Has anyone else been using StockX?

[cpf262]

Its not paranoia when they're taking real money from honest people. And they're whole brand is supposed to be built on honesty and integrity. At best they are inconistent enough to not meet the expectations they have set. At worst they're looking for quick dollars from unsuspecting customers and don’t care to even try to do a good job.

Ok bro just saying ur being kinda hostile which I understand but at the same time not everybody has had your experience so to make such blanket statements and assumptions is very much ridiculous when many people have had absolutely no issues. Also like I said Ive had a couple issues so Im not saying theyre perfect but obviously youre upset and all that. Open a claim or something with paypal if you have such an issue and are so adamant about them being a scam.

 

[itsaNYthing]

Yall need to read StockX's terms better. If yall are very picky about flaws and stuff like that, i would recommend sticking to GOAT as they are notorious for holding sellers accountable.
It even says it in StockX's FAQ that their definition of deadstock means possibly of random factory flaws and may even include being tried on previously.

 

[alp]

As a seller I prefer stockx, minus the lowballing that's a little worse on there. Buying based on what's been said here goat is better, but majority of the time I'm selling anyways

 

[agzie]

The ease of selling on stockx is nice and they pay quick. Plus, it beats having to deal with difficult customers that want shipping in 3 mins, chargebacks, etc. But, yeah the low balling/undercutting is annoying. After you wait several days to become the leading asking price someone comes along and asks for $1 less. Some will let you drop a $1 lower, then others will go back and forth.. Obviously rookie sellers. Has a lot to do with the value of sneakers dropping recently. Although, it can work in your favor as a buyer since the price drops below market. Wing 1s are already under 3 in some sizes..

 

[alp]

The ease of selling on stockx is nice and they pay quick. Plus, it beats having to deal with difficult customers that want shipping in 3 mins, chargebacks, etc. But, yeah the low balling/undercutting is annoying. After you wait several days to become the leading asking price someone comes along and asks for $1 less. Some will let you drop a $1 lower, then others will go back and forth.. Obviously rookie sellers. Has a lot to do with the value of sneakers dropping recently. Although, it can work in your favor as a buyer since the price drops below market. Wing 1s are already under 3 in some sizes..

Yea it doesn't make sense to use stockx on every shoe but on some that you want quick guaranteed money on it's essentially seamless

 

[ike2112]

Yall need to read StockX's terms better. If yall are very picky about flaws and stuff like that, i would recommend sticking to GOAT as they are notorious for holding sellers accountable.
It even says it in StockX's FAQ that their definition of deadstock means possibly of random factory flaws and may even include being tried on previously.

How is someone trying on the shoes and the leather being scratched, a factory flaw?
I have been doing this a long time, I've a loft and room full of trainers. Glue marks on your Jordan 11s, yeah to be expected. Loose threads, I get it we've all had B-grades. But when it looks like the guy has worn them round their house, scuffed them, then put them on sale as new boxed deadstock for $300, I am entitled to expect better.
Both US and UK consumer trading standards are clear that when you pay for gooda or service that you are entitled to expect to receive what waa described with any flaws noted and ideally photographed. They didn't mention the flaws in description. Hence the law is on my side - Stockx need to learn that they can't just set their own rules of engagement, they can't do the fun bit and just avoid complaints and returns and flaws/issues. Thats why we have these laws. Thats why I'm able to reverse the card transaction - cos they refused to deal with the problem and the law is on my side. As the items don't meet description, I am entitled to a refund, or I can negotiate a partial refund, but they're refusing. They're in the wrong here, and as a company they ought to be more responsible on this.

 

[pvpis23]

How is someone trying on the shoes and the leather being scratched, a factory flaw?
I have been doing this a long time, I've a loft and room full of trainers. Glue marks on your Jordan 11s, yeah to be expected. Loose threads, I get it we've all had B-grades. But when it looks like the guy has worn them round their house, scuffed them, then put them on sale as new boxed deadstock for $300, I am entitled to expect better.
Both US and UK consumer trading standards are clear that when you pay for gooda or service that you are entitled to expect to receive what waa described with any flaws noted and ideally photographed. They didn't mention the flaws in description. Hence the law is on my side - Stockx need to learn that they can't just set their own rules of engagement, they can't do the fun bit and just avoid complaints and returns and flaws/issues. Thats why we have these laws. Thats why I'm able to reverse the card transaction - cos they refused to deal with the problem and the law is on my side. As the items don't meet description, I am entitled to a refund, or I can negotiate a partial refund, but they're refusing. They're in the wrong here, and as a company they ought to be more responsible on this.

doubt you will get a refund

 

[ike2112]

doubt you will get a refund

Already have, I reversed the transaction via my bank.
Like i said, consumer law is on my side. They can now take me to court and we can settle on them paying me a partial refund, but as of last Thu the money is back with me.
The seller still has their cash too so its Stockx who are taking the loss right now. I'd be interested to see what they do next but obviously I've no way of knowing what they'll do with seller.

And I haven't even returned the shoes as they failed to provide instructions on how to do so. I am supposed to if they challenge the transaction and provide info to do so.
So in the meantime whilst I have my money back I'm in limbo with the shoes, I can't wear them in case I need to return them. So I bought another pair off eBay instead.

