Vectis 30bk yellow tint to bubble?!

Good luck !

U got it for a v fair price in today's market :!:
What about asking Vectis to wave their 24% commissions :idea: :?: Then in theory ur not asking for a partial refund on the item, just for a bit of 'good will' on Vectis's part :!:

I can't believe they will give you a partial refund - especially after making it public! Every winner will be after 10% for this and 5% for that.

Unless you bought it to sell, I'd keep it.

maxf said:

I can't believe they will give you a partial refund - especially after making it public! Every winner will be after 10% for this and 5% for that.

Unless you bought it to sell, I'd keep it.

Click to expand...

Well we will see what they say. I asked for advice on the forum as unfortunately I am not surrounded my a group of starwars experts at home or in my immediate area that i know of.

If I sold you a car and you found it had permanently damaged bodywork that wiped as much as 25% off the value I hardly think you would be calling it 'this and that' even if you got it a fairly good price.

A yellowed bubble is a yellowed bubble and a relatively major issue - its not like a crease or slight misprint or something that may or may not match a condition description.

Vectis have been pretty good - they immediately offered a full refund. I can also understand how the tint may have been missed in an artificially lit warehouse given the volume of lots. Of course they have no obligation to offer a partial refund but i don't think its an unreasonable request given the circumstances. Of course it was a little disappointing but an offer of a full refund is all they have to do in reality.

Anyway all I really wanted was clarification on the bubble and I sincerely do not wish this to become a debate over money to be fair.

Thanks

David

I think there is a lesson that needs to be learnt here by vectis, and that is how they describe their items. If they get that right then there can be no recourse whatsoever. It's not about knocking 5% off here and 10% off there, if they disclose all the issues. If it were eBay or a private sale and someone had cocked up the description, you wouldn't think a partial refund was so unusual, so why should this be any different if the buyer is not satisfied.

They could waive the buyer fee and nobody looses out apart from them, if you were happy with that outcome of course. They could even knock a bit of the commission that they take off as well. This could make you happy and serve as some good customer relation publicity on their part.

Wait and see what they come back with. They are obviously open to making good on this so see what the options are first before making a final decision.

I have spoken to Vectis about their poor descriptions and their excuse is they have so many items to appraise :!: Poor excuse IMO :evil: It's their business and accurate description is paramount :!: :!:

I have made a couple of major purchases from them this year and I was on the phone to Kathy before each purchase for a detailed run down and detailed pictures etc etc.
Basically it's all about the buyer making the effort to make sure they know as much as poss about their potential purchase :!:
That is the current situation at Vectis :!:

I saw a similar post on Facebook yesterday complaining about sales ads not disclosing damage. I think people need to take responsibility and exercise 'buyer beware' a bit more - don't drop £1000 or even more on something without giving it the once over. Don't assume it will be perfect. Ask for more photos, Vectis and most other sellers will happily oblige.

If I buy something that is damaged in the post or has undisclosed and impossible to see in photos damage like ink touch ups, sure I'll ask for a refund. But if I've just not noticed something, I don't feel like the seller owes me anything.

Well to be fair I did actually go to Vectis the previous day to look at the 12bks and some of the boxed items lol. I got there close to closing time after being delayed during the day and was pushed for time.

I was not really intending to bid on that particular item as a 12bk run was my aim. I did even see it but it was on a bookshelf which shaded it from the nearest overhead light and the tint was not apparent - it's hard to see in poor light which is probably why it didn't end up in the discriprion.

I only really bid on it as other items went over my budget and during the auction, the price looked OK and I didn't want to end up empty handed.

Edd you do have a point - I should have spent more time closely looking at stuff I had a potential interest in should my initial desires fail.

I should have picked it up while I was there, walked round the side of the bookcase and held it up to the light. There was even a magnifier desk lamp which would have showed it. Saying that I did not have time To do that with all the items I liked the look of and it wouldn't have been immediately obvious to my pretty much untrained eye.

Lesson learned in that respect - I will be much more thorough in future. Still I do reckon a yellow tint should have made it onto the description really.

