Public and personal Thank You!

[Waldo]

[quote name='yorks5stringer' post='348748' date='Dec 8 2008, 03:52 PM']Not that any of us would ask a seller to do that....... [/quote]

If you ask someone to do that, you're a f*cking idiot.

[The Burpster]

[quote name='Waldo' post='348751' date='Dec 8 2008, 03:53 PM']If you ask someone to do that, you're a f*cking idiot.[/quote]

In your opinion, of course!

[skywalker]

[quote name='Waldo' post='348364' date='Dec 8 2008, 09:30 AM']There's a thing I like to do called, 'shopping around'. I've just gotten a quote for shipping to Ireland (again, using the same dimensions) and got a quote of £26.91, not insured. with DHL Europlus road service as the carrier. DHL Air express would cost you £67.74+ vat fully insured.



Well it is 'credible' becuase that's the quote I've been given and it's also not much more than what I paid to have a bass sent to the US. See for yourself:

[url="http://www.transglobal.org.uk/default.asp"]http://www.transglobal.org.uk/default.asp[/url]

It doesn't matter anyway, if anything have shown that you're all paying too much for your shipping though![/quote]


Even odder is that Transglobal uses UPS, same as me.

[Waldo]

[quote name='skywalker' post='349029' date='Dec 8 2008, 08:45 PM']Even odder is that Transglobal uses UPS, same as me.[/quote]

I hope you're not still suggesting that the prices I have are wrong?

[budget bassist]

I definitely think reuel should be allowed to keep that £100 for customs. Let's face it, if you imported a bass of that price into the UK you'd pay more than that in customs. I think he should be allowed that, if just for his hard time.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='budget bassist' post='349222' date='Dec 8 2008, 11:49 PM']I definitely think reuel should be allowed to keep that £100 for customs. Let's face it, if you imported a bass of that price into the UK you'd pay more than that in customs. I think he should be allowed that, if just for his hard time.[/quote]

+1. Let's keep it happy here folks.

[skywalker]

[quote name='Waldo' post='349205' date='Dec 8 2008, 11:18 PM']I hope you're not still suggesting that the prices I have are wrong?[/quote]


Hi Waldo

No, but if people want to quote silly numbers that is their issue. I have a printed tariff from UPS and simply quoted the price from the tariff, and Transglobal should have something similar. They may a get little bit bigger discount, but not that kind of difference.

[Waldo]

[quote name='skywalker' post='349341' date='Dec 9 2008, 08:16 AM']Hi Waldo

No, but if people want to quote silly numbers that is their issue. I have a printed tariff from UPS and simply quoted the price from the tariff, and Transglobal should have something similar. They may a get little bit bigger discount, [b]but not that kind of difference.[/b][/quote]

Well actually they do have that kind of difference. You don't seem to be listening.

I have used their services. I have PAID those 'silly numbers', as you call them. The price I got from them was something like 70% cheaper than going straight to DHL. I have paid for the service, do you want to see the invoice? The waybill? Hell, the DHL tracking page still has the item I sent still on it. Don't understand why you're arguing really, are you happy paying far more than you need to? Have a look on the site, find out for yourself and thank me later if you like.

[waynepunkdude]

[quote name='Waldo' post='349396' date='Dec 9 2008, 09:31 AM']Well actually they do have that kind of difference. You don't seem to be listening.

I have used their services. I have PAID those 'silly numbers', as you call them. The price I got from them was something like 70% cheaper than going straight to DHL. I have paid for the service, do you want to see the invoice? The waybill? Hell, the DHL tracking page still has the item I sent still on it. Don't understand why you're arguing really, are you happy paying far more than you need to? Have a look on the site, find out for yourself and thank me later if you like.[/quote]


I have used sites like this you do get silly prices and pay them, I was very suprised.

The only downside I can see is the tracking isn't very good.

[Waldo]

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='349410' date='Dec 9 2008, 09:41 AM']I have used sites like this you do get silly prices and pay them, I was very suprised.

The only downside I can see is the tracking isn't very good.[/quote]

The tracking is with whichever courier is carrying your package. In my case it was DHL and their tracking system is very good.

