I'm guessing it could happen to any of us

[MikeEdgerton]

http://consumerist.com/2012/01/paypal-tells-buyer-to-destroy-purchased-violin-instead-of-return-for-refund.html

Some of the comments after the article are amazingly insane as well.

[Charley wild]

Yes, it could and a situation like this is one of the reasons I only use it for small purchases.

[Brent Hutto]

The question is, what are the better alternatives. Assuming of course that you can't convince someone in Canada to front you the 2,500 in cash before sending the fiddle. If the Canadian buyer had sent a big old money order and received a crummy fake violin it would be a total ripoff but presumably not interesting enough to go viral...

[MikeEdgerton]

I think the problem is that Paypal isn't really qualified to make this call. It's not a knock off Rolex or a fake Gucci bag.

[Brent Hutto]

I agree completely. But unfortunately nothing like PayPal except qualified to make the call exists. Hence, the dilemma. If you don't want to deal with PayPal viable alternatives are thin on the ground. Making PayPal the least-bad solution, which has always been my estimation of PayPal.

[mrmando]

The original complaint has more details:
http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/

We're not told what communication took place between seller and buyer before the buyer opened a dispute, or what happened during the 20-day dispute period mandated by PayPal policy. I'd like to know whether this seller had an approval policy ... it sure doesn't sound like she did.

[rgray]

The original complaint has more details:
http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/

We're not told what communication took place between seller and buyer before the buyer opened a dispute, or what happened during the 20-day dispute period mandated by PayPal policy. I'd like to know whether this seller had an approval policy ... it sure doesn't sound like she did.

That site shows PayPal's policies that they MAY require the buyer to submit documentation supporting their position of fraud, that they MAY require the buyer to ship back to seller, PayPal or 3rd party, and that they MAY require the buyer to destroy the item. Nowhere does it say that they can't skip past the first two MAYs and jump right to the destroy option. I think their policy needs greater detail. On the flipside, there is no indication that PayPal did not have the buyer submit documentation nor does the seller provide any proof, documentation, or communication trail with PayPal or the buyer. I can only surmise that using PayPal means you agree to all of their conditions, even if buried and hard to find.

[journeybear]

I don't see how destroying the violin helps anything. If the buyer isn't pleased with the purchase, it should be sent back to the seller for refund. The buyer would be out the shipping costs and the seller would be out the $2500, but not the violin as well. I am assuming the violin is not a fake, of course, which is something the buyer would insist on authenticating before buying, of course. If it is determined the seller has engaged in some kind of fakery or switcheroo or other shady practice, some sort of legal action should be instigated - but this would still necessitate the existence of the evidence in the condition it was in at the time of the transaction. I am confused as to what is to be gained by this action. :confused:

[Ed Goist]

Buyer gets his or her $2,500 back...A wash.
Seller loses instrument and gets nothing in return...Gets shafted.
PayPal returns $2,500 to seller, then files an insurance claim for the smashed violin. Gets $2,500...How isn't this fraud?

[Steve L]

I worked in a music store that was a Fender dealer. Sometimes there was an issue with a low-end acoustic guitar and Fender told us to get a credit on a bad instrument to cut off the headstock and mail that to them.

[KarlM]

I was reading this last night shaking my head. The Regretsy article contains a link to a high-end purse forum (I guess there's one for everything?) that discusses similar cases where buyers bought genuine items, claimed they were fake, submitted photos of destroyed fake ones to PayPal, and then were later caught trying to sell the real ones later. The fact that it's the buyer, not PayPal or any third party, that destroys the instrument makes it completely crazy.

While it sounds like there's a good possibility the violin might have been a fake, if it was good enough to fool a luthier it still might have been worth quite a bit as an instrument; quite probably as much as was paid for it. What a waste.

[farmerjones]

This whole thing is BS. I could stage that picture in 30 sec.
Are you sure this isn't an article from an imitator of The Onion?

