PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute • Hacker News Board

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#231

Post by StavrosK » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:17 PM UTC

yoos wrote: post #218

aiscott wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if counterfeits explain this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/1444828...

FWIW, trying to compare two violins with recorded clips like the ones in that blog post is pointless because there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone. I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised by the test results. I wonder what kind of credentials these "professionals" have? Even the best violinists probably have tried only a few of the many Strads and Guarneris in existence…

> there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone.

Is that true? Shannon-Nyquist seems to disagree.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#232

Post by ctrager » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:18 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #86

akozak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I think my childhood violin cost less than $200.

I have a friend who teaches violin to kids. He says that really cheap violins won't stay in tune at all, which makes teaching very difficult; it's impossible to tell the difference between poor playing and poor performance from the instrument. $200 (today) is most likely still in that category, with cheap but usable starting somewhere over $500.

Sorry, about staying in tune, I don't physics, mechanics, can support that teacher's belief. Do the pegs slip? That's adjustable. Are the strings crappy? Replace them. My experience is that there is a lot of false belief and superstition about violins including among violin teachers.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#233

Post by bmuon » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:31 PM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #223

dotBen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't know this 10.1 b clause until now but it makes it VERY clear to me: NEVER use PayPal to sell anything that could in anyway be disputed as counterfeit given that the terms allow PayPal to deems what is genuine/fake remotely, without physical inspection and results in not only money witheld but a potentially genuine item being destroyed. So so crazy.

The terms don't allow that. It says that Paypal must reasonably believe the item to be counterfeit. For this kind of item, clearly only a physical inspection would be reasonable, and I would sue them over it. But I agree - it's clearly better not to use Paypal at all.

Actually in this case the only reasonable way to validate it would be with an expert. Do you know how to recognize a badly treated XX century violin from a Stradivarius? I don't.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#234

Post by ctrager » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:53 PM UTC

leelin wrote: post #14

Wait, isn't $2500 very cheap for a violin? I seem to remember the rather mediocre violin I had as a kid costing more than that (such hopeful tiger parents).

You CAN get a great sounding violin on eBay for $200, but you might have to buy and return a couple dozen violins to end up with one you like. My story is, that for my kid, I bought a $5,000 violin from a dealer after doing blind testing among a range of violins with ourselves and my kid's high-powered teachers. Everybody agreed that this was a great sounding violin. A couple years later, I wanted a cheap violin for myself so I bought a $200 violin on eBay. It arrived with a fallen soundpost so I needed to take it to the violin store for them to reset it for $15, plus, I put new strings on it for $40. I ended up selling that one and buying another $200 violin, which needed a new bridge, which costs about $75 at the local violin shop. I didn't want to spend so much money for each of the violins I was trying, so instead of getting it fixed at the shop, I ended up learning how to shape a new bridge myself, to save money. What followed was a couple year period where I bought and sold about two dozen $200 violins. I would buy them on eBay, fix them up into playable condition, and resell them from my home via Craigslist.

So, the buyers would come with their own current violins and I would put my eBay specials AND my kid's $5,000 into the mix for the blind sound tests. The $5,000 violin was always one of the leaders but not always the winner.

Eventually I settled on a single violin that I liked the best to keep for my own. I took it to the violin shop where people had much more skill than me and spent about $600 to get a nicer bridge, soundpost, and for some repair work that I didn't have the skills to tackle. So, yes, I got a great sounding violin for $200, a couple years of trial and error learning, and then another $600 for rehab.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#235

Post by Isofarro » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:55 PM UTC

mverwijs wrote: post #226

The way I see it the buyer/destroyer should be sued. A sale was agreed upon. The goods were delivered. The money wasn't. Buyer simply did not hold up his end of the bargain and should be taken to court. In my simple view, PayPal does not even enter the picture. Or is there more to it than that?

The money looks to have been sent - in good faith - by the buyer. Otherwise, why would the seller have dispatched the goods? The seller dispatched the goods in good faith that the money had been sent by the buyer (to Paypal, acting as an intermediary to the seller).

The buyer most likely disputed the item after he received it. The dispute got escalated for reasons that haven't yet been established.

The goods were deemed to be counterfeit (perhaps the dispute was raised because of that, or it became a material complaint after the dispute was raised). Something/nothing happened which resulted in the seller and buyer unable to reach an appropriate resolution, and the matter was escalated to Paypal for action.

