I refer you back to the first post in this series if you haven’t already read it.  This will take a little time so you might want to pop some popcorn.

Well, folks, this saga goes ever on and on – a bit like “The Archers” or maybe “Eastenders”.  Hardly had the pen arrived back at the seller when he re-listed it, as Andy kindly informed me.  I, apparently, am a non-paying, overseas buyer, it would seem.  I’m not sure where the benefit to him in that particular lie lay but it’s perhaps because he cannot breathe without telling a porky.  He did deign to mention the fact that the barrel and cap do not screw together but he omitted the other egregious faults such as the cracked nib and multiply-cracked cap.  If you’re looking for it, it’s 251581507796 on eBay.  My advice is to stay away unless of course you’re the kind who baits bears and tigers and enjoys playing with fire.

Having received my refund of the purchase price and initial postage I was, of course, left out-of-pocket to the tune of the return postage of £3.90.  I’m not keen on having my pocket picked by shady eBay sellers so I left him a negative and the comment, “Did not list damage, cost me £3.90 return postage. Dishonest and argumentative.”  He made a formal request for me to revise the feedback and also sent the message, “I am writing to ask you to revise your feedback.  As you can see I work very hard to keep my feedback 100% positive. The pen was sold as SPARES & REPAIRS and in need of some TLC and I feel the descriptions was fair, and the pictures were a true reflection of the item. Should you not revise your feedback I will have no alternative to to report this to ebay for malicious feedback.  I will send a feedback revision request.”

I replied, “As you will see, I have declined your request.  The feedback is accurate, not malicious, and I am quite prepared to make that argument for eBay if you wish to report me.  The pen’s description was so poor as to deliberately mislead.  It’s all very well using vague terms like “needs TLC” or “for spares or repair” but it’s not anything like an accurate listing.  An accurate listing would have included the fact that the barrel and cap do not screw together (a fault it is impossible to put right), the fact that the nib was cracked on the lower part of the left tine which renders it useless, and the fact that the cap had a crack on one side and a piece missing from the lip on the other. All of these faults are very serious and any one of these faults would cost more than the pen is worth, to have repaired.  Such a description is easy to do and I can see no possible reason for the vague manner in which you described the pen other than to conceal its faults.  I am £3.90 out of pocket because you didn’t describe the pen accurately.  That cannot be allowed to pass without comment.  I am running a business as a pen restorer and I cannot accept additional postal charges which are of no benefit to me, particularly when I am not the one at fault.

I note that you have relisted the pen.  I note also that you have only mentioned the fact that the barrel and cap do not screw together, and you have omitted the other major faults.  I note also that you have blatantly lied about the reason for relisting the pen.  You wrote in red caps, “RELISTED DUE TO NON PAYING OVERSEAS BIDDER.”  I did pay – indeed I paid extra in that I had to return the pen – and I am not an overseas buyer.  What possible motive you had for that bit of fiction I do not know.  By contrast, in our communications, I have been nothing but factual.

While I was writing this, you telephoned me to discuss changing my feedback.  I see no reason to do that.”

While I was penning the above missive the telephone rang and it was – yes, you guessed right – Mr devonshire-sales.  My husband had answered the phone, and recognizing the name given, he admonished the seller to not be rude or unreasonable, to which the seller agreed.  The telephone call was, as you might imagine, an attempt to impress upon me how valuable his feedback was to him and the effort that he put into keeping it at 100% positive.  His unpleasantness in the first eBay message was blamed on “a member of staff”.  He was, he said, unable to change what had gone before but he was anxious to come to an arrangement that would remove the negative.  We did not come to such an arrangement.  Despite his wheedling tone and ingratiating manner, I suspected he was attempting to play upon my emotions since, as we all know, girls can’t be businesswomen, as we are all ruled by our hearts.  He soon discovered otherwise.  I pointed out to him his blatant lie regarding my buyer status in the relisting as well as the fact that he still had not disclosed all the faults of the pen, and he once again blamed that on “a member of staff.”  My husband said later, “Oh… I didn’t do it!  A big boy did it and ran away!”  It really was just like that.

The seller kept saying, “Of course I can’t force you to change your feedback,” as if I needed to be told.  And to his surprise, I didn’t.

