everyone's best interest to squash that kind of BS before GC turns into kijiji.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

confront them. tell them you're going public. How you go public is a bit tricky - you don't wanna do the "he said she said" thing.

This kind of happened before and the thread got shut down. It actually got kinda weird with the "PM me to find out who I'm talking about"... I was left scratching my head and decided I wouldn't deal with either person if a chance was presented to me.

The thing is, you're quite active on this forum, so I would trust your word, BUT, if it was someone equally active and considerate, I would probably chalk it off as that time of the month for the both of you... 

So, I guess I'm wondering _how_ you could tastefully whistle-blow...


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

As far as selling/trading, full disclosure is my route also.
I don't want the buyer pissed with any surprises after arrival,
or to be turned down when handing it off in person.

That's a tough question about approaching the subject of another seller though.
If a PM doesn't work, I'd consider warning the membership.
This would only be in the case that I was 100% sure of wrongdoings.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

bzrkrage said:


> Full disclosure, IMHO.
> That being said, if they didn't know, then take it at their word.


Some specific questions were asked, and answered, which gave them_ just _enough rope to hang themselves....and I have no interest in encouraging others to PM me for more info. It's just an open ended question at this point.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

no one person can know it all. 
so,
I think we all rely on the other members to speak up if they see something that not quite right. This place generates a sense of Security.

I can't see myself leaving something for sale after being made aware the item was not what I thought it was either.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

LET ME MAKE ONE THING PERFECTLY CLEAR "THIS WAS NOT A GC MEMBER". I recently purchased a used Fender Tele 2002, looked to be in very good shape the strings were obviously very old but so what I would change them anyway. The seller didn't have an amp at his home and I didn't take one along, first bad move, believing the seller, second bad move. It played OK and as usual I was taking it to my favourite tech. anyway. 
Upon inspection the tech found that the two way truss rod had been cranked to the max in one direction there was no adjustment left, needless to say he had to make other adjustments to the guitar to compensate. 
I went looking for a new made in the US Fender Tele neck, very pricey like $500.00. I haven't found a used on yet. I can use it as is for now. 
I don't trust the neck and I won't resell it with this neck without fully disclosing the neck problem, big loss either way. I guess the main lesson here is always carry an amp with you even if it is just a little practice amp when going to try out any guitar. Then if you ever see the seller again kick real hard in the balls.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

You could try PMing Scott (GC) see if he has any interest in dealing with the offender.

My guess is it's someone who has a long sordid history here.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keto said:


> You could try PMing Scott (GC) see if he has any interest in dealing with the offender.
> 
> My guess is it's someone who has a long sordid history here.


not really much I can do. I am certainly no expert in gear so trying to figure out if someone is telling it like it is, is virtually impossible. Our buy and sell record here is outstanding. if it were me I would advise whoever it is that we intend on keeping it that way. This is your forum boys. Stand up for what you have built


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Ask questions, try and make the truth come out. Be tactful up until you have no choice but to say straight out that the seller is full of it.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

[video=youtube_share;zrzMhU_4m-g]http://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g[/video]

BURN THE WITCH!!!! sorry, i couldn't resist. on a more serious note, i side with the others about full disclosure. the best thing to do, i think, is whatever thing allows you to look in the mirror after the fact and still know you're one of the good guys. then the next time you read the forum, everyone else will disagree with you somehow, and it will become a huge hairball with members splitting into factions and warring for control of specific forums on the board or maybe not, never can tell


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Maybe it's no big deal at all but I do find the choice to be deliberately misleading a bit strange, especially on more than one occasion and with virtually the same MO each time. Just seems like it'd be easier under the circumstances to be completely honest and transparent...no harm, no foul. I realized another option is to simply post the head scratching info here, leave folks to their own sleuthing, and let them draw their own conclusions. Conceivably none of it matters to anyone else at the end of the day.

Anyway, here's the link I came across followed by the guitar posted here (in case it gets deleted), my question to the seller, and finally their response...all of which got me to wondering about the issue in the first place: 

http://www.tfoa.eu/the_store/index.php?target=products&product_id=38382

_ For Sale: 2004 Gibson SJ-200 Natural in excellent condition w/ original HSC

Original 2004 SJ-200 here and she is booming!
Exceptional good sounding guitar with warm deep growl that sounds very matured. 
This guitar is considered Gibson's famous "King Of The Flattops" and the SJ-200 comes top of the line in hierarchy.....Keith Richards, Pete Townsend, Elvis Presley....
Comes with original price tag and all case candy bought from L & M in 2005, was over $4k with tax.
Serial #: 02854028

Your guitar was made at the 
Bozeman Plant , MA, USA
October 12nd, 2004
Production Number: 28

Features a solid spruce top, solid amazingly flamed maple back and sides, and even more desperate flamed maple neck, beautifully grained rosewood fingerboard that is adorned with beautiful mother of pearl 'crown' inlays, gold-plated tuners with very little wear also, indicating this guitar has not seen much playing time.

Beautiful deluxe multiple body binding, fingerboard binding and headstock binding, The Moustache bridge is inlaid with 4 pieces of pearl, and the antique natural finish aged beautifully.
She measures 44mm (1 3/4") width at the nut, and 645mm (25.4") scale length, with original HSC.
Super nice SJ200 looking for cash deal please no trades.
*Will take better pics in the natural light as soon as the sun comes out again 
*
_







Attached Images 






































*StevieMac *
Re: 2004 Gibson SJ-200 Natural 

_Nice example of the 200, with outstanding flame. Pics are of the guitar for sale here then?
__
_*OtherMember*
Re: 2004 Gibson SJ-200 Natural 

_Yes I posted it on the GP and Mylespaulforum as well
same one, it is a nice one I may end up keeping it on the fence. 
_
*Funny thing is, I doubt this conversation will even register on their radar as I'm not sure they've ever ventured outside of the FS forum...*


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Release the hounds.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

That does seem a bit dodgy.

