Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | 1001bricks  | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 10:04 | | Subject: | Re: UE VAT percentage wrong | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, rankster writes:
| | In Problem, Stellar writes:
This seemed to be the issue, as we, unqualified people guessed so. His store
now shows 20% Austrian VAT for me.
|
Yep - and now we're waiting for OP to come and apologize being rude 
We always can dream, can't we? 
|
 |
| Author: | enig | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 05:56 | | Subject: | Re: UE VAT percentage wrong | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, rankster writes:
| | In Problem, Emilio_Magnelli writes:
| | After May, 15 VAT percentage is wrong.
|
No, it's not, at least it works fine for me as I mentioned.
When I check Stellar's and 1001bricks' store, both shows 20% Austrian
VAT for me but when I check YOUR store it shows 22% Italian VAT so it must be
YOUR settings as also mentioned.
Instead of raging you'd better post a screenshot of your settings or share
more details so some qualified enough person can help you
| |
Before that date VAT percentage was correct.
Notthing was changed in my setting
em
|
|
I assume the OP corrected their settings as the store is now applying my local
21% VAT for me
|
|
|
| Author: | rankster | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 04:38 | | Subject: | Re: UE VAT percentage wrong | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Stellar writes:
This seemed to be the issue, as we, unqualified people guessed so. His store
now shows 20% Austrian VAT for me.
|
|
| Author: | Ra | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | Is this torso NEW? It had a brittle brown defect. I have no reason to assume
that the seller isn't parting out new sets that were discontinued years ago,
but I have no guarantee that the set was stored in the proper conditions or wasn't
purchased in some grey market scenario.
They certainly didn't test the part, as just a small turn of the arm would
have exposed the brittle condition.
|
Brittle brown is a poor choice and just a trap. Does every part have to be now
assembled to be tested? Brittle brown wasn't an exclusive defect to minifigures.
Brittle brown is also not a standard quality defect to most of TLG product. A
defect should not define the minimum expectation of a product.
|
Testing a LEGO part will normally make it used. And if it doesn't make it
used, then it hasn't been tested.
|
Right and that is why I said brittle brown is a poor baseline to define a product
because it is a defect that escaped.
I assume lego group has good baseline and test every x of y product before shipping.
These internal tests should mean the product meets certain clutch power, dimensional,
print alignment before it gets to the customer/vendor these test don't have
to be again verified by the customer.
Yes, scratching and damage can be incured during the shipping process but not
likely to move a print or reduce clutch power
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 04:20 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| | | | | Is this torso NEW? It had a brittle brown defect. I have no reason to assume
that the seller isn't parting out new sets that were discontinued years ago,
but I have no guarantee that the set was stored in the proper conditions or wasn't
purchased in some grey market scenario.
They certainly didn't test the part, as just a small turn of the arm would
have exposed the brittle condition.
|
Brittle brown is a poor choice and just a trap. Does every part have to be now
assembled to be tested? Brittle brown wasn't an exclusive defect to minifigures.
Brittle brown is also not a standard quality defect to most of TLG product. A
defect should not define the minimum expectation of a product.
|
Testing a LEGO part will normally make it used. And if it doesn't make it
used, then it hasn't been tested.
|
|
| Author: | Ra | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 04:06 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, BrickDeals writes:
| | In Problem, Ra writes:
| | In Problem, popsicle writes:
| | In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | So...there is a seller who constantly posts scratched and B-goods minifigures
in the “new” category but then points out in the description that they are scratched
or B-goods. I have been reporting his individual ads to him for weeks but nothing
happens, as if my reports are of no interest to anyone.
Is there a way to report the whole store or can he just do it like that? I
can understand that this probably has no place in this forum, but the seller's
methods really bother me and I don't know what to do.
Best regards
|
This ongoing clash is not new (pun intended) it's simply a persistent misunderstanding
rooted in semantics. Which as I see it, will continue to confuse until it’s more
succinctly spelled-out within the TOS, guiding for both buyer and seller alike.
