German Cross in Gold

[helmetbuyers]

Thanks guys for the help...

My friend knew I was obviously taking photos of the medal to authenticate.

I told him it's good... and now he backed out... even at the $900... saying we never had a deal.

I couldn't say the medal is bad.... and yet ask to buy it either.

I should be able to get it out of him... but... it will take arm twisting.

I couldn't take a chance when I first saw it... but... knew he would give me my money back if it were bad.

If I get the medal... I will post better images.

Robert

[Darrell]

Does he read this forum?

[helmetbuyers]

Does he read this forum?

No...

he doesn't even get e-mail, or use a computer where he works. He does a vending route.

but... he's the suspicious type... He knows if I want something... not to let go.

I eventually can get stuff out of him... especially if he's hurting for money.

[Darrell]

Well .... say I'll give you $900. If you change your mind, you know how to reach me ...

Then let him think about it for a week or two ... I'm sure he'll bite by the sounds of it.

[blackbob]

No...

he doesn't even get e-mail, or use a computer where he works. He does a vending route.

but... he's the suspicious type... He knows if I want something... not to let go.

I eventually can get stuff out of him... especially if he's hurting for money.

Give him the fair price and no cheat. The $900 is no good. Double the money and it is good for him and you.

[Darrell]

Give him the fair price and no cheat. The $900 is no good. Double the money and it is good for him and you.

So for him to make 9x the amount he paid for it is not cheating? What's the difference? I hear people screaming bloody blue murder when someone turns huge profits on a piece they just bought ....

Where's that "collector" attitude

[bobcam1]

Give him the fair price and no cheat. The $900 is no good. Double the money and it is good for him and you.

I'm assuming that this response was a joke?...It certainly was, to ME....

[blackbob]

I'm assuming that this response was a joke?...It certainly was, to ME....

No joke. Fair. Paying less than one half price unknown to seller is not right. Cheat good for buyer. Too bad people think this right and good. It is not.

[bobcam1]

No joke. Fair. Paying less than one half price unknown to seller is not right. Cheat good for buyer. Too bad people think this right and good. It is not.

I apologize...I should not have used the word "joke"....I should have used "frightening".....

[Darrell]

No joke. Fair. Paying less than one half price unknown to seller is not right. Cheat good for buyer. Too bad people think this right and good. It is not.

So if you follow that analogy ... how do you feel about the Seller buying it off someone for $250 in the first place? I bet he wasn't too sad about the "cheat" then ??? If you say he didn't know any better and did not know the price, maybe he should have done a little research before thinking about selling it for $900 in the first place.

[Rich G]

So if you follow that analogy ... how do you feel about the Seller buying it off someone for $250 in the first place? I bet he wasn't too sad about the "cheat" then ??? If you say he didn't know any better and did not know the price, maybe he should have done a little research before thinking about selling it for $900 in the first place.

What happened before seems to me to be irrelevant. What happens now is what this is about. Robert (helmet buyers) now knows it is original and the value of this piece. If he wants to continue and try to get the piece at a fraction of the value, then that is where the moralist view-point must lie, especially as the now seller is a 'friend'.

[Darrell]

What happened before seems to me to be irrelevant. What happens now is what this is about. Robert (helmet buyers) now knows it is original and the value of this piece. If he wants to continue and try to get the piece at a fraction of the value, then that is where the moralist view-point must lie, especially as the now seller is a 'friend'.

Well, maybe if the seller takes $2000 for the DKiG he bought for $250, he should go back to the original seller and shell out $1750 to make it a "moral" transaction?

Richard, you can't have it one way only ... that's my point. If you want one person to be Florence Nightingale, then both parties should follow suite.

Seems to me ignorance should be no excuse.

JM (two cents).

[bobcam1]

What happened before seems to me to be irrelevant. What happens now is what this is about. Robert (helmet buyers) now knows it is original and the value of this piece. If he wants to continue and try to get the piece at a fraction of the value, then that is where the moralist view-point must lie, especially as the now seller is a 'friend'.

If the seller paid 250.00 for it, and is willing to take either 600.00 or 900.00 for it, making a HEALTHY profit, how is the "moralist" viewpoint being ignored?

If he and his "friend" are both happy with the deal, where does the problem lie?

If there is a house for sale that I wish to purchase, and the "market" value is 700,000.00, is it morally reprehensible if I offer 500,000.00 and the buyer accepts?

I think that the artificial morality that many people display (not just here, but everywhere) is an effort to elevate themselves above others to gain credibility. While doing so, they try to cast people who hold realistic financial and moral attitudes as the villains. I think THAT is reprehensible.

[Rich G]

Well, maybe if the seller takes $2000 for the DKiG he bought for $250, he should go back to the original seller and shell out $1750 to make it a "moral" transaction?

Richard, you can't have it one way only ... that's my point. If you want one person to be Florence Nightingale, then both parties should follow suite.

Seems to me ignorance should be no excuse.

JM (two cents).

If the seller paid 250.00 for it, and is willing to take either 600.00 or 900.00 for it, making a HEALTHY profit, how is the "moralist" viewpoint being ignored?

If he and his "friend" are both happy with the deal, where does the problem lie?

If there is a house for sale that I wish to purchase, and the "market" value is 700,000.00, is it morally reprehensible if I offer 500,000.00 and the buyer accepts?

I think that the artificial morality that many people display (not just here, but everywhere) is an effort to elevate themselves above others to gain credibility. While doing so, they try to cast people who hold realistic financial and moral attitudes as the villains. I think THAT is reprehensible.

I never said it was right or wrong, I'm just summarising what I see the discussion to be.


I don't know much about the 'friend' but he took the risk. I assume he wasn't 100% sure the piece was original or even it's value. He came out tops and it just seems to me Robert now wants a piece of the action at zero risk and probably (if the deal goes through) will sell the piece later at actual market price.

It's not for me or anyone else to judge. If the friend is happy at $900 then good for him but if it were you, would you be happy if you later found out your friend held-back on the real value? I think not.

[Darrell]

.....
but... he's the suspicious type... He knows if I want something... not to let go.

I eventually can get stuff out of him... especially if he's hurting for money.

This doesn't sound like much of a friendship if you ask me .....