I don't really know why I didn't bid on the sandperson - it did look really nice - there was a bit of a crease at the back on the top bubble edge and a ding to a card corner as I rem (I've got it all written down but not to hand) and that slowed my mouse button finger lol.

deleted

Hi Dave,

I've been reading this thread for the last couple of days and just re-read it all and must admit that I'm a little confused from your last post. I can see nothing but level headed good advise from everyone on here and don't think this thread is really going in the wrong direction.

The way I've read it is that your initial question was about if this moc would receive a Y grade if sent off and I think everyone agrees that it would. Your other point is that Vectis should really have mentioned this in their listing and again I think everyone agrees with this. I do however see that with this particular bubble it might have been missed as it's a very faint tint which may only really have been noticed when put next to a clear bubble in good light. You mentioned that when you viewed the item ( think you meant this one?), it looked good to you, which shows how mistakes can happen. Admittedly with the amount of moc's Vectis have dealt with over the years it does feel like they should have probably noticed this and should also have a very well lit area for viewing their potential auction items but mistakes do happen from time to time. You said that they've been very good about offering a solution and although I realise this isn't what you hoped for when buying the item I think this is the best you're going to get out of this situation.

I can understand your reasons for not wanting to have yellow bubbles in your collection as I feel the same about my own collection (as I'm sure many of us do). I probably have two or three slightly yellowed bubbles with one being a 30 back Luke Bespin that nearly always has this issue ( and it's a reseal but that's just what I collect), and the other two are R2 and C3PO from the Droids series which also commonly have this problem. For me I didn't want to wait any longer for possible clear bubble ones to come along and the price was good at the time. They do however slightly bug me due to this problem so maybe I should never have picked them up (although they don't annoy me that much lol). I think you have to decide for yourself if you will be happy with it in your collection as time passes or maybe it would be best to return it and put that down as experience for any future dealings with Vectis.

I really do hope you come to a decision you're happy with and I also can see how you would be upset that this has happened through the poor listing of it but the damage is done and at least you have been offered a solution to wipe the slate clean.

One last thing is that I was interested in the opened competition winner 12 back set and asked for pictures to be sent as I really couldn't tell what the quality was like from the auction picture provided. It took a few emails and about a week to receive them but I'm glad I asked as nearly every bubble had a dent in it. This also wasn't mentioned in the listing and I'm not sure the good to very good description they gave it was really what was on offer. They do need to tighten that all up, especially with their business on-line probably growing, but at least I knew what to expect and so could bid accordingly. I do think you really do have to double check these things when potentially dropping a fair amount of money on something as it's just not worth the risk. Hopefully things will change over time with this problem as it's only going to make more work for them re-photographing everything and emailing the pictures out to the interested parties.

All the best with the outcome and I really do think the comments on here have all been good solid and constructive aones that were not meant to be negative in any way.

Ian

Without wanting to be massively controversial - uk auction law is slightly different to the trades description act. Auction sites where bidding is allowed in public don't have to abide by distance selling regulations either.

As the hobby seems to be moving away from eBay and towards old school auction houses we could probably all do with educating ourselves on our legal position if things do go wrong. As a side point, I'm not sure if moving away from eBay is a regression or maturing of the hobby, interesting though.

Good luck with it and good luck with your 12bk run - thankfully very few of these are yellowed at all!

Hi, Well thanks for the kind words. The majority of comments made have been really helpful.

I only really wanted a good opinion on the bubble and an indication of how these issues affect pricing - its a live issue really as its not been sorted yet so I was really not wanting to get into a debate of who's at fault or what actions are best taken.

As Max pointed out this is a public platform and I would rather not start or get involved in an online debate of to how it should be sorted.

I admit I've ended up getting a bit defensive and feeling a need to justify certain points that I'd rather not discuss - when emailing vectis i sent a link to this thread after the first few comments just to show the issue of the bubble really and didn't want it to turn into a diagnosis of how it should be resolved and who if anyone is at fault.

I'm happy so far with how the issue has been handled and its certainly been educational. I'd be more than happy to participate in any debate once its been resolved. I'll probably be better at handling any criticism at that point really and would rather avoid the danger of strong opinions going back and forth at present.

