I don't bring this up lightly...

[Beck]

I tend agree with your assessment - he refunded the money for the rifle, quibbling over shipping costs seems like making a mountain out of a molehill to me. I agree with the sentiment of the original post, we should be a community that looks out for one another. I recently had a bad experience with a member that sold me a scope, and I made a similar post. In this case it seems to me that this can all be chalked up to a genuine misunderstanding rather than one member trying to scam another member - my scope was a different story in my opinion

IMO @Rare Breed made it right by immediately refunding the money and some of the shipping costs. We're talking about a discrepancy of ~1% being argued over here regarding the additional shipping cost. I personally would just chock it up as one of the risks of buying something sight unseen and be thrilled I got my $20k+ back without any hassle if I wasn't happy with the purchase.

 

[franzfmdavis]

I tend agree with your assessment - he refunded the money for the rifle, quibbling over shipping costs seems like making a mountain out of a molehill to me. I agree with the sentiment of the original post, we should be a community that looks out for one another. I recently had a bad experience with a member that sold me a scope, and I made a similar post. In this case it seems to me that this can all be chalked up to a genuine misunderstanding rather than one member trying to scam another member - my scope was a different story in my opinion

So your public complaint about a bad experience was legitimate, but my public complaint about a bad experience is not. Sounds inconsistent to me.

I would also ask you and any others who have seen this as just a “misunderstanding” to please specify for me what the misunderstanding was.
I am happy to own up to a mistake if I’ve made one, but I have not received any specific explanation or reference of what words or terms I misunderstood? I provided all communications so that everyone can see what transpired.

 

[PARA45]

I don't have a dog in this fight but hate to see this.

I posted earlier that I believe there was a misunderstanding on the word "perfect". @Rare Breed sent the rifle to JJ to get inspected, and the rifle was perfect, in function, not in condition. That is what JJ does, and the receipt from JJ states what was done.

So, I still believe that maybe you or your BIL thought that perfect meant a pristine, flawless rifle. Unfortunately, even in the safe rifles get dinged and scratched.

 

[375er]

Ok. Enough. There was no "misunderstanding" in my mind. The photos posted in the add are clearly not showing the condition of the rifle when it was sold. What the buyer received was the equivalent of a crashed car. I have a safe full of guns that have been hunted hard for well over 40 years that have no where near the amount of damage seen in the photos of the gun as it was received.. That gun is at best worth 10k now. Certainly not 20k.

 

[franzfmdavis]

I don't have a dog in this fight but hate to see this.

I posted earlier that I believe there was a misunderstanding on the word "perfect". @Rare Breed sent the rifle to JJ to get inspected, and the rifle was perfect, in function, not in condition. That is what JJ does, and the receipt from JJ states what was done.

So, I still believe that maybe you or your BIL thought that perfect meant a pristine, flawless rifle. Unfortunately, even in the safe rifles get dinged and scratched.

We only expected that the gun would be consistent with the pictures in the ad, not that it would be "perfect". If it would have, none of this would have occurred.

 

[Rickmt]

I also have purchased guns on this forum when the seller’s description and pics failed to identify defects. Although these pale in comparison to a twenty thousand dollar rifle.
Let the buyer beware , and thank you to the forum for insuring a lot better marketplace than Gunbroker etc.

 

[Hunt anything]

Maybe I’m just too easy going but I probably would have asked @Rare Breed to drop the price by 2 or 3 grand and been happy to have a Rigby double.
This is just hypothetical on my part as I will never be able to justify spending that much on a rifle. I’ll just spend my money on another safari.

 

[RedTag]

I never buy a gun without physically inspecting it in person. For starters, bore condition is very difficult to show in pictures and is a very important consideration for me in assessing a used hunting rifle. For the most part, I can’t care less about cosmetic scratches on the wood as those are going to happen when I use it. Mechanical functionality is only assessable in person, unless you’re to take the word of the friend of the seller your wife’s brother met in the internet. If I handed my step cousin 20 grand to go buy me a used car from the internet and it showed up with a cracked windshield and tires different than in the picture, I shouldn’t be entirely surprised. I would certainly be amazed if I got a refund! I am new here but it seems to me both parties need to forgive and forget, or fight and let God decide the truth of it.

