ebay vs audiogon

I too have used both services. I have been a buyer on Audiogon and both buyer/seller on eBay (under the same handle - "treyhoss"). I decided to sell on EBay based on the fact I would see similar equipment bring more money on Ebay than Agon.
As far as the Paypal fees, I can see where some sellers would ask people to pay for these (I'm not one of them - yet). I always put mine up in the auction format with no reserve and beginning at a reasonable price as I have found this brings the most attention. However, in the auction format after you factor in the EBay listing fees, settlement fees, shipping fees (which most honest sellers can end up getting screwed on) and then an additional 3% for Paypal, you end up netting far less than you expected. It may sound cheap to ask for the 3% but if you're the buyer you need to know the terms of sale.
On a $500 item why should I be out another $15 just because someone wants to pay me with Paypal? The whole reason I even accept Paypal is because I got sick of people asking if I took Paypal - even after saying I didn't in the listing!!!! ...but that's another post:-)

I had the Paypal account before the "premier" account and kept it that way as well until about 6 months ago. I was able to receive bank transfers via Paypal and it was free. The thing that "forced" me to go to the Premier account is that I had a few "high ticket" items I had for sale and even though I had, in HUGE font, "I only accept Paypal IF...". I had it in the description and I had it in the payment methods, clear as day. When the auctions ended, 3 of the 5 people sent me credit card payments which I couldn't accept (stupidity at large is amazing). Make a long story short, after several listings and the same problem always creeping up, I decided to go with the flow. I have been paying 3% ever since - even for bank transfers.

Most of the stuff I was selling was under the $500, but you are right Bluefin, this was another reason for the "upgrade" for that particular transaction.

My take on this from a seller's perspective is that while having the cash in hand quickly is satisfying for the seller, it comes not only with the 3% charge but the buyer's right of refusal, backed by the credit card company, if the buyer doesn't like the item. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about consumer's rights and if I were buying a high ticket item, I'd be inclined to pay by credit card for the purpose of not getting burned. But as a "non-business" seller, by accepting credit card payments I could open myself up to major headaches if the buyer decides he didn't like the item (finding it "defective"). I believe under the Paypal rules, the credit card company, after being contacted by the buyer, can go to Paypal who will then get into your (the seller) personal bank account which is linked to Paypal, to reclaim the funds. As the seller, you're now out the equipment, the money AND that 3%!

The bottom line for me is, with so much "protection" afforded the buyer in a credit card transaction and so little "protection" for the seller in this, asking the buyer to pay the 3% (which the buyer doesn't get anyway!) is a drop in the bucket.

The only happy medium I can think of IF someone wants to pay by credit card is to ask they send you a check. You know, one of those checks the credit card companies send you with your bill saying it can be used "for anything...".

If you deposit that into your account and wait for it to clear, it should be OK. You get "good money" assuming the person doesn't go over their credit limit and the buyer still enjoys the "financing" aspect of the purchase. Just a thought:-)