used when promised new

I ordered .5m pair of Cardas Golden Reference interconnects from an Audiogoner We negotiated through email and came up with the price of $375 NEW. Well, I got the cables, timely, but they are not new. They are in absolutely fabulous condition, but they are definitely not new. They were also packaged poorly with no Cardas literature. No nothing. I emailed my disappointment, and have not gotton a response yet. This is going to be my first time giving a negative response on "feedback." Isn't this appropriate, even if amends are made. Am I being fair? Is there, really, any reason to hear an explanation? Even if he makes good $$wise, he still lied to me. I would appreciate feedback from you guys.
thanks in advance,
If infact the cables are not new--he misrepresented the product. You need to give him negative feedback to keep everyone in check. Zero tolerance is the only way to keep up the integrity of this wonderful website that we all enjoy so much! Do the right thing.
Warren, I wished you purchased my Golden Ref :-)
Did the ad or an email actually say they are new?
I guess if it were me and I was happy with the condition, I might just send an email saying you were thinking new when you got excellent condition used. On a positive note, they might be broken in already. If you are happy with the cables, I don't know that I would make a huge deal out of it. Negative feedback is taken pretty seriously around here I gather.
I can understand your point of view. IMO could go either way since the cables are in "fabulous condition." If things went down as you said they did, you are at least owed an apology. I guess it's up to you about the feedback, but as George Bush said: "There is a saying in Texas. Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me twice....................if you fool me once, you can't get fooled again."

It's probably not worth negative feedback. Of course, if it's as described, you should feel somewhat misled. It's best if we are totally honest in our dealings here.
Perhaps a neutral feed back might be in order?
Playing the devil's advocate (pun intended) he may have opened the Cardas package, tried them in his system for a very brief period, then schuffled them to the side with all of his other unused cables, and then months later when he decided to sell them, he remembered them as "new" because (in effect) he never used them. He then listed them quite honestly, sold them to you quite honestly, and then only when it was time to pack them did he discover that he had lost the Cardas literature. In the meantime, of course, he's been too busy (trying out all sorts of other cables) to send you a simple two line email to let you know that (line one) he searched the world over but could not find the original packaging and (line two) to offer profuse appologies for what you might objectively interpret as a misrepresentation. Otherwise he lied.
I second neutral feedback and I'll add that I find the idea of zero tolerance intolerable.
Unsound took the words right out of my keyboard. A neutral with a short explanation might suffice.
I'm with unsound on this. You might consider neutral feedback stating Cables arrived in excellent condition abut not new as promised. Or at least something of that nature. That way it provides the seller a heads up essentially telling him/her this is unacceptable as well as cautioning other potential buyers with out being harsh.

Although, I would assume any idiot would realize that new and used once or twice isn't the same. There are some people out there who lack the cognative ability to distinguish. A little case and point, How often do you see things listed as "new" (particulary on E-bay) and then later in the ad stating "only used once"? I beleive if you were to keep track the results would startle you.

Happy Listening,

I guess Jond would have no problem listing an item as new, but was really used! How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot? If it's not NEW don't list it as such. Most of us are smart enough to know the difference. If this sort of deception is condoned it lets the whole website down and makes a joke out of the Audiogon grading system. That is my last word on this very dissappointing situation.
Another thought on universality (is that a word?) of definitions. There are many forms of the word "New" that can be easily understood by potential buyers if the seller is clear in his or her communication.

In simple terms, "New" (to me) means "New, unopened, and unused" or "New in box" like I would expect to find the item in a retail store or if I were to buy directly from the manufacturer. All shipping materials and literature should be included if the term "New" is used by the seller without any modification or explanation.

