Are These Perforations Possible?

Okay, I took some time yesterday to search the net for the codes of ethics Bill mentioned and a couple of others I either knew about or ran into from other places. Since ebay is a global marketplace and not specific to the United States, it was important to me in particular to see how such codes compared in other countries.

APS Code of Ethics, (http://stamps.org/Code-of-Ethics)
APS Standing Resolutions (http://stamps.org/Standing-Resolutions)
ASDA Code of Ethics (https://www.americanstampdealer.com...aspx?id=286)
Royal Philatelic Society of Canada Code of Ethics (https://www.rpsc.org/ethics.htm)
The Philatelic Traders Society Code of Ethics (http://thephilatelictraderssociety....-of-ethics/)
FIP "Fédération Internationale de Philatélie" Code of Conduct (http://www.f-i-p.ch/regulation/docu...conduct.pdf)
Internet Code of Ethics [did not find one that seemed to apply here. Perhaps Bill can fill in that blank.]
The ebay guidelines page, as of 3/11/15 as I saw it, reads as cjd posted earlier in this thread.



In applying all this to the case of nystamps we might consider the question thus:



From the list of Codes above (links provided) we may distill out some key articles that most directly apply. I have selected three, which I reproduce here (two US codes, one British):


ASDA Pledge
3. To refrain from dealing in stolen philatelic and counterfeit material, and to furnish buyers of repaired, regummed, reperforated, restored reprinted or otherwise altered philatelic material with a complete written statement showing in detail the nature of the changes and alterations in such material.

APS code, item 7:
7.I agree not knowingly to sell, trade, produce, or advertise repaired, altered, or otherwise modified philatelic items unless that condition is clearly stated. I further agree not to sell, produce, or advertise counterfeit material in any form, in violation of any law.

PTS code:
ARTICLE 1. Forgeries and repaired, re-gummed or faulty stamps.

Counterfeit stamps shall never knowingly be offered as genuine. Faulty or repaired stamps shall never knowingly be offered as perfect. Unofficial reprints shall never knowingly be offered as originals. A buyer shall never knowingly be misled as to quantity, quality or specification. If it is wished to sell items which are not postage stamps, which are in unused condition, or have been valid for use in the national or international mails, their status must be described.


Other choices are possible and the reader is invited to add them. All these code statements sound very much alike, in substance. They also sound absolute and final, with no room for extenuating circumstances. The two US codes indeed do not make provision for extenuating circumstances, though in practice a tribunal with power to adjudicate a case may consider such. However, the PTS code does add a list of extensions to the thought of its article 1:

ARTICLE 3. Professional liability.

(a) Should a member, as a stamp dealer, or any one employed by him or authorized by him to act in his name, supply stamps and/or other philatelic material which do not accord with his description of it, the member must accept full responsibility. The member must refund the full purchase price or may replace the unsatisfactory material with material according to his original description, subject to the satisfaction of the buyer that it is so.

(b) Where a member supplies a stamps and /or philatelic material with a certificate of genuineness his description must agree with and include that of the certificate in its entirety including remarks concerning condition. Provided that the certificate is from a recognized expert or expert committee then the member will be considered to have met his obligation under Article 1 and is not required to provide a refund or replacement under Article 3(a). Any claim that the certificate is incorrect is a matter to be taken up with the expert or expert committee by the claimant.

(c) If a member finds himself unable to guarantee the genuineness or condition of any particular material, he may sell such described as "believed to be", "apparently" or "possibly" and "but not guaranteed to be" such an such. He may also write on his invoice words to the effect that he accepts no responsibility to accept the return of the material unless the description can be proved false or misleading. This is the only way in which a member may attempt to sell material "without recourse".

(d) A member must insert, in his written contractual terms, a clear and conspicuous statement that the contractual terms stated do not and will not affect the statutory rights of a "consumer".



PTS code article 3 section a effectively stipulates that in the event of a failure of a stamp to correspond to its description, the purchase price must be refunded. That element is missing from the US codes.


How are we doing so far? Everyone following this?

I can't wait to see where you are going to end up! But thanks for the effort. I particularly like APS Code of Ethics Item #7...........

To me, ASDA Pledge item 3 is stronger than APS point 7, because the ASDA Pledge item does not have a knowledge qualifier. I would interpret it as requiring investigation and disclosure. In other words if the item has been repaired in fact, you must disclose it; you cannot say you did not know. With APS point 7, the dealer can put his/her head in the sand.

True, but the offending party would need to be an ASDA member before the "rules" can be enforced upon them. But indeed, as a point of the type of behavior/ethics our industry desires, it's very useful IMO.

"... a complete written statement showing in detail the nature of the changes and alterations"

I don't think any ASDA dealer does this for every stamp they sell, assuming one uses commonly-accepted definitions of "complete", "statement" and "in detail."

According to this, describing an item as "faulty", a "filler" or even just "reperforated" is unacceptable. Ridiculous.

I agree Ken. I doubt thst anybody would agree with ALL of these "rules" of ethical conduct, but don't you think - as an ethical dealer yourself - that many (especially the APS and ASDA) DO make good sense?

The way that this question is composed at first reading does seem to make sense, but when you consider that it strongly intimates that because the seller is willing to provide an "unchallanged" refund, that it is then OK to sell things as is described earlier in the paragraph.

The single most important problem using that logic is the simple fact that UNLESS the buyer has the ability/skill necessary to determine that the product is "defective" or "fake" or some other problematic condition, the refund policy does the buyer no good whatsoever, so is useless to him/her.

Indeed, the "solution" is not in the refund policy, it is in the ethics of the seller. If the seller is ethical, he will make every effort to describe the product accurately simply because it's the "right thing to do". Once the seller operates to that standard, there will likely be a dramatic decrease in the number of problematic listings. And then the whole dynamic changes. The site becomes more desirable to everyone. It's all about ETHICS. Nothing else.