 

[franzfmdavis]

thank you to the forum for insuring a lot better marketplace than Gunbroker etc

I think this sentiment hits the nail on the head. My hope is that the trust built in the forum is equivalent if not better than the expectations we have when buying from a reputable dealer.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Maybe I’m just too easy going but I probably would have asked @Rare Breed to drop the price by 2 or 3 grand and been happy to have a Rigby double.
This is just hypothetical on my part as I will never be able to justify spending that much on a rifle. I’ll just spend my money on another safari.

To be fair it is a California “Rigby”. I don’t mean any offense or disrespect to any party but at that price point I would’ve went with a Heym or K-gun. Maybe a VC. Those “Rigby” rifles are not desirable in the slightest. Virtually impossible to give away, let alone sell or resell. If a “Rigby” rifle says Paso Robles on it I would run away as fast as my legs could carry me.. IMHO.

 

[BJH65]

So your public complaint about a bad experience was legitimate, but my public complaint about a bad experience is not. Sounds inconsistent to me.

I would also ask you and any others who have seen this as just a “misunderstanding” to please specify for me what the misunderstanding was.
I am happy to own up to a mistake if I’ve made one, but I have not received any specific explanation or reference of what words or terms I misunderstood? I provided all communications so that everyone can see what transpired.

I don’t think you made a “mistake.” It appears you have a legitimate grievance in regard to the shipping cost refund. It seems to me, once you decided you or your brother in law were wronged, you decided to go public and make your case. In for a penny, in for a pound. You then proceeded to essentially present a case to us as a lawyer and we the jury. You presented blown up photos that greatly magnified the damage for shocking effect which gained you a lot of sympathy from other members although if they were to hold this double in their hands it would not appear so horrific looking.

In order to influence the jury, you also and I’m paraphrasing, stated other forum members have privately messaged you complaining about rare breed. In my opinion, unless they are willing to go public, then you should refrain from mentioning this (if true, how are we to know?) which if not true could be considered slander.

Rare Breed mentioned and reiterated this double had scratches that did not concern him but he clearly conveyed it could concern others. This is a clue. When any kind of damage is pointed out, especially on a 20k plus rifle, it bears further effort to research this, no?

Since Rare Breed immediately accepted the return of the rifle and components, refunded your brother in law, the issue then became the full refund of the shipping costs. Reading between the lines, a “threat” of going public on the forum was made and Rare Breed basically said pound sand at this point.

It is very clear to me that you believe Rare Breed was deceptive and are conveying this to AH members as the altruistic protector of us all. But, it is not clear to me and others upon presenting your case, that Rare Breed is deceptive and dishonest. You have not won the case after presenting all of your evidence, not all jurors are in agreement with you. You also want Rare Breed to confess to all AH members that he was dishonest and deceptive, that’s not going to happen.

None of this needed to be made public on this venue, it helped no one in my opinion. Both of you seem to be likeable and decent guys. I hope that the honorable Rookhawk’s offer is accepted and all can move on.

 

[rookhawk]

I never buy a gun without physically inspecting it in person. For starters, bore condition is very difficult to show in pictures and is a very important consideration for me in assessing a used hunting rifle. For the most part, I can’t care less about cosmetic scratches on the wood as those are going to happen when I use it. Mechanical functionality is only assessable in person, unless you’re to take the word of the friend of the seller your wife’s brother met in the internet. If I handed my step cousin 20 grand to go buy me a used car from the internet and it showed up with a cracked windshield and tires different than in the picture, I shouldn’t be entirely surprised. I would certainly be amazed if I got a refund! I am new here but it seems to me both parties need to forgive and forget, or fight and let God decide the truth of it.

