Unethical or Just Lucky?
- Thread starter AtLarge
- Start date
- Status
I agree. Unethical and not cool!!!
Here's a twist that I personally encountered.
A widow called my boss re. a LARGE gun collection that her deceased husband had. I ended up heading over to take a look. Lots of really nice items. She took the guns to a dealer who low balled his appraisal big time. Luckily, she didn't fall for it, said "Thanks" and took them home.
I asked her what she wanted for all the items. She told me that she would sell them to me for what they were appraised for. I let her know that they were worth much more. She liked me and said not to worry about it. They were mine if I wanted them for the super low appraised price. Ended up getting about $10K in stuff for $1500.
Needless to say, I bought them all!! At the time I didn't have much if any money, being a poor college student. Otherwise I would have kicked her down some more money. I wish I could stumble upon more deals like that one!!!
Happy Holidays!
Russ...
Here's a twist that I personally encountered.
A widow called my boss re. a LARGE gun collection that her deceased husband had. I ended up heading over to take a look. Lots of really nice items. She took the guns to a dealer who low balled his appraisal big time. Luckily, she didn't fall for it, said "Thanks" and took them home.
I asked her what she wanted for all the items. She told me that she would sell them to me for what they were appraised for. I let her know that they were worth much more. She liked me and said not to worry about it. They were mine if I wanted them for the super low appraised price. Ended up getting about $10K in stuff for $1500.
Needless to say, I bought them all!! At the time I didn't have much if any money, being a poor college student. Otherwise I would have kicked her down some more money. I wish I could stumble upon more deals like that one!!!
Happy Holidays!
Russ...
Just the kind of guy I would love too meet in a dark alley! Anyone taking advantage of the elderly should be horse whipped. The ethical approach should have been to sell the cue and split the money. This old lady needed the money or she would have never sold her dead husbands belongs in the first place.
He was lucky and could have maybe haggled down the price, because she didn't know what the cue was worth.
Before I get any bad rep, I am only kidding. I think everyone agrees that he was unethical to some degree. Great deals are nice to come by, but this is a little extreme. It would be nice to sell the cue and surprise her with a good jelly roll. It might not help the situation with her losing her husband, but it would make things(financially) a lot easier.
Before I get any bad rep, I am only kidding. I think everyone agrees that he was unethical to some degree. Great deals are nice to come by, but this is a little extreme. It would be nice to sell the cue and surprise her with a good jelly roll. It might not help the situation with her losing her husband, but it would make things(financially) a lot easier.
Not only is this practice unethical, IMO, it may be illegal as well.
The violin market was rocked with a scandal in 1992 when a collector (Gerald Segelman) died and his heirs had an expert appraise and sell his extensive collection. The story, as I remember, is that the expert lied about the value of the violins and resold them at a huge profit.
This happened in England but the scandal involved an extremely reputable (at least prior to this) instrument dealer in Chicago. In the end the guilty parties were taken to civil court and forced to make restitution.
I don't recall if criminal charges were pursued. Here is link to one story about the events if anyone is interested.
http://www.fritz-reuter.com/articles/chicagotribune/dealers_gain_collectos_trustr.htm
At the time, the antiques world was shaken and there were discussions, and I think legal opinions, that paying anything less than 50% of an items value, if known to you, was subject to legal action.
This is all based on my memory from 15 years ago so I could be wrong on some of the details.
The violin market was rocked with a scandal in 1992 when a collector (Gerald Segelman) died and his heirs had an expert appraise and sell his extensive collection. The story, as I remember, is that the expert lied about the value of the violins and resold them at a huge profit.
This happened in England but the scandal involved an extremely reputable (at least prior to this) instrument dealer in Chicago. In the end the guilty parties were taken to civil court and forced to make restitution.
I don't recall if criminal charges were pursued. Here is link to one story about the events if anyone is interested.
http://www.fritz-reuter.com/articles/chicagotribune/dealers_gain_collectos_trustr.htm
At the time, the antiques world was shaken and there were discussions, and I think legal opinions, that paying anything less than 50% of an items value, if known to you, was subject to legal action.
This is all based on my memory from 15 years ago so I could be wrong on some of the details.
Years ago, I took my state's real estate training course and recall seeing a scenario like this straight from the textbook. Its a no brainer, unethical.
Seller contacts an agent to get help selling the house. Seller unknowingly price it below market, broker knowingly buys house undervalue and flips it to buyer. Agent betrayed his/her duty to represent the seller. Report to real estate board for disciplinary action. If the board acts on this, then agent most likely opened him/herself to legal action.
Seller contacts an agent to get help selling the house. Seller unknowingly price it below market, broker knowingly buys house undervalue and flips it to buyer. Agent betrayed his/her duty to represent the seller. Report to real estate board for disciplinary action. If the board acts on this, then agent most likely opened him/herself to legal action.
totally unethical
The dealer was called in as an expert. He almost certainly recognized the cue for what it was before asking her what she wanted for it. Because he had been called in as an expert it was his place to set the value.