I'm asking why this couldn't have been an accordian. (i know why) ;)

[Tim2723]

I tend to agree with the Goode Farmer Jones. It smacks of hoax to me.

[KarlM]

A hoax in that the whole thing is cooked up? What would the point of that be? If you look around you'll find that this has happened to a lot of people. There is a clause in the PayPal terms saying that if they determine something to be counterfeit (by unspecified means), they can order the buyer to destroy it. Also, the seller apparently posted about this on her FB page several weeks before bringing it to more public attention.

It may be that the seller is leaving out a lot of info and the violin really was an obvious fake, or even could be that the buyer faked the picture in order to sell on a real one. But it's unlikely to be cooked up out of whole cloth.

FWIW, Regretsy is mostly about mocking the crap that people sell on etsy.com, but had a blowup with PayPal (http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/06/sooner-or-later-youll-pay-pal/) over a Christmas charity drive last month, which is presumably why this person contacted the site.

[Brent Hutto]

The fact that PayPal's terms and conditions include the possibility of having counterfeits destroyed has nothing to do with whether the story is a hoax or not. It wouldn't be a very good hoax if it claimed something that PayPal could never do, would it?

I've no idea whether it is an outright hoax or not. I know for certain that we're getting at best a highly skewed, sensationalized account of whatever the actual events might have been. Doesn't keep it from showing up on every doggone Internet forum I know of nearly simultaneously.

Getting people riled up over the Evil That Is PayPal is liked shooting fish in a barrel.

[Bob Borzelleri]

I will not rely on Paypal policies in order to right a perceived wrong. Case in point; I ordered a windscreen for a scooter from a motorcycle dealer in the state of Washington and used Paypal. The photo of the windscreen as well as the model number established that I was ordering the right windscreen for my scooter. When it arrived, it was in a box that had the correct product number printed on it but the wrong windscreen inside it.

I emailed the dealer and received one response saying that he would look into the matter. A week later, no response and I filed a dispute with PayPal. In the interim, I investigated a bit and discovered the the dealer was out of business and selling stock out of his garage; the storefront had been shut down for several months despite the fact that the "dealer" was still touting his brick and mortar store in his ads.

I tracked the seller down to his father's business where the seller had gone to work following the failure of the M/C shop but he didn't return calls. PayPal told me to return the windscreen to the seller but that I could only ship it to the address that they had on file which I knew to be an empty building. After telling Paypal about the empty building, they told me to wait until they researched options. It took them two weeks to get back to me and say that shipping to the empty building was the only option and that, by the way, the 30 day dispute period had expired so they were finding for the seller, even though he had failed to reply to the dispute. According to Paypal, I had failed to return the product to the seller within the required timeframe. The fact that I would have knowingly shipped to an empty building and that the package might never get to the seller under those conditions was irrelevant to Paypal representatives.

To shorten this up a bit, I had used American Express as my Paypal payment method and decided to open a dispute with Amex. They told me that I was wise to refuse to ship to a vacant building and that they would confirm the actual location of the seller. They did so and told me to ship the product back and they refunded all my costs.

Moral of story is to use a credit card from a company who will go to bat for you because Paypal has a low batting average when it comes to supporting buyers.

[Paul Kotapish]

Call me a Luddite, but I hate eBay and I hate PayPal, and I have found it really easy to avoid them altogether with absolutely no sense of deprivation in my live or in regards to MAS, GAS, or WAS (widget acquisition syndrome). There are plenty of reputable businesses and individuals operating B&M shops and online to give my business too, and the illusion of some magic deal via eBay is not worth the very real hassles and scams that attend so many eBay/PayPal exchanges.

I've bought plenty of stuff--including some serious instruments--online with nary a moment's hassle, but always from someone I could actually speak with on the phone or via a reputatable business with a generous trial-and-return policy.

[houseworker]

There's no completed sale showing on eBay that matches the instrument described.

