I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
If the OP doesn't come back, we might never know absolutely & for sure, what the buyer's offer was, what the counter offer was and what the selling price was. Frustrating, isn't it, as I would sort of like to know now, I am curious.
My take on it is the buyer was quite prepared to buy second time around because he knew very well that the seller, as far as normal transactions go, was perfectly trustworthy. He knew that he had played a part in what transpired first time round, but he also knew the seller had not followed ebay procedure down to a tee and he wasn't given the extra 4 days he was told he had. He paid and was disappointed not to get his item.
The key to the second purchase is that possibly it isn't something that dozens of other sellers had available. And the buyer wanted it. This is a man who collects records. And despite his earlier comment, he knew very well if he paid for it promptly, then nothing should go wrong with the transaction.
If he simply wanted to make a purchase only in order to be able to give neg feedback or create problems, he could simply have bought one of the $5 or $10 items for the same effect. The seller has plenty of cheaper things.
So I guess my thoughts are more along the lines it was a buyer who was, to a certain extent, provoked. And it could all have been avoided. I know that isn't how others see it, they see it as a buyer deliberately buying in order to give bad feedback. I think there is definitely an element of 'Do that to me? take this!' in the feedback but should ebay remove it? I don't think so as it is a factual report of the transactions.
As i said though, just my take.
@springyzone wrote:
The key to the second purchase is that possibly it isn't something that dozens of other sellers had available. And the buyer wanted it. This is a man who collects records. And despite his earlier comment, he knew very well if he paid for it promptly, then nothing should go wrong with the transaction.
If he simply wanted to make a purchase only in order to be able to give neg feedback or create problems, he could simply have bought one of the $5 or $10 items for the same effect. The seller has plenty of cheaper things.
So I guess my thoughts are more along the lines it was a buyer who was, to a certain extent, provoked. And it could all have been avoided. I know that isn't how others see it, they see it as a buyer deliberately buying in order to give bad feedback. I think there is definitely an element of 'Do that to me? take this!' in the feedback but should ebay remove it? I don't think so as it is a factual report of the transactions.
As i said though, just my take.
I checked for the title for average prices, sales history and all that yesterday, but there are no others currently listed on eBay, the only other one recently sold was a reissue that went for about $40, and the cheapest price I saw it for on another platform was over $300, so it's plausible the buyer was interested in the item, but I still doubt the buyer's motivation - if it is at less than half the next cheapest price I could get something I wanted, I doubt I'd bother making an offer, and if I had already been burned by a seller, but really wanted another item they had, I'd probably send a message with snarky undertones (something like "well, if I buy this one, will you actually send it to me this time?" sort to thing, even if just to see if they were prepared to sell to me again.
I mean, the buyer doesn't forget that they left a neg the first time around, nor that the seller is capable of refunding an order and not sending it (and many people would in fact go ahead and not follow through with a buyer who had already caused trouble for them, even if the seller contributed to that trouble), so why wouldn't you try to make sure the second transaction will go smoothly. And if you really wanted an item, why would you leave a neg for it immediately upon purchase and give the seller zero incentive to follow through - if a buyer did that to me, they would guarantee the second transaction is cancelled. So that indicates to me someone who is thinking less about an item they want, and more about hurting the seller, which in turn = vindictive.
I presume the buyer did not pay for the second purchase, otherwise I doubt the seller's first conclusion would have been that the buyer is simply harassing them, and there are plenty of reasons a buyer would want to target a seller's most expensive item if indeed they were trying to harass them. If they had no intention of paying for it, they may not be aware that a neg will be removed at the end of the UPI process, so if the neg disappears in a few days, we may at least be able to speculate it was because the buyer never paid. 