[waynepunkdude]

[quote name='Waldo' post='349421' date='Dec 9 2008, 09:44 AM']The tracking is with whichever courier is carrying your package. In my case it was DHL and their tracking system is very good.[/quote]


I use a DHL agent and according to them the Stingray I had delivered months ago is still in Coventry,

[Waldo]

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='349422' date='Dec 9 2008, 09:46 AM']I use a DHL agent and according to them the Stingray I had delivered months ago is still in Coventry,[/quote]

Hah, fair enough! Personally can't complaing about DHLs tracking system but there will always be someone who doesn't get a smooth service.

[waynepunkdude]

[quote name='Waldo' post='349424' date='Dec 9 2008, 09:49 AM']Hah, fair enough! Personally can't complaing about DHLs tracking system but there will always be someone who doesn't get a smooth service.[/quote]


As I said before it cost me £6.99 to ship a bass cab on a 24 hour service, I'm not going to complain.

[skywalker]

[quote name='Waldo' post='349396' date='Dec 9 2008, 09:31 AM']Well actually they do have that kind of difference. You don't seem to be listening.

I have used their services. I have PAID those 'silly numbers', as you call them. The price I got from them was something like 70% cheaper than going straight to DHL. I have paid for the service, do you want to see the invoice? The waybill? Hell, the DHL tracking page still has the item I sent still on it. Don't understand why you're arguing really, are you happy paying far more than you need to? Have a look on the site, find out for yourself and thank me later if you like.[/quote]

I'm not arguing. I am sure these kind of quotes are there and you can take advantage of them, but this is part of my job, I deal with all these people, and believe me 99 times out a 100 you get what you pay for, and I have seen some disasters.

[Beedster]

[quote name='birdy' post='348558' date='Dec 8 2008, 01:13 PM']The more I read on these forums the more I am likely to only deal with people I know unless face to face.

Steve[/quote]

Agreed, after about 5 years of various ebay and BC transactions without serious problem I've had several problematic transactions in the last few months, all of which related to dishonest or, at the very least, not sufficiently conscientious, sellers. I have returned two basses for being fake vintage 'Fenders' (seller's responses along the lines "well the guy who sold it to me said it was original"/"it says Fender on the headstock, how was I supposed to know", and by the way, one of these is still on ebay listed at over £2000), a neck for being simply unplayable (the owner had inflicted a DIY refret on an otherwise finely crafted vintage Fender neck but 'forgot' to mention this in the listing), and several smaller items that simply didn't work or were not what the seller described (Allen_Baker's Warwick 3.2 being a good example). There's two issues to me, firstly, the fact that the seller is less than honest in the listing, which can perhaps be the result of genuine error or naivety, and secondly the seller's response to any such issue. A failing in the first is forgivable, a failing in the second not. Most of the sellers above accepted the items back and refunded me, so failed on the first but passed on the second. Allen_Baker may have passed on the first (OK the amp [i]might[/i] have been working when he sent it) but failed on the second. Jake failed on both. It's not even face-to-face that ensures the deal, it's the degree to which the seller has demonstrated previously that s/he is trustworthy. The reason I was extremely (perhaps too) hard on Allen_Baker last week is that I don't think we use the feedback section well enough and should probably be prepared to be a little more honest in doing so. I know, from PMs on various issues, that deals on BC have gone bad, in some cases seriously so, but I don't see any negative feedback on the site about those deals? Let's face it, unlike ebay, at least a seller on here can respond and a decent public dialogue can ensue. Most people on here are reasonable, and if most of the facts emerge during any such dialogue, I imagine a level of consensus will determine the rights or wrongs of any situation (trial by jury if you like?).
So guys, let's see the feedback section being used. I'm going to copy this to General Bass Discussion also
Chris

[Waldo]

[quote name='skywalker' post='349439' date='Dec 9 2008, 10:12 AM']I'm not arguing. I am sure these kind of quotes are there and you can take advantage of them, but this is part of my job, I deal with all these people, and believe me 99 times out a 100 you get what you pay for, and I have seen some disasters.[/quote]