[AKmusic]

I will not rely on Paypal policies in order to right a perceived wrong. Case in point; I ordered a windscreen for a scooter from a motorcycle dealer in the state of Washington and used Paypal. The photo of the windscreen as well as the model number established that I was ordering the right windscreen for my scooter. When it arrived, it was in a box that had the correct product number printed on it but the wrong windscreen inside it.

I emailed the dealer and received one response saying that he would look into the matter. A week later, no response and I filed a dispute with PayPal. In the interim, I investigated a bit and discovered the the dealer was out of business and selling stock out of his garage; the storefront had been shut down for several months despite the fact that the "dealer" was still touting his brick and mortar store in his ads.

I tracked the seller down to his father's business where the seller had gone to work following the failure of the M/C shop but he didn't return calls. PayPal told me to return the windscreen to the seller but that I could only ship it to the address that they had on file which I knew to be an empty building. After telling Paypal about the empty building, they told me to wait until they researched options. It took them two weeks to get back to me and say that shipping to the empty building was the only option and that, by the way, the 30 day dispute period had expired so they were finding for the seller, even though he had failed to reply to the dispute. According to Paypal, I had failed to return the product to the seller within the required timeframe. The fact that I would have knowingly shipped to an empty building and that the package might never get to the seller under those conditions was irrelevant to Paypal representatives.

To shorten this up a bit, I had used American Express as my Paypal payment method and decided to open a dispute with Amex. They told me that I was wise to refuse to ship to a vacant building and that they would confirm the actual location of the seller. They did so and told me to ship the product back and they refunded all my costs.

Moral of story is to use a credit card from a company who will go to bat for you because Paypal has a low batting average when it comes to supporting buyers.

I could tell a very similar story. Same kind of situation, same results.

Good advise.

[Tom C]

You would have to be a complete idiot to destroy something just because somebody told you to -Especially if you are trying to get back money. How can you give them back the item? Conterfeit or not, you break it, you buy it.

[farmerjones]

Ok, back the truck up . . .

Scroll down to where it reads: "I am now out a violin that made it through WWII as well as $2500. This is of course, upsetting. But my main goal in writing to you is. . . . ."

So you knew it was genuine, but stil trashed it to prove a point? A fiddle player doesn't do that.

Not defending paypal, and my first post was just for consideration. I could be a Cocker Spaniel typing this, but my point is as many have said. Good thing somebody didn't sell Regrety, a live animal. My stomach's getting queazy. :redface:

My appologies Scott & Ted, this ain't mando, but it is about music & musicians. no more for/from me.

[mrmando]

Ok, back the truck up . . .

Scroll down to where it reads: "I am now out a violin that made it through WWII as well as $2500. This is of course, upsetting. But my main goal in writing to you is. . . . ."

So you knew it was genuine, but stil trashed it to prove a point? A fiddle player doesn't do that.
That's the seller talking. She is out the fiddle and the $2500. The fellow who trashed it got his money back.

[fiddlemike]

If the buyer felt that the item wasn't authentic then they should have filed the claim to have their payment returned and then returned the item to the seller. PayPal is merely a means to securely transmit funds and has no standing to decide the final resolution of the situation. If PayPal told the buyer to jump off a roof then is the buyer obligated to do so? I voting for a hoax. :mandosmiley:

[houseworker]

Everything about this story says hoax. Google can turn up only one listing for a 'Bourguignon' violin on eBay.com in 2011, yyou can find it here (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VERY-FINE-B-MAURICE-LABELED-VIOLIN-French-Belgium-/200676922876?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb946d5fc). It's not the one in the photo, and at $1008.88 the unfortunate buyer overpaid by at least $900 for a typically garish low-end Chinese instrument made (at a rough guess) in 2011.

The listing with its broad disclaimers is quite instructive for those not already used to viewing eBay listings through jaundiced eyes. Over the years this seller has sold quite a few 'fine' violins. I suspect that like this one they are so poor that only the utterly clueless bid and the winner thinks they've got a bargain. No feedback left on this particular transaction yet.