What does NEW mean as applied to Lego parts? Some take it to indicate
origin, some strictly as condition descriptor, and yet others to indicate only
the part’s history (i.e. never been used). Then there are those that eclectically
interpret the term opportunistically to optimize their own listings.
Just a few long-held thoughts on the topic. Haven't taken a position really,
other than never exaggerate the merits of product. In part, to factor the wide
range of opinions buyers hold on this topic. Better to under sell as vendor in
any case, imho.
-popsicle
|
A new product can incure defects during shipment, storage,assembly at a vendor.
If damage does incure, it doesn't mean the product is no longer new, it just
no longer meets the requirements of the vendor/end user. New is only able to
be applied to items removed only for sorting, and bricklink policy doesn't
allow you to use new in the description I believe to prevent the dilution of
the term. Just because the vendor requires higher quality or expectation doesn't
mean the supplier has to provide that. We ran into this alot in engineering.
|
I disagree and think the definition of NEW needs improvement.
When a seller purchases from a primary source, say LEGO.com or Walmart, for resale,
they may receive defective product.
They have the remedy of contacting LEGO directly for replacement parts, and they
probably have a receipt to prove their purchase.
The seller is assuming the liability, as they are now the vendor.
The buyer has no assurances that the seller didn't jostle around the box
for years before parting it out, store it in improper conditions, or just has
a poor storage system that causes scratching.
The reasonable expectation of any consumer is that NEW is mint or almost mint,
free of defects.
I will give you an example. Pictured attached.
Is this torso NEW? It had a brittle brown defect. I have no reason to assume
that the seller isn't parting out new sets that were discontinued years ago,
but I have no guarantee that the set was stored in the proper conditions or wasn't
purchased in some grey market scenario.
They certainly didn't test the part, as just a small turn of the arm would
have exposed the brittle condition.
|
Brittle brown is a poor choice and just a trap. Does every part have to be now
assembled to be tested? Brittle brown wasn't an exclusive defect to minifigures.
Brittle brown is also not a standard quality defect to most of TLG product. A
defect should not define the minimum expectation of a product.
Currently NEW doesn't reflect certain enthusiasts quality expectations.
Currently NEW means all items, including bricks were removed from packaging and
handled for sorting.
Could NEW be changed, sure, but now NEW applies to bricks too, or you would setup
to even making more confusion over the term and people transposition of the term
between bricks and figs.
Now I offer you a more common quality control product. Baseball/trading card
market, most cards do not under go the quality certification process of grading.
So if we look at lego bricks and minifigs as "NEW, ungraded" this is
what most NEW product would be listed as, and suspect what the most common situation
that happens during most transactions for NEW product.
My conclusion is to use the description field to define quality. The problem
is different people have different opinion on quality and expectation. I don't
think changing what the term NEW means will align different people's opinion,
without releasing additional guides on how to review a part. So baseball cards/comic
books have grading system and industrial products have their own set of specs
that are industry accepted. These standards/grading remove people's opinion
from defining what is acceptable and resort to facts.
|
|
| Author: | Ziegelmeister | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 02:32 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | Its not about you 
|
Pffft. Now you sound like my therapist.
|
|
| Author: | BrickDeals | | Posted: | May 29, 2024 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Ra writes:
| | In Problem, popsicle writes:
| | In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | So...there is a seller who constantly posts scratched and B-goods minifigures
in the “new” category but then points out in the description that they are scratched
or B-goods. I have been reporting his individual ads to him for weeks but nothing
happens, as if my reports are of no interest to anyone.
Is there a way to report the whole store or can he just do it like that? I
can understand that this probably has no place in this forum, but the seller's
methods really bother me and I don't know what to do.
Best regards
|
This ongoing clash is not new (pun intended) it's simply a persistent misunderstanding
rooted in semantics. Which as I see it, will continue to confuse until it’s more
succinctly spelled-out within the TOS, guiding for both buyer and seller alike.
What does NEW mean as applied to Lego parts? Some take it to indicate
origin, some strictly as condition descriptor, and yet others to indicate only
the part’s history (i.e. never been used). Then there are those that eclectically
interpret the term opportunistically to optimize their own listings.
