1975 $50.00 bills

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I recently won two auctions on a very popular on-line auction site. Each auction was for a 1975 $50 bill with an opening bid set at $10 and no reserve.  My winning bids plus a $16 shipping charge for each totalled approximately $68 combined, resulting in getting these for appox. $32 less than face value. (I'm paying in U.S. funds but the 2 currencies are close to even.)  I was surprised, but the auctions ended on a Friday night when most people are probably doing more exciting things!

Made payment but seller refunded, then invoiced for a total of $136. Winning bids of $36 plus $100 shipping. Seller mistakenly felt they could "adjust" winning price to a "fair" value. Seller said that I was still getting a "deal" because they were worth $90 apiece. Seller refused to sell at the winning bid.  I am in the process of trying to reach a settlement.

I have a Charlton catalog, so could determine the value based on condition, but I am not sure of the condition. Description said that the seller had since "day 1 from the bank", but that really doesn't mean anything.  From the pictures they appear they might be UNC or possibly AU, but I am a novice collector. The pictures can be seen at the auction website by looking at my user name (same as here)and seeing the feedback I have left for others.

If possible, could someone here look at the pictures and give me their best guess as to their condition?

Thanks.

It’s unfortunate that you’re not having a good purchase experience. I’ve always personally found it risky when people start their bids lower than face value. This obviously draws some attention to the auction but in your case it worked against the seller and now he’s trying to back track. I do think he should honor the auction since he put himself at risk but I’m not sure if it’s worth all the trouble to try and get him to honor the sell. My concern would be that if he did honor the auction you might not get the notes you expected. Why would he send you a nice Unc note for under face when he could send you a sub Unc note just to keep you quiet. I would say chop it up to experience and simply move on and don’t buy from this seller again. The bright side is that you’re not out any money, some have learnt the hard way by losing money on a transaction.

MG

Personally I wouldn't even give the seller the satisfaction of buying the notes.
I know having an auction close on a Friday is something I would not do...People usually have other things to do Friday nights and last Friday the Torex show was in TO which also may have some small effect on bidding as well...
OMO
FRIEDSQUID

Thanks for the responses. I even offered to let the seller back out of one auction and follow through with the other. Since they were so rude and belligerent in their emails, I thought I would pursue it further so they may learn a lesson. Even if they crumpled them up and spit on them before they sent them to me, I would still be ahead and they couldn't profit from them further.

I had them on my watch list, got home from my son's baseball game and saw they were selling for $10.00 with 20 minutes left to go. I thought, even if I didn't win, I would be helping the seller out by at least bumping the price up substantially. Looking at the seller's description they had noted "lowest price" and "bid starting well below value." In some of their other previous auctions they noted "no reserve", so that shows they are familiar with the reserve concept.

Anyway, this hasn't discouraged me. As I said in my first post here in the general forum, I think I am now hooked on collecting. This forum has been a wealth of knowledge and hopefully I may be able to contribute something.

Am I confused here? You bought the notes on an auction with no reserve and won them at less than the seller wanted and now you should be trying to make a deal to get the notes? No damn way, he/she sold them and you bought them end of story why should you be doing anything other than demand what you paid for? If its E---- you can file a complaint and take it all the way, if you were a bidder and did not pay holy hell would rain down on you. I would not let this go no way, and I must say I am a little taken aback by some of the responses. Tongue in cheek or ? If someone is stupid enough to list something under value and you bid and get it thats being a trouble maker, I don`t think so.
Posted by: mmars    Posted on: Today at 06:10:28 PM
 Quote
I have no sympathy for buyers who try to get notes for under face value.

I have no sympathy for buyers who try to get notes for under face value.  Censored.

I would generally agree with you, except in the case of an auction where the seller sets the opening bid for less than face value and no reserve. The seller does that at their own risk in hopes that their auction generates attention to get more bids in hopes that the selling price gets driven up higher because there are competing bidders.  Sometimes you win at that game and sometimes you lose.  I wonder how many times if the bids drove the price up to well above fair market value, the seller adjusts the final price down to what they think think is fair.

Just because the note has a printed value on it doesn't exempt it from selling below its value. It is really no different than if someone puts a 1 carat diamond ring up for auction and it ends up selling for $100.

In a non-auction setting, if someone offered a seller less than face value for a note, then I agree that would be an insult and would have no sympathy for the buyer.

I personally don't have much sympathy for someone insulting or rude, no matter how senior a member on a forum they are.