Strangely, when I read the "What Would You Do?" title of the thread, I instantly get this in my head:

[video=youtube;BVkTmnJkAN8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVkTmnJkAN8[/video]


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Ha ha! Forgot about that tune but thanks for the reminder :sSig_goodjob2:

Seems I may be guilty of plagiarism as well *;^ ) *


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> I'm definitely not as diplomatic as you, StevieMac!
> 
> Thanks for the link.


I was asked how on earth I had found this information (link with pics) in the first place. FWIW, the phrase "desperate flamed maple neck" struck me as very unusual so I googled it and the link was the first to show up...the FS post here was next of course. After clicking on it I immediately realized that a portion of the description and the pics (watermarks strategically clipped however) found therein had been "borrowed". As I said earlier, my previous experience with them was nearly identical so some red flags went up...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm trying to understand the issue.

Is it simply that the pictures are file pics and don't show the actual guitar or is it being advertised as something it is not?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



nkjanssen said:


> I'm definitely not as diplomatic as you, StevieMac!


Yeah. I'm not either.

The For Sale, Trade or Wanted is a preferred place to trade in guitars because it's easier to TRUST. That's one of the big reasons to pay for a membership: to be permitted to trade there. The marketplace is smaller, better-focused, and to some extent shoppers are better-known than kijiji or craigslist. I for one EXPECT that dishonesty in it will be very harshly treated by both members and moderators, that's part of what I'm paying for.

Scott (Moderator) I appreciate what you do, and that you may not be expert enough to discern all fakes and scams yourself. However where dishonesty is clearly determined by you or a gaggle of reasonable and pointedly-howling members a heavy moderator's hand (banning from the site) is important to me.

Using third-party pictures of a for-sale item without loudly identifying them as third-party is either stupidity or dishonesty. Failing to strongly clarify when asked about them decides that question: dishonesty, banned! And the thread should remain, locked with a closing note by the moderator indicating that the offender was banned. Put 'em in the stocks!

I'll go even further, in response to a couple of posts above which suggest that if the person has made an "honest" mistake we should take them at their word. Not in my book!! "I didn't know" is entirely too easy an escape to permit miscreants to go free and try again. Our formal laws don't permit the excuse, judges decide, so maybe Guitars Canada should have an "ethics" panel to help Scott judge such cases. But in most cases, post something that isn't what you say, and you're gone!!

Yeah, my wife thinks I'm a hard-ass too. The natural law which guided civilization for centuries is out of fashion. But it works!

- - - Updated - - -



Milkman said:


> I'm trying to understand the issue.
> 
> Is it simply that the pictures are file pics and don't show the actual guitar or is it being advertised as something it is not?


It's pretty simple!:

Part of most guitar purchase decisions is made on the basis of how it looks (condition, flame, etc.) Stealing pictures from another web site (even though everyone does it, that is theft) and using them to represent the guitar you are selling is MISrepresenting your guitar. Either you post your own shitty pictures or no pictures, but you don't use nice-looking pictures of ANOTHER guitar to sell yours unless you plaster your offer with warnings you have done that.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*

Ok, I get it now.

As I don't use this site as a revenue generator I'll let those who do sort it out.


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*

I do like the seller's amusingly evasive reply to when the link to where the pics came from was posted - especially if I'm reading Steve's posts correctly and he's already pointed out the tfoa.eu site to the seller.

Neil


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



Milkman said:


> Ok, I get it now. As I don't use this site as a revenue generator I'll let those who do sort it out.


Really?!

First of all, for clarity, I don't use the site as a "revenue generator" either, I'm just a hacker who has offered personal guitars for sale here, and watches the ads for personal guitars to buy.

However, if you ever do or intend to do the latter, shouldn't you also want dishonest sellers to be run out of town?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



Milkman said:


> I'm trying to understand the issue.
> 
> Is it simply that the pictures are file pics and don't show the actual guitar or is it being advertised as something it is not?


Yeah I was trying to figure that out my self. People love a good ole fashion witch hunt. If you have an item that is mint enough to be indistinguishable to brand new I see nothing wrong with borrowing pics from somewhere else. Probably the offence here is that that wasn't disclosed. To call out the owner of GC that he should be heavy handed and do something, in my opinion, is ludicrous.You can't protect stupid. And I think that when you deal over the Internet you need to do your own due diligence. Personally I don't buy a guitar on a forum over the Internet that I can't go and see it personally. If someone wants to be dishonest its very easy to misrepresent on the Net.

- - - Updated - - -



boyscout said:


> However, if you ever do or intend to do the latter, shouldn't you also want dishonest sellers to be run out of town?


yeah and while you're at it can you fix the global email spam problem to?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



guitarman2 said:


> Yeah I was trying to figure that out my self. People love a good ole fashion witch hunt. If you have an item that is mint enough to be indistinguishable to brand new I see nothing wrong with borrowing pics from somewhere else. Probably the offence here is that that wasn't disclosed. To call out the owner of GC that he should be heavy handed and do something, in my opinion, is ludicrous.You can't protect stupid. And I think that when you deal over the Internet you need to do your own due diligence. Personally I don't buy a guitar on a forum over the Internet that I can't go and see it personally. If someone wants to be dishonest its very easy to misrepresent on the Net.


I see a LOT wrong with making your guitar look like something it's not. If you got me to drive to your place using "borrowed" pictures that didn't look pretty much exactly like your guitar, you'd be walkin' bow-legged for a while. And not everyone here can buy face-to-face; two of our east-coast members bought my Toronto-area guitars based largely on my pictures of them.

