[78-L] A mis-informed seller? or just plain dumb?

[Julian Vein]

Jim Whipkey wrote:
>   There's a seller on E-Boing   I came across yesterday  who is  offering  398 LP records from the 70s and 90s, which he says are 78rpm.  The  offering was such a mess of contradictions I  felt compelled to ask him a question, part of which inquired  about was he sure  the records were 78rpm,  which of course was ignored.
> 
>   the item number is 320477094503.  The seller is the VillageGiftShoppe,  and is "a top rated seller",   This  seller is offering the records for $125.00.  Payment must be by Paypal,    no returns accepted and  local pickup only, but  inquire if you're buying  more, so he can give you a shipping discount.  The description says the  jackets are in fair to poor condition,  but  one might consider using them in crafts projects.  assuming the records are in playable condition,  you can get them for about 31 cents apiece,  such valuable  discs of great artists  from the 70s and 90s,  none of which I would  have or bother listening to.
>   Irritates me to see  dummies like this  offer something which is patently incorrect,  which by association, colors  other sellers who accurately list  their items.   This seller is in Gnadhutten, OH, place I know well, deep in the heart of what is called  "Amish" country, where they have a lot of  those  folks who eschew  modern inventions such as electricity and phones.  
>   Jim Whipkey
> _______________________________________________
Found it. The number is 320478094503. Seems he's taken your advice and 
removed reference to 78rpms.

Don't those 70s' sleeves look tired and dated? Gone were the days when 
any LP had artwork that made you proud to hold it in your hand 
regardless of the content.

I see stuff like that at car boot (trash) sales--records that have been 
exposed to the sun and rain, as a result of having been carted to the 
sales week after week, resulting in them becoming welded together, and 
looking as if they'd been peed on by dogs.

      Julian Vein


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4886 (20100222) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com