If the item has been opened only for inspection purposes, then the seller should describe the item is "New and unused, but opened only for inspection". If the seller does not have the original packaging, then he or she could add, "I don't have the original packaging". Tell it like it is!
If the item has been used in any way, shape, or form (even if for a 5 minute test) then the seller should describe it as "As new" or "New demo" or whatever phrase best describes the reality. Audiogon ads are not priced per word!
neutral feedback with a cautionary warning to the seller that "new" does not mean "used - good". Even an "as new" would have been acceptable, but you were definitely mislead. Would also be interesting to know who you were dealing with Warren. Point the seller toward this thread, & if still no response then please name names.
It's done. Negative feedback. I have to be fair to other Audiophools, regardless of how I feel. It's the principle. I'm letting go now. Won't by from John anymore. You're on your own. I owe you guys the truth...You'll do the right thing...
WmMcmanus hit it on the head. New is New, not opened, if it touched the other end of a component and had a signal put throught it, it is used. "Practically new, used 5 mins"....I would handle it this way...what does the cable cost new? With cables, it is the lastest and current model, I would pay 70% of New Retail. I would expect to pay at least 50% off for a Used cable if not more. If he charged you 70% or more of Retail and called it "New" I would leave Negative Feedback. If he was calling it "New" but priced say 50% of Retail, I would leave Neutral Feedback. Regardless, you have a valid Beef and some of the earlier posts concern me, this is Black and White. New means New.
Another vote here for neutral feedback. The product will serve you well, however, it is not quite as represented. My vote is cast as an individual who buys on Audiogon with the intent of using the products I purchase.

There is probably a valid legal question here. You cannot responsibly resell these as "new" yourself, and therefore have incurred a financial loss as a result of the misrepresentation of the product.

Even so, it seems a shame to blackball someone who actually provided quality merchandise.
I have to disagree with you Warrenh. It seems like you may have fallen for an old sales ploy. My curiosity got the best of me, so I checked out the ad. It does not claim NEW. The ad states 'This exquisite cable is like NEW. Rating is 9.9/10, it is in Absolutely Mint like New Condition'. I don't read this as NEW. Condition is clearly stated as 10/10, not NEW. It seems that you misunderstood the Audiogon rating system and the seller is now the recipient of your misjudged anger. You should be more careful and ask more questions before purchasing. If you read the ad as I do, you'll see he never claimed it was NEW. Only LIKE NEW, which a 10/10 rating should be. Now you left someone negative feedback because of YOUR misunderstanding. If I were him, I would have to contest that negative feedback.
In the future, ask more questions. Some sellers are jerks and respond rudely to questions, but it's far better to be clearer upfront, then to realize there was a miscommunication later. Maybe you should contact Agon and see if you can retract the negative feedback. What I see warrants nothing more than a neutral, at worst.

I'm not here to come out as the bad guy. Through email he said very clearly that they were new. His apology, just recieved, indicated he made a mistake and sent me demo rather than NEW. Clear? His ad had nothing to do with my "misunderstanding." It was a verbal NEW.
To Itsalldark, I understand your point, but it's a cable. What I really had an issue with is zero tolerance. I'm no believer in absolutes, people deserve to occasionally make mistakes, that's all. BTW you can check my feedback if you like.
sometimes i go to cheap stores such Marshall's or Daffy's and wonder if the clothes they sell are new...
To Jond, it's not about you--it's about a member who should know all about the grading scale, and chose to ignore it for personal gain and whats worse to deceive a fellow member! I think we all know the difference between new and almost new. The ad should have been worded to state the truth---like new would have been much better. I know I am very careful whenever I list anything and always error to the conservative side just to be sure. When I sell something I want that person to be really happy about the purchase and I would expect the same in return. Now this is really my last word on the subject, have a great holiday and good listening to all !!
I withdraw my very first post. The item clearly stated "like New". No where in the ad does it say the item is "New in Box or Package." I do believe negative feedback was very unfairly left. Especially considering your explanation of their good condition.
What was the discount of the sale price vs. retail?kkk

Between this and some of the recent disputes being listed, I'm glad I've been happy with my system lately and not buying or selling. Geez, people are sensitive right now! If you buy on Audiogon, you have to do your homework. Nobody should out and out lie, and maybe that's what happened here. But given the liberal use of "new" as an adjective, I'd never buy something here under the impression that it was new without asking, "Is it still in the original packaging and has it never been removed from that packaging?" If somebody answers yes to both those questions and then you get unpackaged, incomplete "perfect condition" product, you've been out and out lied to.

