help with eBay sale dispute

[Maple Creek]

I'm new to Nihonto and am seeking some help resolving a eBay dispute I'm having with a buyer - my first ever

 

The title of the sale was "WWII Japanese Officer’s Samurai Katana Sword – Out of the Woodwork." At least two members here participated in the bidding. Here's the link:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/300906762352?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1559.l2649

 

The buyer wants a refund, which is fine as my policy is to offer full refunds for any reason. However, my policy also states that items must be returned in the same condition sent. The main point of dispute is that in my opinion the sword is not being returned in the same condition as sent. The buyer differs in on this point.

 

The buyer undid the stitching on the combat wrap of this piece and restitched it with new thread. He wouldn't contest this. My view is that this disqualifies the item for refund, or at least calls for a partial refund only. The buyer thinks it's not a big deal and wants a full refund.

 

The buyer pointed out, correctly, that the stitching on the sword was not original anyway because it did not match the imprint on the leather. I think it is at least possible that the stitching on the handle when I got the sword was period done. At any rate, I don't think it should have been removed if the buyer intended to return the piece.

 

I'm a collector of military helmets, so am out of my depth with swords. In my field, however, an equivalent modification of a helmet would be a no-no if you intended to return it. So I'm seeking disinterested views of people who are knowledgeable sword collectors.

 

I told the buyer that I would refund him 100% if there was a consensus view among reputable collector/dealers his modification is not significant, but have asked him to abide if the consensus judgement is different.

 

1) Is the sword in your opinion returnable given my conditions of return (i.e. must be returned in the same condition)

2) Is he eligible for a full refund?

3) If he's eligible for a partial refund, what's the correct adjustment? The sale price was $2,391.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Additional photos: http://s1008.photobucket.com/user/maple_creek/library/Katana

 

Mark D.

[cabowen]

I don't understand why the buyer wants a refund. He bid, he bought, you described it accurately. He undid the thread to take the handle off, and now wants his money back because he lost his gamble? I don't know your policies, but usually, unless there is something wrong with the item that was not disclosed, it's his....

 

If you wanted to give him a refund, I certainly wouldn't give him a full refund. You have to pay to touch...

[patrick7813]

I don’t believe the buyer is due a full refund. He did modify the item, even if only technically. It would be a defendable position for you that once he made that decision, the sword was his…….. and unless he takes the threading he removed from the tsuka cover to a lab and has it age tested, he can‘t prove it wasn’t period installed.

 

If he wants a refund because the sword was not as advertised or a “flaw” not disclosed, that becomes murkier due to his modification. I’m sure once he got the sword “in-hand” and did whatever; he realized he significantly overbid (you won't see this bid level again) for what he received. By simply viewing pictures, it’s difficult to access an overall value. For a collector of militaria correctness, his modification would likely reduce any final sale value by 10-15 percent. Of course, in a future auction, you’ll have to disclose the tsuka cover had been removed. Due to that, you’d be better served to remove the tsuka and see if the smith signed/dated the nakago (tang) and then disclose that too.

 

Unfortunately for you, if you don’t give him any refund and he disputes the sale to eBay for resolution, they usually side with the buyer. He’ll likely disagree with anything other than a full refund. If me, I’d proactively contact eBay and explain the situation to them before he lodges a dispute…..

[Surfson]

Mark, I was an underbidder on this sword, and think that you would be completely within your rights to refuse return or offer a 50% return. Part of the reason that the sword went as high as it did is due to the undisturbed nature of the blade, and the likelihood that nobody had had a look at the tang to determine who made it and what era it was from. Since the cutting edge was listed at 28" or so, it seemed quite possible that it was an older sword, as this length is rather uncommon in WWII era swords in general, and especially machine made blades. Your buyer paid a premium to have the pleasure of scratching off the lotto ticket and seeing what he got. It doesn't seem right to me that he wants to return it now that he didn't have a treasure blade on his hands.