I'll be filtering out guitarman2 when I look at the For Sale thread from now on!


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*

To be clear, I have no interest in a witch hunt here either. In fact, I'd like to emphatically _discourage_ others from taking that approach AND from turning this thread into something outside of it's original intent...which was civil discussion of an ethical concern. Due diligence is indeed in order in ALL internet transactions and, in this case, while exercising that I developed some concerns....for the sake of other members more than myself really. AFAIC, lifted pics and descriptives aren't an issue. The decision to not simply acknowledge that fact seems problematiic however....


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> I see a LOT wrong with making your guitar look like something it's not. If you got me to drive to your place using "borrowed" pictures that didn't look pretty much exactly like your guitar, you'd be walkin' bow-legged for a while. And not everyone here can buy face-to-face; two of our east-coast members bought my Toronto-area guitars based largely on my pictures of them.
> 
> I'll be filtering out guitarman2 when I look at the For Sale thread from now on!


Oh here we go. "Internet tough guy". Filter a way. You sound like you'd be a pain in the ass anyway. It has been determined that the user in question has used pics not of his guitar. Where and when was it determined that his guitar doesn't look exactly like that. When was it determined that he made his guitar something its not. Is your mouth spouting off long before you know what the hell you're talking about. Ok the last question was rhetorical. I know the answer.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> Really?!
> 
> First of all, for clarity, I don't use the site as a "revenue generator" either, I'm just a hacker who has offered personal guitars for sale here, and watches the ads for personal guitars to buy.
> 
> However, if you ever do or intend to do the latter, shouldn't you also want dishonest sellers to be run out of town?


I see the problem.

It just seems like there are merchants who only use this site as a source of revenue. It doesn't change the ethics. I just don't have problems like that because I rarely use this site to buy and sell and any time I have done so, I've had no problems.


It wouldn't bother me if the buy and sell section was eliminated altogether. 

Then we'd know who was here to participate in the forum and who was just using the site for commerce.

No offence intended to the sellers. It' just not why I come here.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> The issue is that:
> 
> 1. He says the pictures are of the actual guitar, which they are DEFINITELY not.


Yeah and this alone would make me wary enough to by pass this sale anyway. I don't need the owner of the website to come to my rescue, nor would I expect it. Its not been clearly established that this is a negligent deception in that the guitar for sale looks anything different or is in less condition than the pictures used. If someone wants to have a drive up to Ajax and have a look and find different then they're welcome. If I were truly interested in the guitar I'd definitely make the 2 hour drive.
If I found that it was indeed a clear deception then I would not exact any physical violence as has been stated. I've learned that actions like that regardless of your justification land you in places you don't want to be. Simply, its not worth it. But I would come back here and report my findings.
Me. I'd like to hear from the seller to see what he's got to say. Did anyone PM him to compell him to answer this thread? Whats the report on his feedback if any?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



nkjanssen said:


> I've done that myself, but I ALWAYS state in the ad something along the lines of "Pictures are from the manufacturer's website, but the [guitar/amp/pedal] looks exactly the same. I'll try to get actual pictures up later." I NEVER say "Yes, those are pictures of the actual guitar." when clearly they're not (and take steps to actively conceal the fact that they're not).
> 
> I have to say, I'm a little surprised some people don't have an issue with that.


I have never used a different pic for an item that I was selling. I always take a pic of the item even if its brand new mint looking.
However I don't use the fact that another user may use a pic from another website as a reason to avoid the sale. There are other filters that come before that criteria. Do I know the person. Does the person have 100% feedback and if the person doesn't have 100% feedback (as I know there are pain in the asses out there that complain about everything) what were the issues being complained about. Such as picture didn't represent the true item. 
As well there are just certain items I won't buy to have shipped. One of them is guitars. 
When I had my Custom Crook built for me I took the 12 hour return trip to West Virginia just to pick it up.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*

First of all I'm for full disclosure, we have to keep this place reliable, it's a comforting feeling when we can deal in confidence.

I'm not going to defend the seller but I'm wondering if there is a language issue going on? This response

"Yes I posted it on the GP and Mylespaulforum as well
same one, it is a nice one I may end up keeping it on the fence."

is not exactly great English. "Same one" could definitely mean "same model". He has at least provided a different serial number to the one pictured on that website.

I see that Mr. Janssenn is trying to nail him down, let's see where this goes.

I will bitch about his abuse of the multiple listing rules though, LOL.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

StevieMac said:


> I was asked how on earth I had found this information (link with pics) in the first place. FWIW, the phrase "desperate flamed maple neck" struck me as very unusual so I googled it and the link was the first to show up...the FS post here was next of course. After clicking on it I immediately realized that a portion of the description and the pics (watermarks strategically clipped however) found therein had been "borrowed". As I said earlier, my previous experience with them was nearly identical so some red flags went up...


Google offers a feature through which images matching an image can be found on the internet. Instead of giving a phrase to search for, an image or an image URL is provided to Google instead and it will return images like the one submitted. Helps determine if an image has been "borrowed" (stolen) from somewhere else on the web. Details at this link:

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?hl=en

StevieMac, I don't get why you want to have a gentle "civil discussion" in the abstract when you've twice caught a member not being honest and straightforward in his dealings here. Elsewhere in this thread you expressed a concern for "other members" who might get snared by a dishonest seller, but just chatting about it here in this not-universally-visited forum and soon-to-be-buried thread does nearly nothing to protect them.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*

100% feedback. 11 all positive. Could be just a very stupid listing. But if thats the case I'd rather see us politely try to educate rather than the initial response of some boneheads wanting to lynch him. Once we clarify with 100% accuracy that the seller is trying to pull a fast one then lynch away.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2014)




----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



guitarman2 said:


> 100% feedback. 11 all positive. Could be just a very stupid listing. But if thats the case I'd rather see us politely try to educate rather than the initial response of some boneheads wanting to lynch him. Once we clarify with 100% accuracy that the seller is trying to pull a fast one then lynch away.