I have purchased and been involved in the purchase of land for well under actual value. However, I was never called in as an expert and I never set the price on the land. In all cases when I looked at the land the price had already been set and I paid asking price. I have also bought hundreds of cars, mostly salvage. If someone asked me what a car I was interested in was worth, I told them. If they set the price, I bought or walked away. I never made any bones about buying at wholesale and selling at retail, that was what I was in business to do.
Ethics demand that when you are asked your expert opinion of the value of something you give it or tell the owner to get someone else to appraise it.
Hu
The dealer was called in as an expert. He almost certainly recognized the cue for what it was before asking her what she wanted for it. Because he had been called in as an expert it was his place to set the value.
I have purchased and been involved in the purchase of land for well under actual value. However, I was never called in as an expert and I never set the price on the land. In all cases when I looked at the land the price had already been set and I paid asking price. I have also bought hundreds of cars, mostly salvage. If someone asked me what a car I was interested in was worth, I told them. If they set the price, I bought or walked away. I never made any bones about buying at wholesale and selling at retail, that was what I was in business to do.
Ethics demand that when you are asked your expert opinion of the value of something you give it or tell the owner to get someone else to appraise it.
Hu
AtLarge said:
AtLarge said:
just lucky................. if you're selling anything it's your responsibility to know what it is and what it's worth. otherwise what ever happens to you is your own fault
cuenut said:
The estate dealer in this case is responsible for finding the value of the cue before listing it with a BIN price.
People are certainly responsible to find out the value of things BEFORE they offer them for sale.
In the case of the bilked widow the story seems to indicate that the "expert" short-changed her.
I was once asked to look at a cue and I honestly had no clue if it was an old Palmer or what. I gave the owner several places she could go to get more info and also told her she could list it on Ebay at no reserve and the people who know about such thing would bid accordingly. The cue sold for six or seven hundred. In the last hour of the auction it went from around 100 to the six or seven. When the guy received it he tried to get her to give the money back because he claimed it wasn't what he thought it was. She asked me what to do. I said don't refund the money because IF it had been what he thought it was and he turned around and sold it for $5000 he wouldn't be trying to split the profit.
She was very honest and put up the auction as an unknown cue and she answered every question and sent more pictures when she was asked to.
This is who I am when it comes to these things, if I go to a garage sale and see a Bushka priced at $5 then I am going to ask if they know what they are selling. If I see a $200 huebler for $5 then I buy it without telling them. Because I figure the Bushka is probably a gross mistake to be put out like that. But I wouldn't tell ANYONE that they are stealing if they were to buy it without saying a word. Because at the end of the day it's the people who own the item's responsibility to know the value of the things they own. If they are misled by an "expert" then that's a different story.
My mother would be very displeased with me for passing on a $5 Bushka as she made quite a good living buying people's real jewelry that they thought was junk for pennies and selling the pieces for hundreds. My mother was an expert appraiser and knew every price for antique jewelry. You'd be surprised how much some fake jewelry would go for in antique shops. But one thing my mom would NOT do is lie to someone if asked her opinion on the value of something. She would give her opinion and offer to broker the piece if they wanted, which they often did.
Last edited:
ShootingArts said:
i guess when you put it like that you could call it unethical. but really the dealer just did what he was supposed to do. Look after himself! it's his goal to make money not hold some ones hand as they liquidate their belongings
even if he was called in as an expert he doesn't have any sworn obligation to give her a fair price. he wasn't on some kind of retainer.
she really should have gotten a second opinion
it seems like the old woman was under the impression that people in the world would look out for her. that just isn't the case
poolplayer2093 said:
True but we have laws to protect us from fraud and theft. If someone takes advantage of another person's ignorance to steal their property then that deal can and often is rescinded by the courts.
In a civilized society we don't go around perpetrating fraud in the name of "looking out for number one". If you think that this is right then you have to also condone every form of con there is.
that is why it is called ethics
He didn't have a sworn obligation, he had an ethical obligation. He ducked that when he asked the lady to set the price. Had the lady set a price on the stick and the dealer came along and bought it, that would have been different. However he was called in for his expert opinion. Not giving it and purchasing the cue for a small fraction of it's value was unethical. That was the question raised by the OP, ethical or not? Clearly not in my opinion.
Hu
poolplayer2093 said:
He didn't have a sworn obligation, he had an ethical obligation. He ducked that when he asked the lady to set the price. Had the lady set a price on the stick and the dealer came along and bought it, that would have been different. However he was called in for his expert opinion. Not giving it and purchasing the cue for a small fraction of it's value was unethical. That was the question raised by the OP, ethical or not? Clearly not in my opinion.
Hu
Imo
Seems to me the reason KCD was there was to place an estimated value on the cue
Total scumbag
AtLarge said:
Seems to me the reason KCD was there was to place an estimated value on the cue
Total scumbag
- Status