 

To flip it around, if he had found a 13th or 14th century blade in there, do you think he would have returned it just because the hole on the handle doesn't line up with the hole in the tang or the combat wrap was modified at some point? I think not. Good luck with the dispute - I hope that you don't end up with a negative feedback. I had a similar dispute with a buyer in Canada. I had listed the sword "as is" for buyers outside the US. He found a small crack in the saya and wanted to return the blade. I offered to reduce the price by $150.00 and he accepted my offer. After all that, he gave me nasty negative feedback!

[Toryu2020]

Adding my voice to the consensus, he bought it, doesnt like what he bought, i am sure with period thread and stitching he can get what he paid for it!

 

Seriously, you should not have to refund this.

-t

[Lance]

I think once the buyer removed the stiching he voided your policy of returning it in the same condition as sent. The pictures you provided were clear enough to show the way the cover was stitched, and as others mentioned it does seem like the only reason he wants to return it is because he wasn't happy with what was under the handle.

 

Regards,

Lance

[estcrh]

The buyer altered the item, you do not owe him anything.

[Jamie]

He altered the item therefore breaching your return policy.

He decreased the value of the item in doing so.

I agree you do not owe refund, he bought it.

[Alex A]

Is this guy taking the p----, he bought, or rather pretended to buy?( using ebay buyer protection to pull off his little gamble).

If this was not on ebay would you contemplate giving him his money back?, i certainly would not.

The best you can do is speak to ebay, he altered the item, admitted altering the item, hopefully shouldnt be a problem for you.

Theres no defense for him, if he wished to take a gamble then he should learn to live with his loss, as gamblers do.

 

Alex.

[Barrie B]

Mark,

 

We can all clearly see the additional damage on the leather cover, post removal... So definitely not a full refund..!

 

Good luck with it.

 

Barrie.

[Pete Klein]

Buyer purposefully altered the condition of the merchandise detrimentally, therefore no return / refund.

[SwordGuyJoe]

You don't have to refund. He voided your policy when he removed the stitching. I also agree that he WAY over paid here. Don't expect these kinds of prices on similar swords.

[Hayabusa]

Tell him I will give him a $1000 for it :D

[Stu W]

My background is in militaria rather than nihonto ( a relatively new focus for me) and I can assure you any sort of modification to, or of, stitching whether it be on a tsuka cover, helmet or item of clothing etc. is grounds for refusal to refund.

 

Regards,

Stu

[Maple Creek]

Thanks to everybody who has weighed in and offered opinions. I really appreciate your views and your help especially as I am new to this field of collecting. The buyer is a member of this forum, so hopefully this will help us resolve the dispute. I'll let you all know what the outcome is.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark D.

[Geoffrey]

What the seller did not point out is that the handle and the Tsuba are not original to the sword . The seller claims untouched but it was not , someone had drilled the Tang again for the replacement handle , the driil hole color inside was new clean steel so someone else has been involved before not to long ago. This goes against his EBay description . it is not an issue about the age of the sword , being 28 inches long is a find in its self . But being deceptive about the description is another issue , the seller may not of known as the sword was given to him by another person. But must stand behind his discription stated. Also the stitches cannot be original as the cover was put there to hide the fact that the handle etc were changed. I know if members purchased a sword called untouched only to find it had been stuffed around and changed they would be disappointed with the purchase. To the under bidder I believe you to would to have been upset to find an altered sword , it does not matter that it was a modern Smith , I collect both . Thanks Geoff

[Ed]

The swords are as-found relics, probably in exactly the same condition as when they were brought back to the States after the war. They’ve never been in a collection before and have not been cleaned, polished, sharpened or modified in any way since 1945 as far as I can tell.

 

This sword belonged to an officer. The clasp for locking the sword into the scabbard is broken. The leather sewn around the handle inhibits disassembly of the sword to examine the blade for maker signature, although there are maker marks below the hilt.

 

I have read the comments and looked at the original listing, but was waiting for the buyer to respond. Above is the description found on the listing with the key points placed in bold. There is nothing deceptive about the listing, he has made no guarantee stating "probably" and "as far as I can tell".

 

The only definitive thing I can determine is that the buyer did, alter the condition of the sword from the way it was sold.

END OF STORY! NO REFUND DUE!