4, not 11. If StevieMac is correct and most/all of this member's ~100 messages are in the For Sale forum, doesn't seem like an ironclad case for honesty.

Sometimes an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt gives too much benefit and not enough doubt. A little dishonest is the same as a lot dishonest. Such notions are a "pain in the ass" to some who think the world can operate on relativism and rubbery-everything. We - or more likely our grandchildren - will learn who's right.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> 4, not 11. If StevieMac is correct and most/all of this member's ~100 messages are in the For Sale forum, doesn't seem like an ironclad case for honesty.
> 
> Sometimes an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt gives too much benefit and not enough doubt. A little dishonest is the same as a lot dishonest. Such notions are a "pain in the ass" to some who think the world can operate on relativism and rubbery-everything. We - or more likely our grandchildren - will learn who's right.



Oops sorry. Clicked on the wrong user somehow when I saw 11 positive. You are correct. 4 100% positive. 
I'm willing to give some leeway that this could be stupidity/inexperience with posting in buy and sell. Obviously theres evidence that could lead to deception. I'm just a bystander so I'm not as invested. I"m also a GC member and have a paid subscription to the buy and sell.So maybe you think I should be all up in arms and insenced that we have a potential dishonest seller. I could tell you a couple of stories in my life where I was labelled a potential something without any credible evidence to its accuracy. I suffered the same back lash for a little while as someone who was guilty and when found innocent not a single apology. The couple of times were unrelated and completely different issues so there was no accusation of the same offence.
My position is wait and see before we convict. Theres been enough said where it would take a complete moron to buy that guitar now.


----------



## nikkisixx100 (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

No fast one here boys! I have high end gear and stand behind all my stuff.
I just reposted with pics of it outside which I wanted to take when sun was out so you can see actual beauty of the instrument.
I emailed Mr. Janssenn offering pics and he never replied....I see it as people have nothing else better to do or are jealous haters.
I never have any problems selling on The Gear Page or MyLesPaul Forum just my 2 cents but seems like people just go on here to look and try
to cut up what people are selling its ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Also Mr. Janssenn I told you these are the pics guy I bought it off gave me.
So you can rant and rave on here all you like but why not reply to me when I offered to send you pics????
Sounds to me like just have nothing else better to do???


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

thank you for clarifying, and you'll have to forgive us for being suspicious but i'm sure you can understand. It was pointed out that you have a perfect feedback score, so possibly it was a misunderstanding. We live in an age when it's all too easy to take a google picture of the same model instrument that may not be an accurate portrayal of the actual item being sold.

but for what it's worth, we don't have anything better to do, and we are jealous.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

Thanks Nikkisixx100. Hopefully the posters that wanted to jump all over you for being ceratin that you were dishonest will at least apologize. My first reaction that this was a misunderstanding and not a dishonest post was not merely to give the benefit of the doubt but because I truly saw it that way. And I am normally a very paranoid person when it comes to these things.
How many here PM'd him to bring attention to this thread and advise him to just post actual photos?
I saw more wrong with the accusations and assumptions of dishonesty and thread crapping of the buy and sell thread than I did for the way the photos were originally posted.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



guitarman2 said:


> Theres been enough said where it would take a complete moron to buy that guitar now.


Honestly, I'm not so sure about that last part. Blair just reposted the guitar, apparently with pictures of the _actual guitar _that is up for sale here, so I see no need to dismiss the instrument altogether. Looks quite nice actually! Hopefully it's a lesson learned - albeit one I hoped had been addressed in another similar situation with the same person - and it doesn't happen again. Or as Dubya so eloquently put it: "_Fool me once — shame on — shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again_." *;^ ) *


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



StevieMac said:


> Honestly, I'm not so sure about that last part. Blair just reposted the guitar, apparently with pictures of the _actual guitar _that is up for sale here, so I see no need to dismiss the instrument altogether. Looks quite nice actually! Hopefully it's a lesson learned - albeit one I hoped had been addressed in another similar situation with the same person - and it doesn't happen again. Or as Dubya so eloquently put it: "_Fool me once — shame on — shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again_." *;^ ) *


Yeah that statement I made was a bit of a point made that with all the thread crapping in the B/S and this thread here that any prospective buyers would certainly be scared off. It was not a knock on the seller. I wonder if any buyers were scared off anyway. Thats the problem with false accusations is that most times damage done can't be undone. 
Yes a little bit of responsibility on the seller using those pics. But I would definitely accept his explanation.
Wheres all the tough guys now?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



guitarman2 said:


> Thanks Nikkisixx100. Hopefully the posters that wanted to jump all over you for being ceratin that you were dishonest will at least apologize. My first reaction that this was a misunderstanding and not a dishonest post was not merely to give the benefit of the doubt but because I truly saw it that way. And I am normally a very paranoid person when it comes to these things.
> How many here PM'd him to bring attention to this thread and advise him to just post actual photos?
> I saw more wrong with the accusations and assumptions of dishonesty and thread crapping of the buy and sell thread than I did for the way the photos were originally posted.


No chance of an apology from this corner! (I didn't forgive Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggart after their after-getting-caught redemption attempts either.)

Pictures were posted of a different guitar, doesn't matter that it is similar, it's not the same. Pretty clear from nikkisixx100's post above that there's no "language barrier" as was suggested by someone else, so when he was asked a few times to confirm the pictures were of HIS guitar and he evaded the question he wasn't likely misunderstanding. In my book he wasn't being honest, maybe hoped to dump without the bother of taking pictures and nobody would notice.