Tell me more

[waynepunkdude]

[quote name='Beedster' post='349445' date='Dec 9 2008, 10:21 AM']Agreed, after about 5 years of various ebay and BC transactions without serious problem I've had several problematic transactions in the last few months, all of which related to dishonest or, at the very least, not sufficiently conscientious, sellers. I have returned two basses for being fake vintage 'Fenders' (seller's responses along the lines "well the guy who sold it to me said it was original"/"it says Fender on the headstock, how was I supposed to know", and by the way, one of these is still on ebay listed at over £2000), a neck for being simply unplayable (the owner had inflicted a DIY refret on an otherwise finely crafted vintage Fender neck but 'forgot' to mention this in the listing), and several smaller items that simply didn't work or were not what the seller described (Allen_Baker's Warwick 3.2 being a good example). There's two issues to me, firstly, the fact that the seller is less than honest in the listing, which can perhaps be the result of genuine error or naivety, and secondly the seller's response to any such issue. A failing in the first is forgivable, a failing in the second not. Most of the sellers above accepted the items back and refunded me, so failed on the first but passed on the second. Allen_Baker may have passed on the first (OK the amp [i]might[/i] have been working when he sent it) but failed on the second. Jake failed on both. It's not even face-to-face that ensures the deal, it's the degree to which the seller has demonstrated previously that s/he is trustworthy. The reason I was extremely (perhaps too) hard on Allen_Baker last week is that I don't think we use the feedback section well enough and should probably be prepared to be a little more honest in doing so. I know, from PMs on various issues, that deals on BC have gone bad, in some cases seriously so, but I don't see any negative feedback on the site about those deals? Let's face it, unlike ebay, at least a seller on here can respond and a decent public dialogue can ensue. Most people on here are reasonable, and if most of the facts emerge during any such dialogue, I imagine a level of consensus will determine the rights or wrongs of any situation (trial by jury if you like?).
So guys, let's see the feedback section being used. I'm going to copy this to General Bass Discussion also
Chris[/quote]


Well said buddy.

[Waldo]

[quote name='Beedster' post='349445' date='Dec 9 2008, 10:21 AM']Agreed, after about 5 years of various ebay and BC transactions without serious problem I've had several problematic transactions in the last few months, all of which related to dishonest or, at the very least, not sufficiently conscientious, sellers. I have returned two basses for being fake vintage 'Fenders' (seller's responses along the lines "well the guy who sold it to me said it was original"/"it says Fender on the headstock, how was I supposed to know", and by the way, one of these is still on ebay listed at over £2000), a neck for being simply unplayable (the owner had inflicted a DIY refret on an otherwise finely crafted vintage Fender neck but 'forgot' to mention this in the listing), and several smaller items that simply didn't work or were not what the seller described (Allen_Baker's Warwick 3.2 being a good example). There's two issues to me, firstly, the fact that the seller is less than honest in the listing, which can perhaps be the result of genuine error or naivety, and secondly the seller's response to any such issue. A failing in the first is forgivable, a failing in the second not. Most of the sellers above accepted the items back and refunded me, so failed on the first but passed on the second. Allen_Baker may have passed on the first (OK the amp [i]might[/i] have been working when he sent it) but failed on the second. Jake failed on both. It's not even face-to-face that ensures the deal, it's the degree to which the seller has demonstrated previously that s/he is trustworthy. The reason I was extremely (perhaps too) hard on Allen_Baker last week is that I don't think we use the feedback section well enough and should probably be prepared to be a little more honest in doing so. I know, from PMs on various issues, that deals on BC have gone bad, in some cases seriously so, but I don't see any negative feedback on the site about those deals? Let's face it, unlike ebay, at least a seller on here can respond and a decent public dialogue can ensue. Most people on here are reasonable, and if most of the facts emerge during any such dialogue, I imagine a level of consensus will determine the rights or wrongs of any situation (trial by jury if you like?).
So guys, let's see the feedback section being used. I'm going to copy this to General Bass Discussion also
Chris[/quote]

I personally think that serious issues should be kept off the forum, starting a discussion about them in public will inevitably lead to lots of mud slinging, sides being taken e.t.c and really, it's no-one elses business. Also, depending on the seriousness could have an effect on things if you get the police involved (I have had one such incident). I know what you're saying though.