[mrmando]

1) The seller never claims this was an eBay transaction.
2) eBay can easily delete old transactions from its site.

[Jim Broyles]

There's no completed sale showing on eBay that matches the instrument described.
The story does not state that it was sold on eBay, just that it was paid for with PayPal.

[houseworker]

1) The seller never claims this was an eBay transaction.
2) eBay can easily delete old transactions from its site.

1. Very widely reported as an eBay.com transaction. Try here (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/04/paypal-forced-ebay-buyer-violin-counterfeit-_n_1183687.html). 'Erica' supposedly bought the instrument off eBay.fr. And PayPal only offers buyer protection on sales from eBay or other traders who contract payments to them.

2. Not from the Google cache they can't (and there are many back up sources for violin sales).

[John McCoy]

...<snip>...Google can turn up only one listing for a 'Bourguignon' violin on eBay.com in 2011, you can find it here (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VERY-FINE-B-MAURICE-LABELED-VIOLIN-French-Belgium-/200676922876?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb946d5fc).

Interestingly the seller describes this instrument as a "B Maurice Labeled Violin" (my emphasis)--so I guess that in a stringently technical sense, he's right. I once knew a guy who lost one of the "Mustang" chrome logos off of his classic Ford car. He couldn't find a genuine replacement, and he didn't like the holes and the unfaded paint where it had been, but things worked out for him when he found a chrome "Chevrolet" piece that covered it perfectly.

== John ==

[Charles E.]

I wonder what they are saying about this over at the Fiddle Hangout? :)

[mrmando]

1. Very widely reported as an eBay.com transaction. Try here (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/04/paypal-forced-ebay-buyer-violin-counterfeit-_n_1183687.html).
The HuffPost UK story lists the Regretsy story as a source, and doesn't claim that the author got any information from "Erica" apart from what was in that story. And Regretsy doesn't mention eBay. Conclusion: Somebody at HuffPost made a mistake.

'Erica' supposedly bought the instrument off eBay.fr.
Where did you read that? There's talk of the instrument being French (although it was attributed to a builder with a French name who lived in Brussels), but just as "Erica" doesn't claim to have sold the instrument on eBay, she doesn't claim to have bought it there either. "Erica" makes no mention of eBay either way.

And PayPal only offers buyer protection on sales from eBay or other traders who contract payments to them.
False. Read the PayPal user agreement (https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full#13.%20Protection%20for%20Buyers .). Nothing in there about exclusivity to eBay or contracted traders.

[houseworker]

Where did you read that?

Not quite remembered correctly, but here (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/online-commerce).

[mrmando]

Kudos to The Economist for actually making contact with Erica to get the details. And the eBay France part of the story actually may check out: eBay seller coolmann06 (http://feedback.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&ftab=FeedbackAsSeller&userid=coolmann06&iid=-1&de=off&interval=0&items=200) sold a 1933 Bourguignon violin in July 2009 (item #280361280907) to eBay buyer zaroffyvan for 340 euros. That at least matches the date on the smashed fiddle.

[Brent Hutto]

Well strictly speaking if you sell a violin claiming it to be from so-and-so famous maker and it turns out not to have the provenance you claimed, that is a counterfeit. Sounds to me like "Erica" sold a (strictly construed) counterfeit violin and had it destroyed like any other counterfeit item. When you try to roll a cheap item over and sell it for 4-5 times what you paid by adding fanciful claims about its origin, occasionally it will blow up in your face. In the violin world a label does not constitute provenance (otherwise there would be about a million fiddles out there made by the old Cremonese masters).

P.S. So the moral of the story for mandolin players is, if you want to buy a cheap fake Gibson mandolin for a few hundred bucks and gussy it up with a real-looking label and so forth you just might get someone to pay you $2,500 for it. But if they recognize it as a fake you might not just have to refund the $2,500 but rather lose the $2,500 and the fake Gibson. Better not try this at home.