If someone bought due to attraction to a particular figuring or curl in the photos originally posted, and noticed the difference upon receiving the guitar, too bad, so sad, right? If you believe otherwise, let's talk about my bridge in New York.

He got caught. He should have done what he's done now at the beginning. Or he should at least have responded directly and honestly to questions about "his" pictures. The dust-up isn't about whether or not he actually has a guitar to sell - I frankly never doubted that. It's about having a high standard of trust in the For Sale forum, so that anyone can be confident about what they're seeing and reading there.

P.S. I hope people *do* hold any of my For Sale postings up to the same "pain in the ass" "dumbass" standards! And everyone else's too.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> No chance of an apology from this corner! (I didn't forgive Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggart after their after-getting-caught redemption attempts either.)
> 
> Pictures were posted of a different guitar, doesn't matter that it is similar, it's not the same. Pretty clear from nikkisixx100's post above that there's no "language barrier" as was suggested by someone else, so when he was asked a few times to confirm the pictures were of HIS guitar and he evaded the question he wasn't likely misunderstanding. In my book he wasn't being honest, maybe hoped to dump without the bother of taking pictures and nobody would notice.
> 
> ...



He used the pictures taken by the person he bought the guitar off of.

read. process. reply. in that order.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



mike_oxbig said:


> He used the pictures taken by the person he bought the guitar off of.
> 
> read. process. reply. in that order.


He used photographs of a guitar with a different serial number.

This is the source of his original photographs, check the serial number and compare to his original offer:

http://www.tfoa.eu/the_store/index.php?target=products&product_id=38382

read. process. reply. in that order.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> No chance of an apology from this corner! (I didn't forgive Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggart after their after-getting-caught redemption attempts either.)
> 
> Pictures were posted of a different guitar, doesn't matter that it is similar, it's not the same. Pretty clear from nikkisixx100's post above that there's no "language barrier" as was suggested by someone else, so when he was asked a few times to confirm the pictures were of HIS guitar and he evaded the question he wasn't likely misunderstanding. In my book he wasn't being honest, maybe hoped to dump without the bother of taking pictures and nobody would notice.
> 
> ...



He got caught at what? Are you that thick headed to think that there was still a dishonest intention? I've seen accusations of evasion on the sellers part but I PM'd him with a link to this thread and advice to update the pictures on his Buy and Sell post. Not long after this was done and he addressed this thread. 
In my opinion he manned up. Thank you to Steve for bringing attention to this. Unfortunately situations like this also attract people like you. As I said earlier I'd rather try to educate than convict.
As for language, I think that the way he posts indicates possibly not 100% english fluency. Could be just a hasty poster not paying attention to details but it doesn't read like that.
Glad the site owner didn't go all Rambo on the poster like some meatheads may have.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



nkjanssen said:


> Tough guys? Who (or what) are you talking about?
> 
> There was absolutely nothing wrong with questioning that for sale ad. He posted a picture of a different guitar and said they were pictures of the guitar for sale. And the pictures of the different guitar had been clearly altered to hide the fact that they were of a different guitar. If you don't think that's worth at least questioning, I can't help you. If the actual answer is that the seller had been duped by the prior owner with fake pictures, fine. But to say that it's not worth questioning is ludicrous. Personally, I'm happy some GC members are looking out for that kind of thing.


I totally agree with this.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> He used photographs of a guitar with a different serial number.
> 
> This is the source of his original photographs, check the serial number and compare to his original offer:
> 
> ...


oh. i had understood that he bought it from that link, since he said he used the pictures from the previous sale.

ok my bad. my original thought remains - he's still in the wrong for passing along photos of a different guitar. No harm no foul in this case, but this kind of thing shouldn't be permitted without full disclosure.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



nkjanssen said:


> Tough guys? Who (or what) are you talking about?
> 
> There was absolutely nothing wrong with questioning that for sale ad. He posted a picture of a different guitar and said they were pictures of the guitar for sale. And the pictures of the different guitar had been clearly altered to hide the fact that they were of a different guitar. If you don't think that's worth at least questioning, I can't help you. If the actual answer is that the seller had been duped by the prior owner with fake pictures, fine. But to say that it's not worth questioning is ludicrous. Personally, I'm happy some GC members are looking out for that kind of thing.


Maybe you should read the thread before you comment. The "tough guy" comment probably wasn't intended for you. All along I agreed with the pictures as highly suspect. But I refused to follow the crazed mob in an Internet lynching. while all the yammering went on I simply PM'd him, invited him to this thread and advised him to update the pictures with legitimate ones. And walah, problem solved. I guess that solution was maybe too complex for ya?

- - - Updated - - -



mike_oxbig said:


> oh. i had understood that he bought it from that link, since he said he used the pictures from the previous sale.
> 
> ok my bad. my original thought remains - he's still in the wrong for passing along photos of a different guitar. No harm no foul in this case, but this kind of thing shouldn't be permitted without full disclosure.



Yes I agree. The most damming thing is that he posted a pic of a different serial number. I still think that was stupidity (in place of a softer word) and not intentional deception. He claims that the pics he used are the ones that the seller to him used. Not that those pics were owned by the original seller.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

Important to keep the community on the up. As long as it was rectified all is good


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



guitarman2 said:


> walah


I love that!


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



nkjanssen said:


> Tough guys? Who (or what) are you talking about?
> 
> There was absolutely nothing wrong with questioning that for sale ad. He posted a picture of a different guitar and said they were pictures of the guitar for sale. And the pictures of the different guitar had been clearly altered to hide the fact that they were of a different guitar. If you don't think that's worth at least questioning, I can't help you. If the actual answer is that the seller had been duped by the prior owner with fake pictures, fine. But to say that it's not worth questioning is ludicrous. Personally, I'm happy some GC members are looking out for that kind of thing.


guitarman2 has hurled quite a few my way... dumbass, meathead, pain in the ass, thick, and more including tough guy. Seems to think HE is tough, and can win his point by spitting insults.

