Sorry in advance for another lengthy post. Maybe I'll master brevity in posting one of these days!!

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Carl. We haven't had the opportunity to meet, but I'd like to share my reaction to your BB post anyway. I agree with some...but not all... of what you state, depending on the precise content of the email messages sent to the buyer of your Trop Hawaiian Tropics set.

First, I agree that you can list your chips at any minimum bid and reserve (if any) that you choose. Start them at $15 (face value) or any other amount you want, as long as the description and image is accurate. (I trust your word on all that, though I'm not familiar with the auction # you are referring to.)

Second, I applaud the buyer who completed his transaction as he is obligated to do, whether he overpaid or not. As an aside, he's not the only individual who thinks this set of chips is worth prox. $80, because he had to beat another bidder at $79! In fact, the bid history on your auction may reveal that a number of bidders were willing to "overpay" for these chips. I've seen occasional bidding "frenzies" for items, resulting in some high final bids (for example, the Marilyn Manson Hard Rock chip, when it first came out); and have seen cross-collectible bidders (such as Playboy bidders, etc.) who bid at higher levels than seasoned chippers. Again, I have no problem with any of that -- it's a free market system.

If asked, I would have to agree that $80 was overpaying for these chips, inasmuch as most experienced chippers would know to "comparison shop" the bid levels you were receiving with the availability of the same set from other sources for less (e.g. Cheques in the Mail lists it for $32 per set).

Where we disagree is that any email to the seller is dishonest and unethical. I would have to know more about the email and its timing. If someone accused you of being unfair with the seller, I think that's wrong because it is inaccurate, from your description of how you posted the item. HOWEVER, if the email only advised the buyer that his bid was high in comparison to other sources, and that it pays to comparison shop, then that advise might be OK, particularly if it was coming from a person(s) who knew the high bidder through other channels. To be clear, I would not condone anyone who tried to influence the high bidder to renege on his obligation to complete the purchase, or to attempt to siphon off the sale to another dealer (or to the emailer himself). And in all cases, it's not within Ebay rules to contact and attempt to siphon bids while an auction is running.

I guess the point to my commentary above is that, if you learn the names of the email writers, and you choose to publish them on this BB, then I hope you can describe the contents of their emails -- that is, was it a litte friendly advise to be a more educated bidder next time, or was is meddling, or --more seriously -- an accusation about your being unfair or unethical somehow.

For the record, I was not one of the email writers in this situation, and have no independent knowledge of the facts or the players involved, other than what Carl described in his post.