Bill..Not being sarcastic, but do you really believe dealers on ebay will be ethical...You know there are people out there just wanting to make money any way possible... There is NO face to face interaction..And if it gets too hot for the deceptive seller, close shop and sign in as another person..Until that loop hole is closed in ebay, we are at risk of running into these unscrupulous people...Just my 2 cents worth.

Robert

Robert - Of course, you are right. But TRYING to improve conditions in any way you can is far more helpful than to simply ignore it. No?

I always like the quote from Martin Luther King; "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter".

Very, very true Bill...

Can ebay freeze a paypal account if a seller is proven to be unscrupulous..??

Or can ebay's process state that seller payment is with held for 30 days to protect buyers against this type of unethical behaviour...?

Just a thought....Robert

No, that won't change the fact that the buyers who are inexperienced can't recognize many of the altered, fake or repaired stamps for what they really are. It must be the source (seller) who behaves ethically.

Okay, you have had time to read through the codes I posted, I am sure.

One of the things that particularly struck me in comparing the three, is that by making no statements about the limits of liability or exception to the terms and conditions stated, the two US codes appear much more harsh in the matter of liability and consequences for infraction than the example from the UK. Nor did it escape my notice, in reading the comments about your preferred favorites, that no one expressed a preference for the British model, and that pride of place was given to whichever code was most stringent in its demands for compliance.

However, we must not lose sight of two important points: 1. ebay functions as a worldwide marketplace. 2. ebay has not chosen to subscribe to the ethics codes created by the societies in the list given above, does not refer users to them, and has crafted an abbreviated version of standards of its own.

All three of the codes I have singled out oppose deliberate misrepresentation of material for sale, albeit in somewhat divergent terms. Two of the codes prohibit "knowingly" misrepresenting an item. The APS code does not address the question of misrepresentation due to neglect, oversight, or incompetence. The PTS code addresses it in its article on professional liability, which we shall consider in a moment. The language of point three in the ASDA pledge does not leave any room for unintentional misrepresentation, and appears to treat all forms of misrepresentation, including error, as subject to penalty. However, three articles in the full ASDA Code of Conduct (link given above) nuance this:




The actual ASDA code requires fair practice in the representation of an item, but leaves a door open for correction or redress in cases of unintentional error. However, there is no provision for incompetence, which suggests that members who are shown to be incompetent may be expelled from membership upon complaint.


As noted above, the PTS code has a provision for dealing with unintentional misrepresentation that goes well beyond the other two. Article 3 subsection c reads:

The provision for an invoice disclaimer-of-liability-for-refund does not compel a seller to deny refunds, but specifies the terms and conditions for doing so. That provision appears moot if a seller has a policy of routinely providing refunds on demand. In that case the problem of unintentional misrepresentation, irrespective of cause or occasion, is left unaddressed. I would assert that it is presumably moot as well.

None of these three codes defines or discusses member incompetency, nor its regulation nor penalties to be associated.

The ASDA code, unlike the other two, does place a requirement upon its members that in matters of dispute they must agree to submit to binding arbitration, with the understanding that "the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof." In that respect the ASDA code functions more like a formal contract than an informal membership agreement. Similarly, the consequences for expulsion are much harsher, "21. If I should be found guilty of unethical or unlawful conduct, the record thereof may be disclosed to other philatelic societies of which I am a member." It is not clear to me whether "record" refers to the full proceedings or just the final outcome.

Please chew on these points for a day or so, and then I will share my final comments on the applicability of these codes to the situation we have been discussing.

Bill, your idea of "ethical" requires that the seller watch out for the incompetence of the buyer and protect the buyer from mistakes. You want to couch that in terms of what you are calling "honest descriptions." There is another way an honest seller can do that, and that is through the use of disclaimers such as those mentioned in the PTS code.

You have not presented evidence that the persistent failure of nystamps to provide descriptions (beyond the lot title and a picture or two) is criminal neglect and not merely a source of aggravation. Nor have you demonstrated that the high rate of error is more than simple neglect. Those are both serious claims and not to be taken for granted.

In your ideas about "ethics" here you do allow for business models that REQUIRE an educated buyer. (Don't bid unless....) Nor have you proposed a way to test the sincerity or integrity of nystamps marketing approach. In my third installment I will share such a test which arose from a discussion I held last night at the Collector's Club of Chicago with a couple of members there.

All this effort at discussion can have a positive and fruitful outcome if we keep an open mind. But please do not ignore the contributions of the professional society in the UK. Please say something about them.

Essayk,

Nystamps is guilty of far more than neglect. Here is a quick list of there repaired stamps currently being auctioned off. They spend a lot of time hiding faults yet never mention a single one of them. How would you characterize this type of practice?

381183500314
311311751538
351335528880
351335581258
381183511371
311311784941

He will figure out a way......

But I also want to make clear that my opinions expressed here are not necesarily aimed at nystamps, even though it is true that the thread started based on a stamp they were selling and some of the posts directly state their name. This is a far bigger problem than one ebay seller. Unethical selling is fairly commonplace (as I think was pointed out by "eyeonwall" sometime ago) in all selling venues. But I believe that it is a higher percentage in online selling, and part of that, at least on ebay, is their willingness to allow sellers to post only pictures and consider it a "complete description" and second, to not enforce their own rules. And by eliminating the SCW and EMR Programs they made the problem even worse, because right now for a member to use their "Report Item" or "Contact Us" functions is a total waste of time. And don't you think that the ethically-challenged KNOW of this abandonment by ebay of any anti-fraud work? I bet they do.