Paypal offered a return of the money to the buyer on condition he destroyed the counterfeit goods. Buyer destroyed item. Paypal took the money destined for the seller and gave it back to the buyer. The buyer has satisfied his part of the process.

So the outstanding part of the process is between the seller and Paypal. There either the contract was validly enforced, or Paypal need to compensate the seller.

IANAL.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#236

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 1:57 PM UTC

prawn wrote: post #172

walexander wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest way to destroy the value of numismatic coin would probably be to clean it. A coin at the highest level of grading would be "destroyed" (lowered to a less valuable rating) by simply picking it up outside of its sealed, graded holder. There are plenty of ways to destroy it physically (throw it in a forge, bend it with pliers, etc). I'm a bit more concerned that a scammer wouldn't destroy the coin per se, bu…

Would it be trivial for someone to dispute the authenticity of the coin, receive PayPal's request for its destruction, photograph something that looked like a mangled coin, and then essentially get the coin for free?

[deleted]

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#237

Post by ctrager » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 2:05 PM UTC

Dove wrote: post #29

leelin wrote: post #14

Wait, isn't $2500 very cheap for a violin? I seem to remember the rather mediocre violin I had as a kid costing more than that (such hopeful tiger parents).

Cheap for an antique, perhaps. An everyday playing violin, especially for a student, can be had for one or two hundred dollars. Less, on eBay.

I've bought a couple dozen $200 violins on eBay. If you are looking for a cheap student violin, and you don't have much experience yourself with violins, I would not recommend buying on eBay. It's too hit or miss.

For that student, spend a little more. The cost of the lessons soon makes a extra couple hundred bucks for the violin insignificant.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#238

Post by JonnieCache » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 2:08 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #231

yoos wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, trying to compare two violins with recorded clips like the ones in that blog post is pointless because there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone. I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised by the test results. I wonder what kind of credentials these "professionals" have? Even the best violinists probably have tried only a few of the many Strads and Guarneris in existence…

> there are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone. Is that true? Shannon-Nyquist seems to disagree.

In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear.

This is why it is important to record instruments with higher sample rates (192khz is standard) in order to fully preserve their sonic character for further processing.

This is one answer to the question "why do musicians record ultrasound," I hope it is correct. There are many answers given to this question and even a lot of sound engineers don't understand the concepts correctly, so hopefully I have got this right.

You also hear a lot of stuff about how filters need headroom to avoid creating aftefacts in the data; a LP filter creates more artefacts the sharper its cutoff curve, so therefore by having a lot of ultrasound one can have a very gradual cutoff (or a cheaper filter) and only discard data in the inaudible range. I'm less sure that this is true however.

Then there are a lot of people who think it's simply the usual "higher numbers are better" type of marketing games. They may well be right. All I know is, there is nowhere near enough double blind testing in the pro audio industry, and if they started doing in en-mass it would cause terrible trouble.

Hopefully, as usual, some expert will jump in here and lay down some solid facts. Be aware though that one cannot simply apply electromagnetic principles, it isn't always the same.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#239

Post by kilburn » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 2:32 PM UTC

psychotik wrote: post #138

walexander wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I froze for a second after reading that statement, which I was completely unaware of. I sometimes buy and sell rare coins (particularly US Morgan dollars), which regularly go for thousands of dollars. I have one on eBay at this very moment that I'm attempting to get $3000+ for. I've never heard of such a dispute happening before, or have I had any issues in the past, but now knowing this, i'm really scared of what mi…

Out of curiosity, how do you destroy a coin?

I'm pretty sure it would blend...

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#240

Post by cookiecaper » Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 2:46 PM UTC

jaysonelliot wrote: post #156

A lot of people are talking about finding an alternative to PayPal. Does anyone have an opinion on Dwolla or Square? I have also heard that Visa is getting into the P2P payment space, I suppose Google Wallet must have similar plans.

I used WePay recently to invoice a client and I really thought it was quite a pleasant experience. I considered using Dwolla but they seemed less established and credible. I had some questions about the service that their site didn't answer.

I was really happy with WePay. I hope I can use it more soon, it was really was very simple, and I think the features to "split the ticket" are pretty cool.