Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

regretsy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 303 posts

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

#271

Post by Zak »

ctrager wrote: post #232
Zak wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect it's more likely that the wood warps in response to some combination of temperature, humidity and the mechanical forces applied to it during playing. It wouldn't take very much warping to cause a change in the sound.

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

#272

Post by ctrager »

cube13 wrote: post #254
ctrager wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is pretty much why I can't believe that any serious musician would buy a musical instrument for over a few hundred dollars, sight unseen. There are simply too many variables to make that kind of purchase worthwhile. If the buyer isn't serious about it, a cheaper instrument will probably be exactly what they need for years. For serious musicians, an instrument that they're comfortable with is more important than…

Re-reading what I wrote, I guess I made it sound like a negative experience, but actually it was a fun adventure. All the buying experiences on eBay were positive. I never felt like I got ripped off. It was fun learning how to fiddle with fiddles. In theory, it could have even been a sort of money-making hobby, although I only managed to only about break even (Am I supposed to count my tool purchases against profit? Nah.)

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

#273

Post by ctrager »

Zak wrote: post #271
ctrager wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect it's more likely that the wood warps in response to some combination of temperature, humidity and the mechanical forces applied to it during playing. It wouldn't take very much warping to cause a change in the sound.

Two thoughts:

1) The operative pieces of wood here are the nut, the bridge, and the fingerboard. These pieces are all non-integral, relatively easily, cheaply replaceable parts of the violin. I can see how a nut or bridge that's too high would make the violin harder to play with good intonation, and for sure, a fingerboard that is worn or misshapen could, but other than that, I don't think there's any other part piece of wood that matters.

2) Not a rule, but sort of a default rule of thumb for a certain level of violin playing is don't play on open strings because you can't do vibrato and you can't adjust the pitch while you're playing. I remember my kid's intense, Teutonic teacher saying to him, "Well, your strings are out of tune, but that's NO EXCUSE for playing out of tune!", meaning, she expected my kid to have been able to make the adjustments on the fly with his finger placements.

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

#274

Post by hackermom »

DanBC wrote: post #258
hackermom wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't, but the end result for the affected party (the seller) is the same - he lost $2500 worth of goods due to the buyer violating his property and material rights on request of PayPal.

I'm trying to ask "How do we know the buyer is not malicious? He buys a violin; disputes authenticity; destroys some stand in violin (keeping original); gets money back; sells original violin via different account; gets more money." That's not something paypal can cope with, or is it?

THAT is a good point. I could see how that scenario can be abused - almost entirely because of PayPal having the "destroy counterfeit products" clause in the first place. Feels like this should be enough to put the law on their behinds to have this loophole plugged. Someone should bring this to the attention of the proper authorities.

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

#275

Post by pbhjpbhj »

joshz wrote: post #227
joshz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really shitty. It would be interesting to know what sole discretion or reasonable belief constitutes. I doubt ebay/paypal sent experts to 'investigate', they more likely said "If you, the buyer, believe it's counterfeit because of , then it is. Seller won't sue anyway."

It now appears that the seller did get the violin authenticated. From a brief search, it looks like eBay had to pay large sums multiple times for selling counterfeit goods. $2500 violin, as sad as it is, is small fries. It seems that it's cheaper to operate under the assumption that if there's a suspicion an item is counterfeit, then that's more likely than not. Even if they messed up and lose a lawsuit from a seller…

>"eBay had to pay large sums multiple times for selling counterfeit goods"

I thought ebay provided a marketplace, I didn't realise they also sold goods?

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

#276

Post by Florin_Andrei »

anigbrowl wrote: post #66
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the law is wrong. I mean, let's drop the literal-mindedness for a second. It's my money. They are holding it hostage. I want it back. They should not be allowed to do this. Still nothing wrong with the situation, in your opinion?

No, you're wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use Paypal, you accept payment that way because it's convenient for both buyer and seller. You could advertise on Craigslist, but would you feel comfortable if someone says, 'I will send you a check, please ship to this address'? No, because the check may be bad and you could have a big financial headache. Likewise, many buyers would not be comfortable sending a check or tak…

Well, your post pretty much embodies everything that is wrong with the world these days.

"Cost of doing business"? ROTFL, I'm just a dude selling a handful of trinkets and baubles on eBay, once in a blue moon.

Your argument is like one of those math "proofs" that make sense internally, but are stemming from axioms utterly divorced from reality. You could "demonstrate" anything that way. You could even "demonstrate" how PayPal is "right" to keep my money for no good reason, or how Sony is "right" to have me waive my rights to sue them if I use their product. When they do it, it's called "EULA" and "cost of doing business" or some other kind of standard boilerplate bullshit like that.

But let me try the same tactics on their skin. Then it's called "theft" or "piracy" and I go to jail.

And what's the difference? They own immense quantities of cash, out of which they can afford to pay armies of lawyers and lobbyists, effectively superseding the law. I don't have that much cash, so I must dance to whatever tune they like to play.

All they have to do is couch this behavior in intricate pseudo-rational arguments like yours, or lofty but flawed rhetoric like you see all the time on TV, and "all is well" with the world.

This is bullshit. It needs to stop.

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

#278

Post by cube13 »

ctrager wrote: post #272
cube13 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much why I can't believe that any serious musician would buy a musical instrument for over a few hundred dollars, sight unseen. There are simply too many variables to make that kind of purchase worthwhile. If the buyer isn't serious about it, a cheaper instrument will probably be exactly what they need for years. For serious musicians, an instrument that they're comfortable with is more important than…

Re-reading what I wrote, I guess I made it sound like a negative experience, but actually it was a fun adventure. All the buying experiences on eBay were positive. I never felt like I got ripped off. It was fun learning how to fiddle with fiddles. In theory, it could have even been a sort of money-making hobby, although I only managed to only about break even (Am I supposed to count my tool purchases against profit?…

Whoops, forgot the quote. I was responding specifically to the line:

>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.

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

#279

Post by jpitz »

cube13 wrote: post #257
jpitz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

>If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone? Microphones don't respond in the same way to the same frequencies that your eardrum does. They can generally only record a subset of the total audio spectrum. So they're unable to completely reproduce the sound that was created by the instrument. If the ultrasonic frequencies…

( Background: I was a professional musician in a past life and I was quite involved in sound reinforcement. ) No two ears, nor no two microphones have the exact same response curve. I'm not yet convinced that what you or the original comment I reply'd to can be explained by differences in curves which, AFAIK, are relatively flat in the sonic regions we're discussing. The mic I referred to earlier looks to be flat to within 3db from 200hz to 20k. Are we discussing signals outside that range or within it?

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

#280

Post by yoos »

jpitz wrote: post #230
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. I am confused. I think you're claiming that, for example, a KSM-137 has frequency response in some part of the audible range that is so terrible that there are sounds it just flat out isn't capturing. What frequencies?

I admit I made an assumption when I said microphones can't capture certain sounds. I should instead have said:

There are overtones picked up by the ear that you can't capture with a microphone and accurately play back with average computer speakers, at least in my experience.

Whether the loss in quality is the microphone's fault or the speakers' fault, I don't know. Regardless, there are sounds the musician hears and feels that not even the average in-person audience can hear, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's impossible to accurately judge violins based on digital recordings.

Post reply on HN