How Buyers & The Market Can Be Fooled

[Guest]

I want to make one thing clear to begin with. I came on to Soul Source with the objective of discussing music, either sharing knowledge of such or obtaining more from others. Like many of us on here whose intentions are the same, we find ourselves getting caught up in other areas and regret the time spent discussing such afterwards. Originally I supplied some simple information to a member in another thread about what appeared to be a wildly overpriced record, which lead to a few people posting random unsubstantiated replies which subsequently ended up in me spend way too long producing what's below. I have decided to post it here as it may open up a few peoples minds regarding the subject. 

The quote below is the one that prompted my response, in relation to an alleged Discogs sale of £123.45 NM, the previous NM just months earlier was £20.39. A VG+ quoted as "almost NM" in between the two entries sold for £34.99

A sale is only listed on Discogs when the respective sales fees were paid. So if the entry says it sold for 123.45 it did. No matter what you're prepared to believe.

I am staggered by the number of people on this site that make postings containing statements that they provide no evidence for.

The fact that an entry in the sales history appears and that fees may have been paid for such, is not evidence that a financial transaction for the sale of such, and at the stated amount, was ever conducted.

You have offered no evidence to prove that a financial transaction for it was actually conducted yet appear convinced one did despite the alleged price being insane. Let me explain the following scenarios which might lead you to question your opinion. 

Going back in time, both myself and a number of other well respected sellers known to many on here, shared information on a habit conducted by several individuals in England back in the early 90's, who advertised items on paper mailing lists, some of which were at high value that they did not physically possess. If they did manage to generate a sale for an item advertised at well above market price, they then sought the record elsewhere at a far lower price, but having taken payment beforehand. I was one of the sellers who those original sellers were contacting for those titles they didn't actually have but I refused to trade with any of them despite having some of the items they needed. I had enough loyal customers to be able to sell the items to and at a fair price.

Upon them not being able to provide the item, if their buyer was outside the UK he was placed in a potential nightmare situation of trying to obtain a refund. Most foreign buyers would send cash in pre Paypal days. 

Upon the arrival of the internet, these same individuals and many new opportunists, surfaced on sites that included Ebay, Gemm, and Discogs. Focusing on the opportunities available to a seller on Discogs using a scenario similar to the above, the seller risks a negative feedback if the sale doesn't complete but it's relatively easy to get it removed on Discogs. On the balance of probability, a genuine financial transaction for a record of £123, that was 6 times the price of the previous same stated condition copy that sold only a few months earlier, and three and a half times that of one in almost the same condition in between, to me seems about as remote as me ending this posting now. There are a number of sellers on Discogs who list items way in excess of the average market price as NM, then should a sale be generated they buy a much cheaper copy advertised at VG+ or less, from another seller in the hope they've under graded the item that may then satisfy their buyer.  

So what else would motivate someone to advertise an item for a price that was way in excess of market value?

A bogus sale is created which is designed to shape the market value and is conducted with the use of multiple accounts. The seller could genuinely have several copies of an item but wants to increase the obtainable price by trying to fool idiots who actually deserve to mug themselves off, as to the value of the item. A copy is advertised at let's use the same figure mentioned earlier, £123.45 which is a rather random number in business terms especially for what is likely to be a used item. A bogus purchase of it is then made from another of the sellers multiple accounts. The seller pays the Discogs fee of £9.85. No financial transaction by way of a sale actually takes place, but the seller has now created a situation whereby even a second listing of the same item at £80 appears to be a bargain to a complete idiot who has already spotted the bogus transaction of £123 in the historic sales data and believes that to have been genuine. He or she thus purchases the item at £80 which has made the £9.85 fee paid on the bogus transaction worth the expense if the seller has multiple copies to conduct repeat sales of £80 with. I'm out of touch with Discogs fee refunds policy but a situation may even exist whereby both parties in the bogus transaction could agree not to complete the sale and whilst the selling fee is refunded, the actual £123 transaction may still remain in the historical sales data.

The fact that an entry in the sales history appears and that fees may have been paid for such, is not evidence that a financial transaction for the sale of such, and at the stated amount, was ever conducted.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Guest

[Dave Pinch]

of course it makes sense what you say.... but on the other hand some nut job coulda just paid £123 for it... happens daily on the scene..

[SoulPaul]

Glad you highlighted this, seen it so many times on discogs, go to popsike and see what they sold for on Ebay over time, nothing these days is reliable at record buying, just do your homework as best you can, condition and gradeing that's another story.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Long tall Paul

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Long tall Paul said:

Glad you highlighted this

Thanks Paul and also Dave. I'm now of the belief the posting was worthwhile especially as no one has disputed it yet.

[Tomangoes]

People who own the £123.45 record and bought it for £1.23......back in the day...won't complain. 

% commission sites won't complain by prices inflated via dodgy dealers. More money for them.

Remember the youth who traded the family cow for magic beans, just got lucky!

All part of the game I guess, knowledge and a slight of hand is power and profit.

Ed

 

 

[Dave Pinch]

1 hour ago, Martin S said:

Thanks Paul and also Dave. I'm now of the belief the posting was worthwhile especially as no one has disputed it yet.

every post is worth while as its just someones opinion martin.. but as i say theres a nutjob that throws money at a record most days..

[Frankie Crocker]

Spot on Martin. I can remember the furore in the days of paper lists. The same is happening on auctions from time to time. eBay auctions are littered with sales falling through due to retracted bids and shiv bidding. American dealers, usually chancers, put fake reserves on records they are paranoid about - then the crazy figure becomes the going rate.