Everyone has had valid points to put forward but as Max's earlier comment seemed to indicate its maybe best for me not to publicly discuss or instigate discussion on the subject at this point.

I'm gonna stick with the positives for now - members here have kindly given free very useful info to me - for now at least I've got a lovely item and vectis's response so far has been helpful.

Cheers for all your input guys much appreciated

Good luck buddy !

Hope it all works out in the end

Well guys I phoned trading standards today to see what the legality of these things is.

The law changed at the beginning of October I'm told.

What they said that if you do it all online and over the phone you are covered by specific laws eBay style in that the description must match the item and in this case a refund would be an almost certain legal right.

However as I went to view lots in person then there is no recourse on any lot despite bad descriptions as even if you did not look at a lot specifically you had the opertunity to do so and this is what has happened. In these cases it's down to the goodwill of the auction house.

The advice they gave was to always do everything online as you are protected - once you've entered the auction room descriptions don't mean much other than what a seller is telling you.

After hearing that it did not come as a surprise when I got an email from Vectis saying no refund you viewed it.

I'm not all that bothered in reality as its a nice figure and I've already had an offer to buy it off me at cost.

In principle it's a little disconcerting that no admission of an inadequate description has been made and you would have thought at least some goodwill gesture might have been offered given they are a relatively big organisation.

Anyway my advice to anyone else would be your better off doing it all online or over the phone unless your really sure of yourself and don't intend to possibly bid on anything you havn't thoroughly inspected.

Like with that Ben that got returned as Afa found a tiny hole/crack in the bubble - I even suspect it was relisted in the last auction but without mentioning the damage - I may be wrong.

Anyone who views it or another lot can't take it back - which would be a bummer as its hard to see without a magnifier - I assume the last guy did it all online.

All seems a bit of a piss take but that's just me.

Cheers again guys

Dave

All good advise Dave to cover ourselves and I went on the Vectis auction page where it was listed and took a look at the close up picture and must admit that I could see the slight ting from the picture. I feel that even though Vectis didn't mention it, with some experience you can get an eye for things like this and hopefully over time people will be able to spot these types of issues. It's probably the best way forward as it's so hard to trust anyones listings without seeing the thing and then at least questions can be asked before placing a bid.

It sounds like you've got an option to wipe the slate clean and picked up some valuable knowledge along the way (that we can all benefit from), so hopefully some of the gloom of all of this is lifted a bit.

All the best with your decision and as long as you're happy with the outcome then that's the main thing.

Ian

talldroid77 said:

Like with that Ben that got returned as Afa found a tiny hole/crack in the bubble - I even suspect it was relisted in the last auction but without mentioning the damage - I may be wrong.

Click to expand...

I think it was relisted, but with the split mentioned.

As an aside, I thought if you have the 'opportunity' to view, you weren't covered? Are you saying that's now changed?

maxf said:

talldroid77 said:

Like with that Ben that got returned as Afa found a tiny hole/crack in the bubble - I even suspect it was relisted in the last auction but without mentioning the damage - I may be wrong.

Click to expand...

I think it was relisted, but with the split mentioned.

As an aside, I thought if you have the 'opportunity' to view, you weren't covered? Are you saying that's now changed?

Click to expand...

Yo Max. I think the Ben was the second lot (3002) no mention of the crack. Think that was the only none reseal Ben so assumed that's was the one. poor show if it was but am not 100% sure

Sorry if I was unclear - no as I understand once you have entered the auction house and lots are available to view you are no longer covered by descriptions on any lot regardless of how long you were there or what you looked at.

Online same consumer laws as eBay

3002 definitely mentions a split in the stem of bubble - unless I'm being really thick here.

maxf said:

3002 definitely mentions a split in the stem of bubble - unless I'm being really thick here.

Click to expand...

If your looking online it may do - I'm looking at the physical auction catalogue lol - 3002 just says near mint to mint bubble.

maxf said:

3002 definitely mentions a split in the stem of bubble - unless I'm being really thick here.

Click to expand...

Here it is...