 

You may not be happy and I sympathize for you , but you and only you chose to alter the sword. Now you must live with the consequences of your decisions.

 

Let it be a lesson learned.

Let it be a lesson for others who continue to search for treasures on E-Bay.

 

c'est la vie.

[Kai-Gunto]

Found this in the auction:

 

 

The vet was in the navy in the Pacific. My friend discovered the swords wrapped in cloth and stuffed into the rafters in the basement of the home. The swords are as-found relics, probably in exactly the same condition as when they were brought back to the States after the war. They’ve never been in a collection before and have not been cleaned, polished, sharpened or modified in any way since 1945 as far as I can tell.

 

 

You did mess with it , cut the thread.

 

Look pictures in auctions carefully , they tell !

[drbvac]

I bought a blade signed by Kanefusa and in cleaning the nakago found a showa stamp filled with dirty rust coloured wax - No idea who filled it in but not as advertised so seller reduced price if I wanted to keep it. These transactions are always "risky" in some way or another but surely two rational adults can come up with a compromise.

 

This is probably a bigger problem than in some cases because the price is a LOT higher than would be realized on a re-sale.

 

Hope it works out for both of you

[cabowen]

It comes down to whether or not the seller was being honest and told the truth, as far as he could. If he truly thought the sword was untouched, there was no deception. If he lied, then that is a different thing.

 

Just because the sword had been remounted does not mean it was done post war. It may have been done during the war or even by a GI putting his souvenir together.

 

Unfortunately, it will be difficult to prove that the seller was lying. I would look at his feedback and if he has sold other swords in the past.

 

In any case, buying a sword without seeing the nakago is a gamble. One pays a premium for such things because there is upside potential, just like buying a scratch off lottery ticket. Sometimes one wins, sometimes not. Buyer beware, blah blah blah.

[Maple Creek]

The sword, like anything I sell on eBay, could have been returned for a full refund for any reason. It just needed to be returned in the same condition as sent, which this was not.

 

My feeling about the piece is that the modifications , specifically the possible replacement of the handle and the stitching that was on the tang when I got it, were period done, or at least possibly period done. Of course, I could be wrong, which is one of the reasons I offered an unconditional return. Part of the charm of this piece was the opportunity to be the first person (possibly at least) since WWII to disassemble the thing and find out if it was made by a rare of valuable maker.

 

Personally, I've grown to be adverse to mucking around with WWII relics, so I probably would have left the piece as is if I had chosen to keep it. I understand, however, that sword collectors like to see the maker marks.

 

The PayPal dispute was resolved in Geoff's favor, but I've appealed. Some of the evidence that I submitted, including comments from here didn't upload for some reason.

 

I think this dispute is partly a generational issue. Older collectors from Geoff's and my generation used to not give much thought to pulling military relics apart, switching parts, etc. Younger collectors are mostly adverse to that kind of thing. I've noticed from my sales that "out-of-the-woodwork" stuff gets a significant premium, so I always highlight this if I find something apparently unmodified that hasn't been in a collection before. Unfortunately, this piece no longer qualifies as "out-of-the-woodwork."

 

Thanks again for everybody's input, including Geoff. The dispute is a drag, of course, but I've enjoyed going through a learning curve on Japanese swords.

 

Mark D.

 

What the seller did not point out is that the handle and the Tsuba are not original to the sword . The seller claims untouched but it was not , someone had drilled the Tang again for the replacement handle , the driil hole color inside was new clean steel so someone else has been involved before not to long ago. This goes against his EBay description . it is not an issue about the age of the sword , being 28 inches long is a find in its self . But being deceptive about the description is another issue , the seller may not of known as the sword was given to him by another person. But must stand behind his discription stated. Also the stitches cannot be original as the cover was put there to hide the fact that the handle etc were changed. I know if members purchased a sword called untouched only to find it had been stuffed around and changed they would be disappointed with the purchase. To the under bidder I believe you to would to have been upset to find an altered sword , it does not matter that it was a modern Smith , I collect both . Thanks Geoff

[Brian]

I think this one has been fully covered now.

 

Brian