You're dead-on Mr. Janssen, these things should be called-out when they happen, let everyone see. Totally agree. Thanks for your efforts doing that in the original For Sale thread... it would very likely still be there as it was originally posted if you hadn't helped bust the guy.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



boyscout said:


> guitarman2 has hurled quite a few my way... dumbass, meathead, pain in the ass, thick, and more including tough guy. Seems to think HE is tough, and can win his point by spitting insults.
> 
> .



I never said any of those things directly your way. But you do connect dots. I'm impressed.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Let's just give the seller a yellow card and leave it at that.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

> You're dead-on Mr. Janssen, these things should be called-out when they happen, let everyone see. Totally agree. Thanks for your efforts doing that in the original For Sale thread... it would very likely still be there as it was originally posted if you hadn't helped bust the guy.




As Steve did. His only mistake was thinking the community as a whole could approach this in a level headed way like him self.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*

Removing the watermarks from the pics and a different serial # wouldn't raise your red flags?

You, guitarman2 may not buy guitars online, but many others do.
If someone sees that there's something off in a posting, 
I see nothing wrong with bringing it to our collective attention.

I didn't notice anyone trying to be a tough-guy, other than you.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



mike_oxbig said:


> oh. i had understood that he bought it from that link, since he said he used the pictures from the previous sale.
> 
> ok my bad. my original thought remains - he's still in the wrong for passing along photos of a different guitar. No harm no foul in this case, but this kind of thing shouldn't be permitted without full disclosure.


He claimed in his original offer that he bought it from Long & McQuade, and his newly-posted pictures include a hang-tag seeming to corroborate that, so his assertion that his originally-posted pictures were "the pics guy I bought it off gave me" is another worrisome note in the experience with this guy. We know he didn't get those pictures from Long & McQuade. Hole gets deeper.

Full disclosure, agreed. Or no pics... "I'm waiting for sun to take some pictures". Post pics of another guitar and evade questions about them? Worrisome. Substandard.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



sulphur said:


> Removing the watermarks from the pics and a different serial # wouldn't raise your red flags?
> 
> You, guitarman2 may not buy guitars online, but many others do.
> If someone sees that there's something off in a posting,
> ...


Yes for the umpteenth time I have no disagreement with the pics that were posted. The whole thing looked suspicous and even if I were to be the kind to buy guitars on line I would have walked away from it as it looked. But to call some one out as being intentionally deceptive before a simple PM that eventually solved this is just plain stupid. Like I said before many like a witch hunt. Its fun. Gives us a chance to spout remarks like "I'd make him walk bowlegged for a month".

- - - Updated - - -



nkjanssen said:


> It's "voilà", not "walah".
> 
> I guess the use of French terms within the context of common English is maybe too complex for ya?


oh gawd now yer duh internet speling pulice.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

You're all a bunch of tough guys.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*



sulphur said:


> I didn't notice anyone trying to be a tough-guy, other than you.


Where did I threaten physical violence on any one? Is it ok for other to call out posters on suspicious behavior but I can't call anyone out for jumping to conclusions? Well I had no idea my rights were less than others.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp; Etiquette 101.*


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Makes no sense that someone would intentionally post misleading pics and cause heavy suspicions when its pretty evident that they have the guitar and the ability to take good pics. The poster has had previous successful transactions. It seems that the only thing he accomplished was causing unnecessary negative attention on him self. According to the OP he's done it before. In the OP Steve states that he knowingly mislead. if he has the items advertised, as advertised why would he do that. This is a head scratcher.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> This is a head scratcher.


Yep. Which is why I brought it to the membership...hoping others might offer an explanation that had somehow eluded me. I also don't understand why someone would chose to _repeat_ an approach which creates suspicion. Truly a mystery! Anyway, I will suspend judgement and move on. I thank others for contributing their perspectives here as well however *;^ ) *


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> You're all a bunch of tough guys.


It's like he knows!

my only thing is this: in the day where 8yo's have ipods, there is no excuse to not provide pictures of a listing, regardless of what it is. I will bet 95% of regulars on this board have a smartphone. It may not be fancy or up to date, but if it can take a photo and send an email it gets the job done.


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*



guitarman2 said:


> Yes for the umpteenth time I have no disagreement with the pics that were posted. The whole thing looked suspicous and even if I were to be the kind to buy guitars on line I would have walked away from it as it looked. But to call some one out as being intentionally deceptive before a simple PM that eventually solved this is just plain stupid. Like I said before many like a witch hunt. Its fun. Gives us a chance to spout remarks like "I'd make him walk bowlegged for a month".
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...


Will you kindly stop trying to tar all of us with the same brush. Throughout this thread you have constantly used sweeping remarks that at the very least imply we're all on a witch hunt. Yes, we've got it, you've set yourself up as the moral defender of the downtrodden and defenceless poster of the sale, and the rest of us are an uncouth rabble out to lynch him. 

Except we're not - most of us were (and keeping in mind boyscout's most recent post that it still doesn't all add up properly - still are) simply after the truth of the matter.