Maybe I'm too lenient, but you don't need to hand out a negative feedback in this case to protect me, as a fellow Audiogoner. I've had lots worse things happen to me than getting something in perfect condition.
$680 new item for $375, and from a non authorized dealer?
This is a clear warning in itself.
With this new information I also have to reconsider my advise."Like New" is not "New". Did you receive a product in "Like New" condition? If you did then you have no complaint and should retract your negative feedback.
I to must retract my statement. If the ad stated "like new" then there is nothing to talk about and this thread is pointless. At this juncture the negative feedback should be removed ASAP.
Warrenh, in your original post you mentioned that "We negotiated through email and came up with the price of $375 NEW." What you did not mention was how you learned about the item for sale?

I assume that you learned, like we all do, by reading an ad here on Audiogon, and then responding to that ad. Unfortunately, that ad was just taken off of Audiogon moments ago (I guess because the item is now sold) but I checked the language of the ad out and the wording was exactly as Jmcgrogan2 states in his post above. I wish you could all still see the ad! The ad I read was for these same cables and was listed for $375 (no negotiation that I can see from the listed price). There was no fine print. It stated clearly that the cables were "like new" and in the description they were "rated 9.9/10" and "in absolutely mint like new condition." The ad also mentioned that all items that were in stock were either "brand new" or "like new" (implying clearly that if this item was advertised as "like new" then it could not be "brand new" since that was the only other option of the two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options that the seller provides). I mean to tell you folks, the ad was great and it hit you over the head several times and in big bold print. It did what I suggested above in terms of explaining clearly what exactly was being offered. Since the seller is a dealer with several other Cardas ads on Audiogon, the only logical assumption would be that these were demo cables, and as such, may or may not have come with the original packaging and literature. This was not addressed by the ad. You should have asked if it was a concern.

What frustrates me about this thread is that (like several other people) I took the time to give my opinion and advice (above) based on what was stated by the thread's originator (before reading the ad). If it were not for Jmcgrogan2's post, I would not have had the chance to see the facts for myself. Warrenh, you didn't tell it like it is, which you have to do if you want our honest feedback. You claim that this person misrepresented the product to you, but clearly (based on the ad) he did not.

You, in fact, misrepresented his representations to us! And even based on the half-truth version of the facts as they were presented to us, the majority view seemed to be that neutral feedback with an explanation was in order. Yet, despite soliciting our advice publicly, you went against it and gave negative feedback, and then made matters worse by broadcasting it, and by doing so, led us to the identity of your seller who now has received unwarrented negative feedback and is also the victim of a defamatory thread.

Clearly, you were disappointed that you did not receive new cables as you had expected. I understand your frustration, but as has been pointed out by others, you should not give negative feedback to someone based on your misunderstanding when, in fact, the ad very clearly stated the truth, or at least enough of the truth to draw out your questions about the condition of the product.

In my opinion, you should:

1. Ask Audiogon to remove the negative feedback that you have given, and
2. Issue and apology.

What a shame that the ad has been removed.

Having said all of that, I could be wrong. If you did in fact come to a different understanding with the seller in your email communication than what was stated in the ad, and if your emails clearly indicate an agreement that you were buying "New" cables (full stop), then clearly I'm wrong for being so harsh. Every point I've made above is based on my reading of the plain language of the ad. I may not know all of the facts.
Warrenh; How do you tell "absolutely fabulous condition" from "like new"? I agree with the well thought out Jmgrogan2 post.

Negative Feedback is a very serious smear on someone's reputation here on Audiogon, and it appears that not much was done to resolve the issue between buyer and seller.

