John Peel tapes on Ebay

[roger3905]

Agreed. Much as we'd love to think of these tapes as `ours', the guy is obviously a serious 
eBayer with a good feedback record to protect. It's what makes eBay work, so his response 
shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.
 We do at least have the advantage of having a decent amount of cash pledged for the bid, 
so barring another rich fan (or group of them), we stand a good chance of success by 
banging in a large snipe at the end. There's not really much more we can do but keep our 
fingers crossed.
Cheers
Roger




--- In peel@yahoogroups.com, "ken garner" <ken_garner@...> wrote:
>
> 
> this just in from the seller to me:
> 
> "Hi Ken, 
> We have only just recieved your messages. 
> Most tapes that I tested were perfectly audible but some have not been played back 
since 
> recorded. 
> As you can see from the advert we have already selected a charity based on the premise 
> that this is a recognised BBC charity and therefore the sale of the tapes would not 
> constitute an offence. It seems as though it would be most appropriate for the tapes to 
be 
> with the John Peel Group but we are loathed to end the auction early based on previous 
> experioence of irate potential bidders. What do you suggest. 
> Regards 
> Railway rocks. "
> 
> I think it might be best if I reply saying ok, fair do's, you carry on the auction as normal, 
> one of us will just watch the bidding, join in, and try to hope we get the collection, all 
the 
> best.
> 
> what do folks think?
> 
> as someone said, he's doing the decent thing but the wants to make some cash for the 
> charity, fair enough...
> 
> k
> 
> 
> 
> --- In peel@yahoogroups.com, "roger3905" <roger.carruthers@> wrote:
> >
> > Given that the seller has 100% positive feedback for 600 transactions, I think he/she 
> > probably deserves the benefit of the doubt. 
> >  Like most things online, it's all too easy to jump to conclusions or get into 
> > misunderstandings. I've had eBayers who appear to be not communicating, only to 
find 
> out 
> > later that their replies had been diverted by my ISP's spam filter (you have checked 
that, 
> > haven't you Ken ?). 
> > Cheers
> > Roger
> >
>