This morning, in need of a laugh, I checked the seller’s feedback and mine.  In response to what I had said his reply was, “A PATHETIC AND CHILDISH BUYER, DOES NOT READ LISTINGS, USES BLACKMAIL, AVOID!!” (Shouty caps his, not mine.)  He had already given me positive feedback but had added a follow-up comment of, “VERY RUDE BUYER, USES FEEDBACK BLACKMAIL AS A TACTIC – FINDS FAULT WITH SPARES”.

It was hardly a surprise.  I had already formed the opinion that the seller is a malicious individual who won’t stop until he is stopped.  I reported the matter to eBay – it sounds easy when you say it like that, but what actually happened was that after going through a veritable Encyclopaedia Britannica’s-worth of eBay help files, I finally got hold of a number to phone.  eBay, I have to say, comes out of this with full marks.  They were able to automatically identify my account and the item/seller I wished to complain about.  They made no bones about the fact that calling me a blackmailer was going into forbidden territory and they promptly deleted both of the seller’s comments.  The kind lady also told me that he had been warned for doing this before.

This may be the end of it, and then again it may not.  I’m still waiting for the other shoe to fall, but perhaps Mr devonshire-sales has learned the virtue of caution and called it a day.

I’ve grumbled here before about sellers who do not disclose faults in a pen.  Here’s an example of one of the worst.  The seller is devonshire-sales, who has feedback of 2302, so cannot make the excuse that he is a novice.  Here’s the description of the pen:

Vintage Conway Stewart No45, Duro Nib 14 ct Gold Nib
A Great pen in need of some TLC
The inside filling sack appears to be damaged
selling as spares or repairs

The “spares or repairs” tag means little or nothing.  Quite a large proportion of the pens I buy include that in the description.  It’s what is known in the trade as “covering your butt” but it does not absolve the seller from the requirement to make clear any faults or damage on the pen.  The seller acknowledges this by commenting on the fact that the sac will need replaced.

So I open a case and say:

I received the Conway Stewart 45 today. There are numerous faults which were not disclosed in the description – the cap does not screw onto the barrel, the end is broken off the lever and the nib is cracked. I would like to return the pen for a full refund, including reimbursement of my return postage as there is no reason why I should be out of pocket over an item that was not described properly.

That, to my mind, is a factual description of the state of the pen together with an additional claim for a refund of return postage as the fault lies with the seller.  I didn’t even bother to mention the cracks in the cap.  Quite polite, I would have thought.  The seller has a different opinion:

Hi there, Thanks for your message and demands. The item was fairly described, and selling as spares or repairs as stated. You are welcome to return it for a refund, But you will not be re-imbursed for the return postage as we are not obliged to. We might have though had you been more polite. Best Regards,

So there we are!  I would say that being argumentative and unpleasant on top of having quite deliberately concealed the faults of the pen isn’t conducive to getting good feedback.

In one of the pen discussion groups (we won’t say which one) someone posted before and after pictures of a well-chewed pen.  He had made an absolutely perfect job of removing the bite marks.  Not unnaturally, several contributors asked how he had done it.  He replied that it was done by a proprietary method and he was not at liberty to divulge how it had been done.

Thankfully, this attitude is rare in our hobby.  Most people are happy to share the knowledge.  Certainly, it is probably the case that pen repair is how this person makes their living, but one repair technique will not make their fortune; it is their entire skill-set and the reputation for good work that they have developed that is their bread and butter.  Trying to corner a part of the market by being secretive is unlikely to work.

Every day, in all the pen discussion groups, you can see people sharing information freely with each other.  Quite often, that information isn’t in the public domain, but it is shared because it’s good for our hobby, brings more people in and ensures that those who are learning about pens and their repair will continue to do so.  The benefits of freely sharing knowledge vastly outweigh any tiny individual gain made by selfishly guarding a technique or knowledge.

In other news, unusually for the Highlands of Scotland we’ve had long days of unbroken sunshine.  It tempts one outside, and I and my assistant have spent the day installing trellises and preparing for the arrival of climbing roses.  Well, to be precise, I fixed up the trellises while she lay on the shed roof, watching me and napping.  All good things must end and I had to go in and get some pen work done.  I invited her to come and help – after all, she is my assistant – but she yawned and licked her paw and stayed where she was!