Neil


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

well I'm glad Steviemac made it public, I would hate to end up in a transaction where someone misrepresented something like that

that is bullshit


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

I missed the following bit of misdirection when it was first published here, just noticed it in a quote in one of the later messages in the thread:




guitarman2 said:


> Yes for the umpteenth time I have no disagreement with the pics that were posted. The whole thing looked suspicous and even if I were to be the kind to buy guitars on line I would have walked away from it as it looked. But to call some one out as being intentionally deceptive before a simple PM that eventually solved this is just plain stupid. *Like I said before many like a witch hunt. Its fun. Gives us a chance to spout remarks like "I'd make him walk bowlegged for a month"*.<snip>



Here’s what was actually said:




boyscout said:


> I see a LOT wrong with making your guitar look like something it's not. *If you [guitarman2] got me to drive to your place using "borrowed" pictures that didn't look pretty much exactly like your guitar, you'd be walkin' bow-legged for a while.* And not everyone here can buy face-to-face; two of our east-coast members bought my Toronto-area guitars based largely on my pictures of them.<snip>



The misquote makes it seem as though I and/or others decrying his behavior proposed kicking nikkisixx100 because he offered a guitar using pictures of another guitar to promote it. Creating that impression was perhaps guitarman2’s intent. Clearly not the case.


Misappropriating the remark in that way is misdirection. Much like posting pictures of another guitar to sell yours.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

smorgdonkey said:


> You're all a bunch of tough guys.


I would like to quantify that. I am an "Internet" tough guy. In person I run and hide


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

*Re: What would you do? GC Ethics &amp;amp; Etiquette 101.*

Boyscout, maybe its time to just let it go ? :confusion:


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

Hooley-Dooley! This is why people talk face to face.
A good percentage of what is said is missed through facial expressions & intonation.

My view? YOUR guitar for sale? Your photos.

As Budda said, we're all on a pad/pod/puter/phone with camera these days.

There's my 2c.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -& All Round Nice Guy.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

bzrkrage said:


> There's my 2c.


Round up to a nickel tough guy!


----------



## nikkisixx100 (Feb 2, 2013)

Thing is the pics I took yesterday of the guitar shows that the guitar is actually nicer looking in the than I pics I had posted.....
I have nice stuff, I don't own junk or anything that has issues...I've never had any problems with anything I've sold all positive ratings and my
eBay is 100% positive feedback as well. I mean if I am buying something I contact the person ask for more pics and as much information as I can get then I make a educated decision on whether to move forward with the deal...seems easy right?
I did reply to Njassen and no response to any of the emails offering to send him more pics.
Anyway if interested great I am very easy to deal with.....if not please don't waste yours or my time...let's leave the tire kicking to Kijiji!


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

nikkisixx100 said:


> Thing is the pics I took yesterday of the guitar shows that the guitar is actually nicer looking in the than I pics I had posted.....I have nice stuff, I don't own junk or anything that has issues



Nobody here has questioned the quality of items you've had for sale, now or at any time, AFAIK. 




nikkisixx100 said:


> I mean if I am buying something I contact the person ask for more pics and as much information as I can get then I make a educated decision on whether to move forward with the deal...seems easy right?...


...And therein lies the rub. If the pics & information (i.e. description) pertain to another instrument, others aren't able to make an "educated decision" about the one they're actually considering...right? 

Bottom line: If you want to instill confidence in potential buyers, make the effort to provide detailed pictures and descriptions of the instrument that's _right in front of you, _rather than relying on unverified info taken from others or elsewhere. Seems easy right?


----------



## Swervin55 (Oct 30, 2009)

nikkisixx100 said:


> Thing is the pics I took yesterday of the guitar shows that the guitar is actually nicer looking in the than I pics I had posted.....


I've been biting my tongue up to this point, but I gotta disagree with your statement above.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I would say im in the "any pics not of the actual item being sold, without full disclosure, is misrespresentation" camp. I don't think theres any good reason or excuse for that.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

nikkisixx100 said:


> Thing is the pics I took yesterday of the guitar shows that the guitar is actually nicer looking in the than I pics I had posted..... I have nice stuff, I don't own junk or anything that has issues...I've never had any problems with anything I've sold all positive ratings and my eBay is 100% positive feedback as well. I mean if I am buying something I contact the person ask for more pics and as much information as I can get then I make a educated decision on whether to move forward with the deal...seems easy right?
> I did reply to Njassen and no response to any of the emails offering to send him more pics. Anyway if interested great I am very easy to deal with.....if not please don't waste yours or my time...let's leave the tire kicking to Kijiji!


Words, words, words, misses the point badly. You used pictures of another guitar to sell yours and evaded questions about it. Doesn't make you a good guy that you're willing to send photos of your actual guitar AFTER you have someone nibbling at your bait and they ask for more pictures (if they do). And we have only your word on that.

After you got busted for using pictures of another guitar you reported that you got those pictures from the guy who sold you the guitar, but that wasn't true. You bought the guitar at Long & McQuade - you say - but the pictures came from a European dealer's web site. Even in coming clean you didn't come clean!

Your behavior allows at least the POSSIBILITY that your current photos are also from somewhere else. How can we be CERTAIN that's your guitar... see how it works? You've ensured that some here - me for sure - will have doubts about everything you post from now on. Someone is either honest or they're not honest... "partly honest" is as reliable as "partly pregnant".

Your positive feedback? You've posted at least 13 For Sale items in less than two months, very busy guy. If you have any other history here it's gone according to Search. How many deals have you done to get 4 positive feedbacks? (Two as buyer, two as trader, none as seller.)

Lotta people still scratching their heads wondering why you'd scorch yourself like this. Bullshit radar very focused on you now. Careful what you post.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> You sent me multiple emails?
> 
> I did not receive any.
> 
> I'm surprised you want to keep this thread going instead of letting it die.


Well he hasn't had much of a say. Geez you can't please some people. If he doesn't address these issues he's guilty. If he does he gets criticized to. And you did say earlier that your PM inbox was full didn't you?


----------



## zdogma (Mar 21, 2006)

Die thread die.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

zdogma said:


> Die thread die.