[IncX]

ironically ... the vampyre was only insured for 500 gbp ... the company wont insure past that.

i still havent paid the taxes ... so thats the current update.

[IncX]

here's the news:

i have not received the money, and from what i head, i have NO PLANS to receive the money!

some of you here are just too ???? as far as i am concerned.

i never asked for donations, all i asked was moral support.

i did my best to be transparent to you guys ... but looks like you see me as some money hogging arse now? rubbing you the wrong way cause i said i thought about spending the money on credit card bills and then custom's tax?

this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth ....

i would like to thank the ppl who helped me in getting the bass ... and to those at the warwick forums, who for some reason wasnt bothered with the extra money in the fund gman created.

so there... you want it? you can have it!!!

do what you want with it.

i am thru posting updates here.

sheesh... i ddnt even receive a pm regarding the issue ... it really hurts.

i'd rather borrow and beg money rather than receive a SUPPOSSED DONATION that actually had a contract that said "you can only spend it on ____"

here's what i can say... the next time you make a donation, send one of those "agreement" letters with it.

ive always believed that donations were given from the heart... *lol* ... seems like it's not the case here.

to those who are concerned, i will be posting updates on the warwick forums. i am done here.

[Waldo]

Err, right then!

[waynepunkdude]

WTF?!?!?!?!?

[Shockwave]

I can only agree with what IncX has said.

The fact that the mods have been sent many messages from you guys regarding where the funds are going and then ME having pmed by a moderator to sort it out for everyone (Which i did and resulted in the post above) is pretty sh*tty,

If you had problems with where the money was going you should have pmed IncX directly and not hide behind a moderator to do something about it for you, because the mods have no obligation to deal with the complaints they asked ME to deal with them and talk to IncX about that BC members were unhappy with what would happen to the excess money. (Which made me feel and look the bad guy)


I did alot of work to get this bass to IncX. However some select BC members in all their crowning glory would be able to f*** up what was meant to be a good thing, due to their own bad attitudes and questionable bass brother and festive spirit.



As a result i wont be participating in anything but the for sale forums on basschat. I am ashamed to be affiliated with many of you, Because of your actions whether warranted or not has given BC a bad name.

PS, What money is left BEFORE taxes and any bills, Will be sent care of someone on BC to distrubute. Who it is i dont give a damn as i am now done with this situation.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Shockwave

[Beedster]

[quote name='Shockwave' post='349667' date='Dec 9 2008, 01:18 PM']I can only agree with what IncX has said, The fact that the mods have been sent many messages from you guys regarding where the funds are going and then ME having pmed by a moderator to sort it out for everyone (Which i did and resulted in the post above) is pretty sh*tty, If you had problems with where the money was going you should have pmed IncX directly and not hide behind a moderator, Which in turn asked me to ask for the money back. (Which made me feel the bad guy)

As a result i wont be participating in anything but the for sale forums on basschat. I am ashamed to be affiliated with many of you, Because of your actions whether warranted or not has given BC a bad name.

I did alot of work to get this bass to IncX and i knew somehow BC members in all their crowning glory would be able to f*** it up in some way with bad attitudes, either to Jake or IncX.[/quote]

Hey Rob, don't be to quick to judge here mate, as you're aware, it's a complex and emotional issue. IncX's post above is both rude and naive given what the guys on here (and mostly you) have achieved. There is a degree of anger at Jake in many people's responses so that should be taken into account (if people have given money they should be allowed some say in where and how it is dsiposed of). Note also that IncX would have had to pay the duty anyway, so of course BCers should not be paying that.
BC can't have a a bad name through this, there is just a degree of differing opinion. If a few guys have been prats, what's new

[waynepunkdude]

I'm sorry to hear this at the end of what was fudermentaly good news story.