Just a few long-held thoughts on the topic. Haven't taken a position really,
other than never exaggerate the merits of product. In part, to factor the wide
range of opinions buyers hold on this topic. Better to under sell as vendor in
any case, imho.
-popsicle
|
A new product can incure defects during shipment, storage,assembly at a vendor.
If damage does incure, it doesn't mean the product is no longer new, it just
no longer meets the requirements of the vendor/end user. New is only able to
be applied to items removed only for sorting, and bricklink policy doesn't
allow you to use new in the description I believe to prevent the dilution of
the term. Just because the vendor requires higher quality or expectation doesn't
mean the supplier has to provide that. We ran into this alot in engineering.
|
I disagree and think the definition of NEW needs improvement.
When a seller purchases from a primary source, say LEGO.com or Walmart, for resale,
they may receive defective product.
They have the remedy of contacting LEGO directly for replacement parts, and they
probably have a receipt to prove their purchase.
The seller is assuming the liability, as they are now the vendor.
The buyer has no assurances that the seller didn't jostle around the box
for years before parting it out, store it in improper conditions, or just has
a poor storage system that causes scratching.
The reasonable expectation of any consumer is that NEW is mint or almost mint,
free of defects.
I will give you an example. Pictured attached.
Is this torso NEW? It had a brittle brown defect. I have no reason to assume
that the seller isn't parting out new sets that were discontinued years ago,
but I have no guarantee that the set was stored in the proper conditions or wasn't
purchased in some grey market scenario.
They certainly didn't test the part, as just a small turn of the arm would
have exposed the brittle condition.
|
|
|
| Author: | MMEtrading | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 17:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Its not about you
In Problem, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | I think more honnest to sell:
Used / "Are New but got scratches while falling on the floor",
... then:
New / "Got scratches while falling on the floor".
There's also the Price question, as the same lot is the same shop is normally
lower for the Used part.
Apart this, I don't care at all: I don't sell any Used item.
|
Same. It's easier to over describe what's going on than deal with someone
who incorrectly thinks you're selling used parts as new because of damage
caused by LEGO. I even separate out color shifts and list them in different
lots with explicit descriptions like Dark Red tiles and trans-light blue plates.
This is ironic conversation today and I honestly thought the OP was talking about
me because I just sold an SW0296 this morning as used because of a tiny pit in
the torso. I priced it for $6.00.
"Mandalorian Death Watch Warrior Near mint. There is one small pit on
the back of the torso that is covered by the jet pack so it is not visible.
Minifigure No: sw0296
Minifigures: Star Wars: Star Wars The Clone Wars
SW0001-0300/200/USED"
|
|
|
| Author: | MMEtrading | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 17:22 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, calebfishn writes:
| | A description that lists scratches and damages does not in itself invalidate
that the item may actually meet the definition of "new". The listing
policy for New parts states: New Parts - Parts are brand new, taken directly
from new sets or were purchased "as new" in another form such as accessory
packs or Pick A Brick and have been handled only for sorting. These parts have
never been used in any manner..." But that doesn't state the item is
in mint condition or otherwise.
However, if an item is listed as New, but the seller's description states
it is Used, you can report it as a problem listing, under the category: "Item
is incorrectly defined as New/Used or Complete/Incomplete/Sealed"
|
Yes it is that case. The seller describes the items as used but they are still
categorized as new.
I have made over 50 reports.
|
|
| Author: | coloredbricks | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 15:10 | | Subject: | 3626cpb0806 with Blocked Open Stud ORIGINAL? | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Hello,
I have the head 3626cpb0806
Light Nougat Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Black Eyebrows, Cheek Lines and Scars,
Determined / Angry with Sunken Eyes Pattern (SW Anakin Sith)
with BLOCKED Open Stud, but this version is not listed in the BL catalogue (should
be 3626bpb0806).
So is it a fake part or was it produced from LEGO?
