RMC on GB

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Nobody wants to be taken advantage of, either by fakery or pricing. Many want to respect the history of the weapons and integrity of the hobby. Of course there are some who are strictly in it for the money. Even collectors want a return on their investment. I've know forum guys who charge what is the max the market will bear. Even on items they found at substantially less.

That being said, these buyers and re-sellers are only doing something morally illegal. Distasteful to many or most of us, but not against the law. Using the forum to report and inform others is being helpful. But scheming against another I don't think is helpful. The marketplace has and always will be buyer beware. Books, past experiences, asking questions on a forum, pictures, friends. Being well educated in one's hobby is a better way to deal with these unscrupulous sellers.

We should strive to be fair and friendly.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[tenOC]

Well then, as far as scheming to inform others that parts aren't USGI during an active auction, that would fall into that category of wrong too by your explanation.

I'm saying to people that if they want to buy a good rifle or good part, bid on what that man is bidding on and you'll have made a good investment. If a person cares about the integrity of the hobby it is identical to informing others that his auctions are very sketchy in all these threads about him as it is to suggest to outbid him.

And there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with wanting a return on an investment and nothing morally wrong with asking the retail for an item. That is the nature of investing. I've bee glad to pay retail for the bulk of my stuff, because I know it'll be worth more next year.
If I make a bulk buy and end up with a free USGI paratrooper stock do you expect me to sell it for about what I have in it? That's a rhetorical question. BTW, I own a Winchester stock purchased from Rex Guin that he said came from you for retail value. I don't know what he paid to whom, but I know what I was told when I paid over $300 3 yrs ago.

[Badger]

BTW, I own a Winchester stock purchased from Rex Guin that he said came from you for retail value. I don't know what he paid to whom, but I know what I was told when I paid over $300 3 yrs ago.

Perhaps I'm misreading or misunderstanding your "he said, she said" comments here partner...

For the clarity of all our members, what are you implying about Jim (JimF4M1s)?

Regards,
Doug

[tenOC]

I've know forum guys who charge what is the max the market will bear. Even on items they found at substantially less.

That being said, these buyers and re-sellers are only doing something morally illegal.

I'm responding to a finger pointed at me and being told I'm doing something wrong to sell at retail if I paid substantially less. On most forums when a moderator engages someone, that someone is allowed to respond. Is that not allowed?

Usually I'm the one paying retail, but I will buy bulk to save on the specific item I wanted and sell the others (if I get around to actually selling the others). Jim likened that practice to that of sellers on GB selling false parts on hacked Carbines.

Speculating on kidneys to live on, or scalping medicine people need just to live, would be morally illegal. I think Jim's a nice man. I don't see any correlation in SamTBob and most of the people buying and/or selling. I don't know anyone who's here to lose money. Spouses don't put up with much of that.

[Badger]

I'm responding to a finger pointed at me and being told I'm doing something wrong to sell at retail if I paid substantially less. On most forums when a moderator engages someone, that someone is allowed to respond. Is that not allowed?

Of course, fair and civil criticism is allowed, but only if it's factually correct ...

I assume if your hearsay anecdotal feedback proves to be incorrect, you'll post the appropriate public retraction and apology to Jim.

Thanks ..

Regards,
Doug