Personally, I would go to great length before zapping someone with negative feedback, and especially when I got a product in "absolutely fabulous condition". I would still hope you and seller can reach an accomodation and then request that Audiogon Staff delete the negative feedback. If the seller is not responsive, no worse than neutral feedback would even be in order, IMO. Craig
Get a is USED gear! If it works,looks good(no cuts,sratches etc.)and you use the item...SHUT-UP and be happy. Don't make trouble or ruin things on this great website.
Finding this thread intriguing, I just looked at the ad by Trancehits, as well as the mutual negative feedback involved. Unless the ad has since been changed, it merely states a scale rating of 10/10, with no descriptive language used about the condition.

However, what none of us posters here know for sure, is what was contained in the negotiation correspondence Warrenh refers to. If Warren merely assumed that the cables must have been represented as being literally "New" because of their AGS rating, then he is in error and should either contact Audiogon about the possibility of correcting the feedback situation, or post a followup feedback making amends.

OTOH, it's important to realize that even if the emails between Warrenh and Trancehits did in fact describe the cables as being "new" rather than "like new", the possibility nevertheless still exists that the two of them were just getting crossed up over an honest semantics problem, rather than anyone attempting intentional misrepresentation. There does exist an AGS rating of "NEW" sans any number scale, and it would have been reasonable (and correct) for Trancehits to assume that Warrenh knew that 10/10 implied the cables had been opened and used some. If Warrenh was ignorant of this fact, it would have been reasonable (if incorrect) for him to assume that the cables were unopened and unused. If they both proceeded on these assumptions, then they could well have done all their negotiations and consumated the deal without either one ever realizing that each of them was assuming things not apparent to the other, and they could therefore have been operating under different contextual notions about the meaning of the word "new".

So (and assuming the ad was the same at the time of the transaction), only if their correspondence contained clearly explicit language stating that the cables were never opened, never used, or some such equivalent, rather than just referring to them somewhat ambiguously as "new" or even "brand new" - which may very well have been an appropriate description if Trancehits had bought them as the original owner mere days or weeks before offering them for sale *and* was proceeding on the assumption that Warrenh knew he had tried them out - only then does Warrenh IMHO have nothing to apologize for (and Trancehits would have some explaining to do). Otherwise, I think Warrenh should recognize the possibility of some error on his part concerning the AGS scale, and that the possibility exists that this all could have gone down exactly the way he thought it did, yet Trancehits could have been perfectly honest all along - as well as that this situation should have been worked out in private between the two of them with a little more effort before going negative on a fellow member. As usual, quality, careful, and detailed communication is everything when it comes to transaction satisfaction!
based upon this newly revealed information I retract my previous comment regarding neutral feedback & now in fact side with the seller, who should if anything have received POSITIVE feedback. The buyer can still post a positive followup, although not completely within the guidelines of one feedback per transaction, that could be overlooked & in this case would probably be the right thing to do.
Warrenh, why didn't you submit this to Audiogon for its standard dispute resolution process. It's not at all fair (to the seller and to your fellow Audiogoners) to hear just one side of the story.
Warrenh, thanks for your follow-up reply. This clarifies that your understanding of the transaction had nothing to do with the original ad. This is good to know. It's also comforting to know that you have received an apology from Trancehits. That was good of him since it was he who made the mistake. It's nice to have all of the facts assembled.

(BTW, Zaikesman, the ad that you see now is not the same one that Jmcgrogan2 referred to and that I had seen prior to its disappearance)

If I could summarize, the ad that some of us latched onto mentioned that Trancehits sells both 1) "like new" (what we now know as "demo" per Warrenth's most recent post) and 2) "brand new" cables. In that ad, which was the basis of my lengthy objections, the item for sale was of the "like new" variety. Per Warrenh's most recent post, however, their agreement via email was clearly for "new" cables by which both parties understood as "brand new" and thus the apology from Trancehits for mistakenly sending demos. Fair enough, Trancehits has lots of postiive feedback and we all make mistakes. I suspect his was an honest one.