- André
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, peregrinator writes:
| | In Problem, calebfishn writes:
| | However, if an item is listed as New, but the seller's description states
it is Used, you can report it as a problem listing, under the category: "Item
is incorrectly defined as New/Used or Complete/Incomplete/Sealed"
|
The platonic form of this is listing a minifigure as new, but then putting in
the comments that it was owned by an AFOL and has been displayed but never played
with.
|
So New: "As Used because bla bla"
I'm sooooo confused now.
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 14:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, calebfishn writes:
| | However, if an item is listed as New, but the seller's description states
it is Used, you can report it as a problem listing, under the category: "Item
is incorrectly defined as New/Used or Complete/Incomplete/Sealed"
|
The platonic form of this is listing a minifigure as new, but then putting in
the comments that it was owned by an AFOL and has been displayed but never played
with.
|
|
| Author: | Ziegelmeister | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 14:13 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | I think more honnest to sell:
Used / "Are New but got scratches while falling on the floor",
... then:
New / "Got scratches while falling on the floor".
There's also the Price question, as the same lot is the same shop is normally
lower for the Used part.
Apart this, I don't care at all: I don't sell any Used item.
|
Same. It's easier to over describe what's going on than deal with someone
who incorrectly thinks you're selling used parts as new because of damage
caused by LEGO. I even separate out color shifts and list them in different
lots with explicit descriptions like Dark Red tiles and trans-light blue plates.
This is ironic conversation today and I honestly thought the OP was talking about
me because I just sold an SW0296 this morning as used because of a tiny pit in
the torso. I priced it for $6.00.
"Mandalorian Death Watch Warrior Near mint. There is one small pit on
the back of the torso that is covered by the jet pack so it is not visible.
Minifigure No: sw0296
Minifigures: Star Wars: Star Wars The Clone Wars
SW0001-0300/200/USED"
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 13:58 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
| | | | I did the opposite to avoid problems.
|
Per bricklink policy don't list part/set/figs as new in the description even
if they are new
|
I said I did, that was when nothing was against selling Used with a description
saying they're New.
|
I guess you could still comment on the parts coming from a New set but being
too scratched (“to be sold as New” being left unsaid). Or simply “never utilized
but scratched.”
|
That becomes stupid.
I think more honnest to sell:
Used / "Are New but got scratches while falling on the floor",
... then:
New / "Got scratches while falling on the floor".
There's also the Price question, as the same lot is the same shop is normally
lower for the Used part.
Apart this, I don't care at all: I don't sell any Used item.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Ra writes:
| | In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Problem, Ra writes:
| | In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Problem, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | So...there is a seller who constantly posts scratched and B-goods minifigures
in the “new” category but then points out in the description that they are scratched
or B-goods. I have been reporting his individual ads to him for weeks but nothing
happens, as if my reports are of no interest to anyone.
Is there a way to report the whole store or can he just do it like that? I
can understand that this probably has no place in this forum, but the seller's
methods really bother me and I don't know what to do.
Best regards
|
As long as it's legitimate I see no problem. I'm dealing with this at
the moment while parting out multiple Orient Expresses. They're brand new,
but about 3% of the parts are in such bad shape I can't list them without
added description and at a lower price. Either that or just throw them in the
bulk bin for resale.
|
I did the opposite to avoid problems.
|
Per bricklink policy don't list part/set/figs as new in the description even
if they are new
|
I said I did, that was when nothing was against selling Used with a description
saying they're New.
|
So your statement no longer holds true under current circumstances, which, I
believe the conversation is being held in the presetense.
|
Fine!
As says the other Sylvain:
Used / "Never played with but with slight damages due to..."
I'm not sure what everyone has today, this is at least my 20th problem for
the day 
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 13:48 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Ra writes:
| | In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Problem, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | So...there is a seller who constantly posts scratched and B-goods minifigures
in the “new” category but then points out in the description that they are scratched
or B-goods. I have been reporting his individual ads to him for weeks but nothing
happens, as if my reports are of no interest to anyone.
Is there a way to report the whole store or can he just do it like that? I
can understand that this probably has no place in this forum, but the seller's
methods really bother me and I don't know what to do.