To me, one has to follow the rules of the game. If an item sells for less than the seller expects, the seller has 2 options: (1) Honor the deal as taking the risk does not always pay off, or (2) Get a negative. Yes, the seller can and probably should attempt to minimize the loss and try to make a deal with the buyer, but the buyer should not be expected to agree to it. After all, a deal is a deal. 

Contrary to what many online auction buyers believe, there's absolutely no impetus to make a seller honour any of their listings.  Check the Terms of Use for clarification.

I would really be interested in seeing where it says this . Could  you back up this claim and quote the paragraph where you read it  ?

Selling & buying is full of risks ,just like everythng else. If your not willing to accept them ,then you shouldn't be buying or selling.

I Remember seeing these two bills with a lil over an hour left going for $10. I was intrigued but when i switched the shipping cost from u.s to canada it went from $16 to ship to the u.s. to $65 to ship to canada even though the seller was located in Ontario. I figured he was just trying to take advantage of an inexperienced buyer who wouldn't notice the shipping cost and just think the themselves wow I can buy a $50 for $30 I'll make $20.

Since this thread turned towards the ethics of buying and selling on auctions. Let me ask this, hypothetically:

Auction 1: 2004 $20.00 plain jane VF bill. Seller starts bids at $10.00; auction closes at $17.00.

Auction 2: 1935 $20.00 in UNC condition. Seller starts bids at $10.00; auction closes at $75.00. (Because all the knowledgeable bidders are at Torex show.  )

It seems some people would suggest that the buyer in Auction 1 should at least pay $20.00 because that is face value.  For those that think that, what should buyer in Auction 2 pay? Seller in Auction 1 lost $3 vs true value. Seller in Auction 2 lost significantly more vs. true value, but they did receive more than face value.

If both buyers pay the closing auction price, is the auction 1 buyer "worse" than the buyer in auction 2?

I think if the closing auction price on all auctions isn't at the value that the transaction takes place, the whole auction process is undermined, and each auction win would move to a further negotiation between the buyer and the seller, when someone wasn't satisfied with what they paid/received.

I have been to other auctions (ie not paper money ones) and even if items have no reserve bids and you are the only bidder that bids a price that the auctioneer is not happy with for that item, they just leave the item on the side as unsold....Personally I think that if an item is being auctioned without a reserve bid or starting price the sale should be completed regardless of how under priced the item sold for...and regardless whether only one person bid....that's what an auction is....
...and by boosting your shipping costs to try to cover the loss is BS....
OMO......
FRIEDSQUID

There are sellers out there that will honour there sales no matter what...those are the ones you want to deal with.... I'm sure everyone remembers the fairly recent solid that was sold by a US seller for next to nothing......

I can't speak to the terms and rules of other auctions but here is a direct quote excerpted from the eBay user agreement.

"Using eBay
While using eBay sites, services and tools, you will not:

fail to deliver items purchased from you, unless the buyer fails to meet the posted terms, or you cannot authenticate the buyer's identity;"

The seller sets the terms of the listing that presumably they would be comfortable with following.

I would guess that if you didn't follow the terms of the user agreement, eBay could suspend your account if they chose to do so. I would say that sellers and buyers are married to eBay to the extent of having to follow the terms of the user agreement that were agreed to when setting up an account.

I would consider any sale where the final price is below face value to be null and void.

I have to disagree.  If a seller of anything wants to get a minimum value for it in an auction, he needs to either place a reserve amount, or start the auction at the price he wants.  Starting lower with no reserve to attract attention to his auction is a gamble; it may result in more interest and more competitive bidding, but it increases the risk of the seller not getting what he wants for it.  If a seller wants to take that gamble then that's his prerogative.  But I don't think the seller should have any recourse should he lose that gamble.  Chalk it up as one lost; better luck with that technique next time.

I would leave negative feedback for any seller that refused my winning bid because it wasn't as high as he wanted.  Even if my winning bid was for less than face value.

I would leave negative feedback for any seller that refused my winning bid because it wasn't as high as he wanted.  Even if my winning bid was for less than face value.

Hear, hear!  But in the seller's defence, the original listing for each of these $50 notes DOES indicate that the shipping is $65.  Agreed, that is a very excessive amount, but if I were to consider bidding on the items, I would have confirmed the shipping cost before bidding.  The way the seller's listings were written, the winning bidder would agree to pay $130 shipping for both notes plus the winning bid amounts.