[email protected]@@!!! 

Let it go people. Nobody cares.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

zdogma said:


> Die thread die.





bagpipe said:


> [email protected]@@!!!
> 
> Let it go people. Nobody cares.


Thanks for bumping the thread to the top of the list guys, some of us think it's useful.

Not sure what's forcing YOU to open it and complain, but you're welcome any time.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

boyscout said:


> Thanks for bumping the thread to the top of the list guys, some of us think it's useful.
> 
> Not sure what's forcing YOU to open it and complain, but you're welcome any time.


I bet you're *the *most annoying person that people in your life know. You're well named as boyscout.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It's too amusing to nuke


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

*edited*

ah forget it


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It's too amusing to nuke


Absolutely Scott *;^ )* The other irony being "GC Etiquette 101" in the thread's title. :acigar:

That said, mission accomplished, so having the plug pulled is not a concern...


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

all we need is a silly monty python clip and this thread will be complete


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

*Vintage Fender For Sale:*

American Fender Stratocaster

Used on stage continually by a tough guy
Honest player's wear (pictured)
Generates Revenue
weight: 8lbs (will not bow legs)
Will take photos when the sun comes out.

Read this ad, process it, but don't reply - my inbox is full

Accepting free bumps (cause this thread is hilarious)


----------



## zdogma (Mar 21, 2006)

boyscout said:


> Thanks for bumping the thread to the top of the list guys, some of us think it's useful.


OK. Not sure I agree but if you're getting something from it, great. Another bump.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It must be preserved for the generations to follow


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

mike_oxbig said:


> all we need is a silly monty python clip and this thread will be complete


Well there is of course their famous Department Store and Buying a Guitar sketch:

[video=youtube_share;EzX_YcGkWbY]http://youtu.be/EzX_YcGkWbY[/video]

Neil


----------



## numb41 (Jul 13, 2009)

boyscout said:


> Words, words, words, misses the point badly. You used pictures of another guitar to sell yours and evaded questions about it. Doesn't make you a good guy that you're willing to send photos of your actual guitar AFTER you have someone nibbling at your bait and they ask for more pictures (if they do). And we have only your word on that.
> 
> After you got busted for using pictures of another guitar you reported that you got those pictures from the guy who sold you the guitar, but that wasn't true. You bought the guitar at Long & McQuade - you say - but the pictures came from a European dealer's web site. Even in coming clean you didn't come clean!
> 
> ...


Wow, is this thread really 6 years old?? I could’ve sworn we were all just talking about him, I mean, this...


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Something that strikes me as odd about all this. His reply that “these are the pictures the previous seller provided me with” sounds awfully similar to “this is the information Fender provided me with” regarding a Strat he was selling where some people called out discrepancies between the stated info and pictures showing something different. 

Is this just a canned response? Is it deception? Is it just laziness? Who knows? Personally, it definitely raises warning signs.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

JBFairthorne said:


> Something that strikes me as odd about all this. His reply that “these are the pictures the previous seller provided me with” sounds awfully similar to “this is the information Fender provided me with” regarding a Strat he was selling where some people called out discrepancies between the stated info and pictures showing something different.
> 
> Is this just a canned response? Is it deception? Is it just laziness? Who knows? Personally, it definitely raises warning signs.


Check under his user name on his posts.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

JBFairthorne said:


> Something that strikes me as odd about all this. His reply that “these are the pictures the previous seller provided me with” sounds awfully similar to “this is the information Fender provided me with” regarding a Strat he was selling where some people called out discrepancies between the stated info and pictures showing something different. Is this just a canned response? Is it deception? Is it just laziness? Who knows? Personally, it definitely raises warning signs.


It definitely raised warning signs six years ago and the offender was later banned.

Long over. I'm curious about why @numb41 resurrected the thread in post #89 above. Maybe he thinks someone else is raising warning signs?


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

boyscout said:


> It definitely raised warning signs six years ago and the offender was later banned.
> 
> Long over. I'm curious about why @numb41 resurrected the thread in post #89 above. Maybe he thinks someone else is raising warning signs?


He was banned yesterday. Who are you talking about?


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

Man, I'm always here at GC but I still miss the juicy news LOL Who got banned?


----------



## numb41 (Jul 13, 2009)

@boyscout I was curious to see if there were any other issues with the individual, so I punched up his username, and the 6 year old post was the first one that came up, with very similar issues. That's all


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Chito said:


> Man, I'm always here at GC but I still miss the juicy news LOL Who got banned?











The Canadian Guitar Forum







www.guitarscanada.com


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

numb41 said:


> @boyscout I was curious to see if there were any other issues with the individual, so I punched up his username, and the 6 year old post was the first one that came up, with very similar issues. That's all


Wow. Had no idea that guy was still around and still able to post an offer that was - at least - highly questionable. 

If I'd EVER bought something from him I'd be triple-checking it to ensure that it is what he claimed it was.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

StevieMac said:


> Nobody here has questioned the quality of items you've had for sale, now or at any time, AFAIK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Especially with how easy it is to take and post photos. Practically everyone is carrying a phone around with a camera that can take as good photos as my old DSLR. There's not really any excuses for not posting photos of your actual item.


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

Honestly, kinda disappointed that there were folks who defended those actions. It's hard to uphold standards when people who have loose morals can be defended.


----------



## morepowder (Apr 30, 2020)

In related news, anyone looking for a red Eric Johnson Strat? 😉


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

Look, in life, there are going to be people who are “schonky used car salesmen”.
They are everywhere.
Fat, balding, middleaged wannabes with too many toys and no talent.

Good people, with good knowledge base, help weed them out and call them on their BS.

I hope he reads this & I’m glad he is banned.


----------