I've offered for people to personally inspect in-person countless times. I think its only happened once or twice and even then it was a social get together to dine and drink with good people on the forum like @Wyatt Smith . We were probably going to meet regardless.

The most astounding experience I've ever had was selling my beloved best grade heym. I hated to see it go, but I was in a mode to become debt-free in <2 years, so it was on the chopping block. A fellow sent a one sentence email "do you have it still?" I responded with all the details, call me, I'll make a video, here's 8 paragraphs about it, etc. <ghosted>. Next month, same five word email, same long reply back. <ghosted>. Third month "give me your address". <ghosted> Of course this is 110% looking like a scam. The check arrives and I know this thing is going to bounce like a rubber ball, its not even a cashier's check. Wrong.

Someone bought a $43,000 rifle, sight unseen, utilizing 15 words over three months and three emails. No phone call. No video.

Was it worth it and fairly priced? 100%. Was it a bizarre extreme example of a buyer? Yep. It turned out the buyer was the #1 donor in a particular US State to the democrat party which was also an unusual clientele for a luxury double rifle as well.

You never know how a deal is going to go down.

 

[franzfmdavis]

I don’t think you made a “mistake.” It appears you have a legitimate grievance in regard to the shipping cost refund. It seems to me, once you decided you or your brother in law were wronged, you decided to go public and make your case. In for a penny, in for a pound. You then proceeded to essentially present a case to us as a lawyer and we the jury. You presented blown up photos that greatly magnified the damage for shocking effect which gained you a lot of sympathy from other members although if they were to hold this double in their hands it would not appear so horrific looking.

In order to influence the jury, you also and I’m paraphrasing, stated other forum members have privately messaged you complaining about rare breed. In my opinion, unless they are willing to go public, then you should refrain from mentioning this (if true, how are we to know?) which if not true could be considered slander.

Rare Breed mentioned and reiterated this double had scratches that did not concern him but he clearly conveyed it could concern others. This is a clue. When any kind of damage is pointed out, especially on a 20k plus rifle, it bears further effort to research this, no?

Since Rare Breed immediately accepted the return of the rifle and components, refunded your brother in law, the issue then became the full refund of the shipping costs. Reading between the lines, a “threat” of going public on the forum was made and Rare Breed basically said pound sand at this point.

It is very clear to me that you believe Rare Breed was deceptive and are conveying this to AH members as the altruistic protector of us all. But, it is not clear to me and others upon presenting your case, that Rare Breed is deceptive and dishonest. You have not won the case after presenting all of your evidence, not all jurors are in agreement with you. You also want Rare Breed to confess to all AH members that he was dishonest and deceptive, that’s not going to happen.

None of this needed to be made public on this venue, it helped no one in my opinion. Both of you seem to be likeable and decent guys. I hope that the honorable Rookhawk’s offer is accepted and all can move on.

@BJH65 I certainly appreciate you sharing your opinion, but some of the things you say, indicate to me that you did not read my full post, albeit very long.

Toward the middle and end, I show that I repeatedly messaged @Rare Breed to try and resolve it privately and also called him and left messages to which he did not respond. His final response to me was essentially an “FU” followed by a taunt to bring it to the forum. I did not immediately do so thinking he might change his mind but after several days of no follow up, I brought to the issue to the forum. I certainly agree that it is best to resolve these disputes privately if possible. I believe I provided all of the objective communications and calls to show that I tried to do this privately first.

The only threat that was made to taking this public was by @Rare Breed when he said “ I’m 100% sure all former members would agree with me”. I interpreted this as a threat to keep quiet, or else.

When you say you read between the lines and believe I threatened him, you are essentially saying don’t believe you’re lying eyes when you read what @Rare Breed wrote, instead believe what @Rare Breed is saying. That’s not convincing to me.