Trick is to watch the market daily, buy from reliable dealers, avoid auctions involving clandestine bidding trends and be patient as most records come up for sale sooner or later. All sales databases have errors and omissions but are a useful starting point when buying unfamiliar records.

[Chalky]

But you can only take a sale at face value.  A transaction took place whether you care to believe it or not.  Two parties went through the whole process.  They may have been two associates setting up a scam but we don’t know that. Even if they were history will show a sale took place.

What was the record, who sold the previous items, from what country did these transactions take place, could be a factor as a Uk near mint is vg+ to most others. 

You can argue the toss all day but for all intents and purposes a transaction took place.  You ask Benji to provide proof, why should he, he could ask you to provide proof a sale didn’t take place.  history on discogs shows a sale did take place and that is what the next seller will look to.  What did the seller have to gain with this alleged fraudulent sale, have more copies come to the market at the inflated price and sold?

Pre internet, we all know dealers who were a bit liberal with the truth with regards to their stock. I ‘ve also agreed a purchase at the weekend only for that record to be sold on the monday, you shrug your shoulders and move on. 

Lastly buy from reliable sellers someone remarks, what is reliable.  Every seller I know has had stock they have trickled out at what one would suggest is an inflated price rather than sell them at a lower price because they have multiple copies, especially previously harder to come by or indemand records, is that not immoral?  

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by chalky

[Chalky]

14 hours ago, Long tall Paul said:

Glad you highlighted this, seen it so many times on discogs, go to popsike and see what they sold for on Ebay over time, nothing these days is reliable at record buying, just do your homework as best you can, condition and gradeing that's another story.

There are anomalies on every selling platform, nothing worse than eBay/popsike. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by chalky

[Philt]

Always been shenanigans and values are inherently subjective aren’t they. They also fluctuate wildly at times.

Assuming you had no idea:

A. Check LOTS of sources - online, ask collectors etc - until you feel you’ve a handle on rarity, current demand and a realistic, ballpark value

B. Decide what it’s worth to you, bearing in mind grading / condition

C. Pay what you can afford and live with

D. Let people who try to rip folk off or can’t grade records know that you know, leave appropriate feedback if there’s a mechanism and never deal with em again.

If people deviate from that and get stung they’ve made their bed really.

 

[Cover-up]

The original post was aimed at an example I gave for sales for Gwen McCrae's "Keep The Fire Burning" on UK 45 - various members couldn't believe it was selling for £30+ and I merely uploaded the attached screengrab from Discogs showing that, on numerous occasions, it HAD sold for in the region of £30. At no point did I say the single is worth £123, or even bring the crazy price into question, it was obviously an anomaly - I was merely showing that sales of £30 weren't unusual.

Are there really dealers who buy their own stock at massively inflated prices, pay the fees on the bogus sale, and then sell the next copy for far under the bogus price, swallowing up the bogus fees into the new transaction? I have no idea... but previous historic sales figures are out there, so can't see why somebody would be suckered into paying over the odds. Unless they want to. What about Manship's "Tainted Love" auction which finished at £800+ this week? Should we assume that didn't happen unless it can be proved that the money actually changed hands? 

[Johndelve]

Another thing to consider is whether all sales actually find their way to Discogs. For example, I bought a record from Discogs two weeks ago, The site still shows the last sale as having taken place eight months ago. Mine may appear in time, I suppose, but it's not there yet. 

[Chalky]

1 hour ago, johndelve said:

Another thing to consider is whether all sales actually find their way to Discogs. For example, I bought a record from Discogs two weeks ago, The site still shows the last sale as having taken place eight months ago. Mine may appear in time, I suppose, but it's not there yet. 

It takes a few weeks, once the sellers fees for that particular period have been paid 

[Stevegods]

So .. just to ask a simpleton question as someone that doesn’t buy that many 45’s other than fairly cheap ones I like .. 

How does this fit in as I thought this was just a £15 pressing or am I wrong ? 

[Johndelve]

55 minutes ago, chalky said:

It takes a few weeks, once the sellers fees for that particular period have been paid 

Oh, ok, cheers

[Dave Pinch]

even looking at the discogs listing ..gwen mcrae is £40 and not £30.. see its creepin up 

[Tomangoes]

I'm not sure if 45rpm single vinyl discs are even sold today outside special editions of one kind or another, but they would surely retail around a tenner?

A 50 year old original single must surely then have trebled in price simply because of its ever decreasing numbers available.

Of course all logic goes out of the window when popularity takes hold.

I remember back in the day when seven day lover sold for a lottery win at one point.

Ed

[Dave Pinch]

1 minute ago, tomangoes said:

I'm not sure if 45rpm single vinyl discs are even sold today outside special editions of one kind or another, but they would surely retail around a tenner?

A 50 year old original single must surely then have trebled in price simply because of its ever decreasing numbers available.

Of course all logic goes out of the window when popularity takes hold.

I remember back in the day when seven day lover sold for a lottery win at one point.

Ed

still a lottery win lol... even more so in fact.. i only won a tenner this week

 

 

[Guest Trigger]

Only thing can add to this ,do homework and buy from trusted dealers have been stung a couple of times when chasing so called bargains

[Blackpoolsoul]

18 hours ago, stevegods said:

So .. just to ask a simpleton question as someone that doesn’t buy that many 45’s other than fairly cheap ones I like .. 

How does this fit in as I thought this was just a £15 pressing or am I wrong ? 

It's a boot £72.....Oh Dear, £72 would be cheap for the one below

Edited March 24, 2019 by Blackpoolsoul
Updated

[Marty57]

22 minutes ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

It's a boot £72.....Oh Dear, £72 would be cheap for the one below

Maybe tis a boot but to get one back in the day one would have been deep entrenched in the 'scene '.