It's too bad that this thread drew in so much speculation about what the facts really were. It's also too bad that the issues couldn't be resolved privately or through the dispute resolution process. Yet, it provides some great points that we all should learn from: negative feedback is a serious thing; a seller needs to have an opportunity to address any issues that that buyer has with his or her performance; clear communication is the key to successful transactions; and everyone here wants this to site to continue to be the best place to buy and sell!

I think we can all be friends again...
Obviously, my last post was composed before Warrenh posted the third time. There's definitely something to be said for talking things out in private, especially via phone if necessary, before jumping to conclusions. I think we're all getting along fine now, amen to the peace brother...
In light of recent posts, if this actually comes up for discussion as a formal dispute, I would be inclined to side with the seller as well.
As a way to avoid this type of thing happening, I always have a money-back guarantee with every item I sell on this site. In this case, if Warrenh was unhappy with the deal, he could have returned the item for a full refund, less shipping, and the seller could have sold them to someone else, who would have been happy with them. All of these problems could have been eliminated that way. Nobody would have gotten bad feedback, and everyone would have been satisfied. As a seller, I am interested in having the buyer be as happy as I was with the product, and have no interest in just "getting over" on another member. Not saying that Trancehit was doing this. But a satisfaction guarantee shows that the seller stands behind his item, and the buyer does have some recourse other than bad feedback. Yes, I have gotten some items returned to me, and I was quite cheerful about returning the money. Another person bought the item and was happy with it. So everybody wins. Since this is a membership website, I think that extra courtesy should prevail, and go the extra mile to satisfy. This applies to both buyer and seller.

So my feeling on this is that the seller should have guaranteed his product to be satisfactory, and Warrenh probably should have been a little more accepting of the situation. It is likely that if the seller offered to refund the money, that Warrenh would have probably kept the cables anyway, since they were in perfect condition, and he had what he wanted. It's not like a cable is going to go bad if it was plugged in a couple of times.

A few dollars on a used item is not worth a bad feedback listing for either party involved.
Deals on Audiogon get enthusiastic positive feedback both directions regularly when the items are in "absolutely fabulous condition" delivered in a "timely" manner at 45% off list!

"Like New" and "10/10" from the ad are the only credible facts.
The seller should dispute this if the buyer doesn't make an effort to withdraw the seemingly unwarranted negative feedback.
I wish to thank my fellow audiophools for their insights. I over reacted and learned a valuable lesson at another audiopool's exspense. I could (should) have handled this, too, via email. I didn't get a response quickly enough, and subsequently over reacted. I want to offer a formal apology to my fellow audiophools. I took giving negative feedback, too lightly, and I shouldn't have. You've helped me see the light.
Well said, warrenh.
I asked the Audiogon Brass to change the feedback (keeping the copy the same) from negative to neutral. They did....

its refreshing to see someone admit to an error and take responsibility. im also glad the feedback was changed.


It seems that you are not detail oriented (anal), but think that "as new" should have been the representation for this transaction. I hope this was the gist of your feedback and nothing more. I decree: JUSTIFIED! Note- nobody cares what I think, here or elsewhere.
Good move Warrenh. Bravo for you. It takes a big man to step back, analyze a situation from a non-biased point of view, and then to admit that he may have acted to hastily. My hats off to you.

Good of you Warrenh, I'd do business with you anytime.
Your thoughtful words are most appreciated.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate!" Famous line uttered by Paul Newman in the movie Cool Hand Luke. Above situation is a perfect example of this. I don't know about you but I think 90% of todays problems are do to poor communication. People don't get all the facts, misunderstand what is communicated, infer incorrect assumptions without verifying details, impose their mindset/experiences on the subject matter, etc,etc,etc. I'm glad the above situation resolved itself satisfactorily. It cheers me to see people of integrity take resonsibility for their actions. Not a common occurrance these days. Also nice to see this handled in a responsible manner without a childish flame war.
Thank you..