why are sellers to be trusted, but buyers are not?

Maybe as buyers we should pay half upfront and then another half after receiving the item in stated condition. Not going to happen, I guess.

Yeah, credit cards are usually fine to pay with. Paypal too.

I had two exceptions to this buyer sends money first rule.

Many years ago when I sent my Nakamichi deck to Willy Hermann for service for the first time, he sent it back to me before I had any opportunity to mail him a check. It was so usual that I asked him. He said : " You know, I have found the owners of high end Nakamichi decks to be a very trustworthy group, have never had problems of this kind with them".

Another example was when an Audiogon member selling Echole cables suggested he send them to me and if I wanted to keep  them I would pay, if not - returned them to him. Great cables, by the way, but too damn expensive. So I declined his offer but was really impressed and told him so. This too happened a long time ago.

I have luckily never had a problem as either a buyer or a seller.  I just made a  large purchase ($16K+), and checked out the feedback of the seller, spoke with him on the phone, checked that the phone number was indeed registered to the seller, and made note of the responsiveness to my emails.  All of those indicated a reputable seller and I sent the money by wire.  What I am wondering is why buyers and sellers do not avail themselves more of an escrow service or an attorney, where the money is not released to the seller under the buyer has received the goods as promised.  I am an attorney and would be happy to serve as an escrow agent for sales, for example.  That would put both buyer and seller on an equal footing, I would think.

@moto_man 

I am an attorney and would be happy to serve as an escrow agent for sales, for example.

Yeah, but for what you did - vet the buyer - isn't that enough? If you and the buyer verbally agree that is legally binding. Mind you, a piece of paper or email outlining the deal is more appropriate, as it is harder to quash by one or both of the parties, but transactions of this type are done to minimize expenses and escrow would come at a cost, correct? 

The idea makes sense and gives each party, equal footing, as you state. But it is a big ask for each party to trust a lawyer nowadays.

Reminds me of the joke (sorry, not meant to be at your expense!):

A lawyer moving to a small town will starve if they are the only attorney. But if a second lawyer moves to town, they will both make a fortune.

@goodlistening64, all good, and sure there are untrustworthy people in every profession, mine included.  But here’s the thing about using an attorney as an escrow agent.  Unlike having to deal with PayPal or sue, all attorneys are regulated by their state’s Bar.  Mishandling of client funds, such as those being held in escrow is in most states a capital offense for attorneys, meaning at a minimum, suspension for at least a year from being able to practice law in any way, up to and commonly, disbarment.  The state bar investigates the complaint so you don’t have to deal with it.  I don’t know any colleagues who would risk their bar license over whatever money is being held in escrow.  Are there some?  Sure, I suppose that there are some who would be willing to risk their bar license, but those people would generally have a record of prior discipline with the state bar for other ethical breaches — records which are publicly available.  I think that the risk of using an attorney as an escrow agent is far less and far more reliable than, say, PayPal, joking aside.  I am surprised that especially for substantial sales, it is not more common to use an escrow service.