Best regards
|
As long as it's legitimate I see no problem. I'm dealing with this at
the moment while parting out multiple Orient Expresses. They're brand new,
but about 3% of the parts are in such bad shape I can't list them without
added description and at a lower price. Either that or just throw them in the
bulk bin for resale.
|
I did the opposite to avoid problems.
|
Per bricklink policy don't list part/set/figs as new in the description even
if they are new
|
Help cites "Like New or As New", not "Are New but..."
Much more, I did this 10+ yrs ago when this wasn't in the Help page and nobody
cared.
| | | | People already iamgine Mint for New Parts
I then sold a few lots Used but with a description "Are New but with slight
scratches bla bla".
|
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 13:46 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
| | | | I did the opposite to avoid problems.
|
Per bricklink policy don't list part/set/figs as new in the description even
if they are new
|
I said I did, that was when nothing was against selling Used with a description
saying they're New.
|
I guess you could still comment on the parts coming from a New set but being
too scratched (“to be sold as New” being left unsaid). Or simply “never utilized
but scratched.”
|
|
| Author: | Ra | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Problem, Ra writes:
| | In Problem, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Problem, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | So...there is a seller who constantly posts scratched and B-goods minifigures
in the “new” category but then points out in the description that they are scratched
or B-goods. I have been reporting his individual ads to him for weeks but nothing
happens, as if my reports are of no interest to anyone.
Is there a way to report the whole store or can he just do it like that? I
can understand that this probably has no place in this forum, but the seller's
methods really bother me and I don't know what to do.
Best regards
|
As long as it's legitimate I see no problem. I'm dealing with this at
the moment while parting out multiple Orient Expresses. They're brand new,
but about 3% of the parts are in such bad shape I can't list them without
added description and at a lower price. Either that or just throw them in the
bulk bin for resale.
|
I did the opposite to avoid problems.
|
Per bricklink policy don't list part/set/figs as new in the description even
if they are new
|
I said I did, that was when nothing was against selling Used with a description
saying they're New.
|
So your statement no longer holds true under current circumstances, which, I
believe the conversation is being held in the presetense.
| |
| | | | People already iamgine Mint for New Parts
I then sold a few lots Used but with a description "Are New but with slight
scratches bla bla".
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Ra | | Posted: | May 28, 2024 12:49 | | Subject: | Re: Seller posts used items as new | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, popsicle writes:
| | In Problem, MMEtrading writes:
| | So...there is a seller who constantly posts scratched and B-goods minifigures
in the “new” category but then points out in the description that they are scratched
or B-goods. I have been reporting his individual ads to him for weeks but nothing
happens, as if my reports are of no interest to anyone.
Is there a way to report the whole store or can he just do it like that? I
can understand that this probably has no place in this forum, but the seller's
methods really bother me and I don't know what to do.
Best regards
|
This ongoing clash is not new (pun intended) it's simply a persistent misunderstanding
rooted in semantics. Which as I see it, will continue to confuse until it’s more
succinctly spelled-out within the TOS, guiding for both buyer and seller alike.
What does NEW mean as applied to Lego parts? Some take it to indicate
origin, some strictly as condition descriptor, and yet others to indicate only
the part’s history (i.e. never been used). Then there are those that eclectically
interpret the term opportunistically to optimize their own listings.
Just a few long-held thoughts on the topic. Haven't taken a position really,
other than never exaggerate the merits of product. In part, to factor the wide
range of opinions buyers hold on this topic. Better to under sell as vendor in
any case, imho.
-popsicle
|
A new product can incure defects during shipment, storage,assembly at a vendor.
If damage does incure, it doesn't mean the product is no longer new, it just
no longer meets the requirements of the vendor/end user. New is only able to
be applied to items removed only for sorting, and bricklink policy doesn't
allow you to use new in the description I believe to prevent the dilution of
the term. Just because the vendor requires higher quality or expectation doesn't
mean the supplier has to provide that. We ran into this alot in engineering.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Lithuania, Panevėžys
Austria, Wien
USA, New York
United Kingdom, England
Germany, Baden-Württemberg