P.P.S. Or to return to my earlier comment, if you do try this yourself you need to find someone who will send you cash in advance before seeing the instrument.

[mrmando]

Well strictly speaking if you sell a violin claiming it to be from so-and-so famous maker
You're already speculating. You don't know WHAT she claimed in the sale. It's very common for violin sellers to observe that a violin is labeled such-and-such, but that is not tantamount to a made-by claim.

and it turns out not to have the provenance you claimed
What's provenance got to do with it? Provenance is a matter of who owned, used, and sold the violin, not who made it.

There is a little fuzziness in Erica's story: on Regretsy she says "the violin was examined and authenticated by a top luthier prior to its sale," but The Economist reports "Ms A. says she consulted a 'top luthier' as to the instrument's quality, but not its provenance." Again, provenance is irrelevant here, but I wonder why The Economist doesn't say anything about "authenticity" or "origin."

[Jerry Turberville]

There are a few well respected violin shops that will provide a certificate of authenticity. If I recall correctly it can be several hundred dollars for this service because it can be very difficult to authenticate certain period instruments. About 30 years ago I boiught an expensive (at least to me) violin which was certifiec as "bench made." Which I was told meant the maker himself did all the work from the rough.
Anyway, my rambly point is it's best to get someone that's qualified and respected to authenticate something like this. All due respect to the many luthiers we have here, old violins can be very difficult to identify/authenticate, or even dispute the claim as to who, when and where an instrument was built.

[rico mando]

We have 10 provenances in Canada and 3 territories

[mrmando]

We have 10 provenances in Canada and 3 territories
Don't you mean Terror-Tories?

AFAIK we have only one provenance in the States, but they've got a great mandolin orchestra there.

[rico mando]

Don't you mean Terror-Tories?

that is good :))going have to steal that one

[John McCoy]

We have 10 provenances in Canada and 3 territories

I'm believing None of It.

[almeriastrings]

I know of a very, very similar situation. A buyer purchased a mandolin described as and marked as a "Gibson F5G". It turned out to be a very good fake. Attempts to get the seller to put it right failed. No response. The buyer escalated to a Paypal claim. They then had to PAY for an independent expert to produce a report on the instrument. That had to be faxed to Paypal. Paypal contacted the expert to verify the report.Then they required the buyer to destroy the instrument as a counterfeit and sign a statement to that effect. They then decided the claim in buyers favour, and refunded around $3K.

I would be surprised if they had not required an expert opinion in this case also.

In addition, if the buyer filed a dispute, the seller could at any time have simply acknowledged the problem and agreed to a refund. Then, they get their fake back.... if, though, they continue to try to evade liability for selling a counterfeit they end up with no money and no return.

Seems fair enough to me.

[ibanezed4yrs]

i love my pay-pal.. cant live without 'em.. i use 'em to buy cheap stuff as well as expensive stuff.. never had an issue or problem..

[Tom C]

I would think milions of violins with a Stradivarius label from beginner models to very valuable models would have to be destroyed. Fair is fair.

[Brent Hutto]

I believe if any one of those violins with Stradivarius labels were represented as a Stradivarius on eBay and a complaint lodged by the buyer, the complaint process might eventually culminate in the violin being destroyed as counterfeit.

It is a risk that one should understood and take into account when making claims of great value due to an instrument's origin. The payoff is you might get a lot of money for an instrument that is in fact unexceptional. The downside is if the buyer pursues the issue as far as possible and you do not step in quickly to reimburse the buyer, you may end up with neither money or instrument.

Of course in the case being discussed it is entirely possible that the seller "Erica" thought she had a genuine, authentic item that was exactly as described, regardless of the fact it was earlier bought cheaply. The origin of the misrepresentation may not lie with "Erica" at all. In which chase "Erica" simply got caught out trying to a quick flip for a large profit while being incapable of judging the truth of the situation.