Re-posting item at triple the original posting

[dmc6410]

I bid on a set of crampons originally advertised at $50 the winning bid was $87, not my bid. The exact same item was then re-advertised after bidding ended at $150. Is this ethical and how can it be allowed if someone won the bid with $87? - unless of course the owner was upping the bid and nor satisfied with the $87 winning cost.  I was not able to leave any negative feedback for the seller because there was no transaction between us but this behaviour should be highlighted and the seller held accountable.

[repentatleisure1952]

---

@dmc6410 wrote:

ok thanks

---

Looks like the space will stay empty. Sorry Watson but I have failed.

I do agree with Lyndall......the item belongs to the buyer & they can do as they choose.........grrrrrrrr.....grrrrr.......

[dmc6410]

Thanks for those with positive comments - yes I was outbid and lost on the item (and it wasn't well and truly i actually bid $85 - $3 bucks less than winning bid)i - as i have many other items - there is no sour grapes there.

The item is pretty unique and it would be highly improbable seller would have two exact same items. I am questioning the ethics of an original posting of $50 a winning bid of $87 and then a relisting of same item at $150. Not being overly familiar with the ebay process I was just wondering if this was a common or acceptable process.  

[lyndal1838]

Your memories of the bidding are a bit hazy.....the winner bid $87.98 and your highest bid was $86.98 which was one bid increment below the winner.

You have no idea what the winner's highest bid was as it is the second highest bidder (in this case, you) who sets the winning price.

You also have no way of knowing why the sale fell through...it could have been a mutual cancellation or the item was unsuitable when the buyer collected it.  There is nothing suspicious about the fact that the seller relisted 3 days later at a higher price.  The fact that they did not sell at the higher price only tells me that the buyers did not think they were worth that price.

[digital*ghost]

---

@dmc6410 wrote:

The item is pretty unique and it would be highly improbable seller would have two exact same items. I am questioning the ethics of an original posting of $50 a winning bid of $87 and then a relisting of same item at $150. 

---

To paraphrase what lyndal has already said, you are simply making assumptions based on circumstantial evidence. 

Improbable doesn't = definitely not, which means there's a chance (however small) that the seller has additional items. 

You can't question the ethics of actions when you're not fully informed of the reasons behind someone's actions, it's as simple as that.

I question the ethics of wanting to leave negative feedback for a seller when you have no idea what went on with the transaction. 

It may well be that the auction was shilled, the seller may have backed out of the sale, none of us know for sure, and probably never will. IMO it's far better not to allow suspicions to become assumptions and then foregone conclusions... That's the sort of thing that got Othello in trouble (and poor ol' - innocent - Desdemona dead ). 

[dmc6410]

Wow - there are obviously more experts in mountaineering and crampons out there than I realised - silly me jumping to the conclusion that these were the same item, what would i know - being a different set of identical crampons in a pretty unique and specialised area never occurred to me - thanks for setting me straight ghosty dude - just to be clear the crampon is an ice climbing TOOL - Old mate reposted the item at triple the price and didn't sell it simple as that.- in the world I live in mate that's just not the right thing to do

[digital*ghost]

---

@dmc6410 wrote:

Wow - there are obviously more experts in mountaineering and crampons out there than I realised - silly me jumping to the conclusion that these were the same item, what would i know - being a different set of identical crampons in a pretty unique and specialised area never occurred to me - thanks for setting me straight ghosty dude - just to be clear the crampon is an ice climbing TOOL - Old mate reposted the item at triple the price and didn't sell it simple as that.- in the world I live in mate that's just not the right thing to do

---

In your rush to respond to me with nothing but sarcasm, you managed to miss the main point I was trying to make...

How about I put it like this, then:

Who was the buyer that actually won the item, and why didn't they get the item they bid on?

Are your answers to these questions verifiable facts or assumptions? If the former, ok then. If the latter.... I stand by my previous post.

[timberman-2009]

my guess is he thought it would sell for more than 100 and didnt set a reserve so he either put a bid on himself or cancelled the winning bid and readvertized it as 150,either way just call it lesson learnt

[lyndal1838]

There are no Reserves on ebay.au except on vehicles and real estate.

Your Reserve is your starting price.

[timberman-2009]

well that would explain why it was readvertized at 150

[khani808]

Wow, you're making a lot of assumptions here. Sure, the seller could have been shill bidding, but sales fall through very frequently as well. Sometimes buyers don't get in touch, or are unable to pick up for several weeks/months etc etc.

The seller may well have decided that since there was interest in the item and it didn't sell (for whatever reason), he might as well re-list them at a higher price and see who bids.

Quite frankly, if I was in his position, I wouldn't reply to you either.