I also understand that not all people will agree with me for various reasons. That is OK. However, I need to be given something objective and convincing to change my opinion about what happened.

 

[Beck]

So your public complaint about a bad experience was legitimate, but my public complaint about a bad experience is not. Sounds inconsistent to me.

I would also ask you and any others who have seen this as just a “misunderstanding” to please specify for me what the misunderstanding was.
I am happy to own up to a mistake if I’ve made one, but I have not received any specific explanation or reference of what words or terms I misunderstood? I provided all communications so that everyone can see what transpired.

I am not trying to argue with you. I think this rifle has some legitimate issues, but photos aren't perfect and stock condition is somewhat subjective. At the end of the day you're not stuck with a rifle you don't want, a refund was made. I received a non-functioning item, and the seller appeared to lie about prior service done to the scope - they never offered a refund or a price concession - to me that is nefarious - I'll shut up now.

 

[Hunt anything]

To be fair it is a California “Rigby”. I don’t mean any offense or disrespect to any party but at that price point I would’ve went with a Heym or K-gun. Maybe a VC. Those “Rigby” rifles are not desirable in the slightest. Virtually impossible to give away, let alone sell or resell. If a “Rigby” rifle says Paso Robles on it I would run away as fast as my legs could carry me.. IMHO.

I didn’t read that deeply into it about it being a California Rigby. Drop by 10 or 12 grand.

 

[franzfmdavis]

I do think there are two important, but different types of analysis of this transaction.

I am happy to consider both.

One involves the actual transaction, and one involves a hypothetical and possibly better transaction.

There have been a lot of useful suggestions made about a different hypothetical transaction, which would not have resulted in these problems.

Regarding the other, I am open to considering, but have not yet received any convincing an objective proof about what I may have done wrong in the actual transaction that occurred.

I was very careful to detail my complaints with proof so that there was objective evidence of what I was saying rather than just my opinion. If someone sees a hole in my argument, then please dont hesitate to point it out to me with a reference to the proof this does not support my position.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

@BJH65 I certainly appreciate you sharing your opinion, but some of the things you say, indicate to me that you did not read my full post, albeit very long.

Toward the middle and end, I show that I repeatedly messaged @Rare Breed to try and resolve it privately and also called him and left messages to which he did not respond. His final response to me was essentially an “FU” followed by a taunt to bring it to the forum. I did not immediately do so thinking he might change his mind but after several days of no follow up, I brought to the issue to the forum. I certainly agree that it is best to resolve these disputes privately if possible. I believe I provided all of the objective communications and calls to show that I tried to do this privately first.

The only threat that was made to taking this public was by @Rare Breed when he said “ I’m 100% sure all former members would agree with me”. I interpreted this as a threat to keep quiet, or else.

When you say you read between the lines and believe I threatened him, you are essentially saying don’t believe you’re lying eyes when you read what @Rare Breed wrote, instead believe what @Rare Breed is saying. That’s not convincing to me.

I also understand that not all people will agree with me for various reasons. That is OK. However, I need to be given something objective and convincing to change my opinion about what happened.

Hmm. Why would he say only "former" members would agree with him? Former members of what? Was the statement made in the context of African Hunting forum? If so, why would he want the jury selected from "former members"? It did sound like a challenge to go public ... but not entirely public.

 

[BJH65]

Hmm. Why would he say only "former" members would agree with him? Former members of what? Was the statement made in the context of African Hunting forum?

Probably a typo, I believe he probably meant forum members.

 

[RR 314]

Hmm. Why would he say only "former" members would agree with him? Former members of what? Was the statement made in the context of African Hunting forum? If so, why would he want the jury selected from "former members"? It did sound like a challenge to go public ... but not entirely public.

I’m sure he dictated that—or auto correct. Forum = Former. A priori reasoning. .

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Probably a typo, I believe he probably meant forum members.

Probably a typo, I believe he probably meant forum members.

Of course. Duh!