 

[frankmatthews]

doubt you will get a refund

Already have, I reversed the transaction via my bank.
Like i said, consumer law is on my side. They can now take me to court and we can settle on them paying me a partial refund, but as of last Thu the money is back with me.
The seller still has their cash too so its Stockx who are taking the loss right now. I'd be interested to see what they do next but obviously I've no way of knowing what they'll do with seller.

And I haven't even returned the shoes as they failed to provide instructions on how to do so. I am supposed to if they challenge the transaction and provide info to do so.
So in the meantime whilst I have my money back I'm in limbo with the shoes, I can't wear them in case I need to return them. So I bought another pair off eBay instead.

This is all for a scratch and an unlaced shoe? Jesus, man they're shoes. Buyers like you are the worst.

 

[ike2112]

This is all for a scratch and an unlaced shoe? Jesus, man they're shoes. Buyers like you are the worst.

Brand new in box deadstock shoes. $300.

They arrive with two scratches, noticeable not tiny ones, and they've clearly been worn.

Like I said, the law is on my side. The seller has a legal obligation to provide what they advertised in return for the cash paid. If you don't accept that, maybe you also need to educate yourself on the terms of a deal. And perhaps if you're sending out worn, scratched shoes that you have said are brand new unworn, and you refuse to discuss a return or partial refund, might I suggest sellers like you are the worst and why people fear being screwed over when buying trainers.
Companies like Stockx claim to fix this issue, yet this conversation shows that they don't.
You and I should be entitled to disagree on what is or isn't ok. Stockx are supposed to be the middle man who brokers it, and mediates if needed. Not absolve themselves.

It should be as simple as "we checked, they're authentic but they're scratched. Do you still want to sell them but offer a discount? Buyer - do you still want to buy them and if so do you accept the revised terms?"
That is how things should work. Stockx are just being lazy.

 

[dunklebuck]

Brand new in box deadstock shoes. $300.

They arrive with two scratches, noticeable not tiny ones, and they've clearly been worn.

Like I said, the law is on my side. The seller has a legal obligation to provide what they advertised in return for the cash paid. If you don't accept that, maybe you also need to educate yourself on the terms of a deal. And perhaps if you're sending out worn, scratched shoes that you have said are brand new unworn, and you refuse to discuss a return or partial refund, might I suggest sellers like you are the worst and why people fear being screwed over when buying trainers.
Companies like Stockx claim to fix this issue, yet this conversation shows that they don't.
You and I should be entitled to disagree on what is or isn't ok. Stockx are supposed to be the middle man who brokers it, and mediates if needed. Not absolve themselves.

It should be as simple as "we checked, they're authentic but they're scratched. Do you still want to sell them but offer a discount? Buyer - do you still want to buy them and if so do you accept the revised terms?"
That is how things should work. Stockx are just being lazy.

You're absolutely right. They are being very lazy, and again have no level of consistency. Which is exactly what they advertise, consistent standards.

The people in here saying these are small problems and you should just deal with it are baffeling. You pay hundreds of dollars for something to be in perfect condition it should be. On the flip side there are now sellers getting shoes rejected for stuff so nitpicky they can't pass authentication straight from the factory. Not only that as a seller you aren't left with anything other than money out of your account.

Something is not right with these guys. You can't pass shoes with scratches and reject shoes with truly nothing wrong with them. It's too inconsistent to trust.

 

[cpf262]

You're absolutely right. They are being very lazy, and again have no level of consistency. Which is exactly what they advertise, consistent standards.

The people in here saying these are small problems and you should just deal with it are baffeling. You pay hundreds of dollars for something to be in perfect condition it should be. On the flip side there are now sellers getting shoes rejected for stuff so nitpicky they can't pass authentication straight from the factory. Not only that as a seller you aren't left with anything other than money out of your account.

Something is not right with these guys. You can't pass shoes with scratches and reject shoes with truly nothing wrong with them. It's too inconsistent to trust.

Bro shoes are almost never going to be perfect no matter where you buy them from. Real easy solution is dont purchase from them. I know they can do better in some areas but damn

 

[ike2112]

I agree Duncklebuck.

As much as I would like to also sell on these sites, they don't allow international sellers just now so I'm strictly an eBay seller just now.
But even as a buyer the stories I hear of seller being stiffed on shoes that are genuine, it makes you concerned as a buyer whether they are making the right checks?
Some shoes I'm pretty good on that I could check myself, but some I would have no idea. If they fail good shoes, there's a near equal risk of them passing really good fakes. And fakes will only continue to get better - used to be that MJ logo was all out of proportion and they couldn't stitch a pair of J11s, nowadays you could struggle to tell some fakes with shoe in hand.

 

[edshoecator]

the process or action of proving or showing something to be true, genuine, or valid.

Stock x isn't authenticating. They're picking and choosing what to let pass through.

they should reach out to the seller and buyer like goat does and show the flaws (albeit, goat is too anal) but stock x gonna be in over their heads when dealing with the purse and watch crowd

 

[ike2112]

I am a watch enthusiast (not collecter, its a much more expensive hobby) and yes I've already seem warnings in groups I am in.
People do want this service - to sell on a Rolex without having a store take the piss in the process. But with watches if its meant to be new and it ain't pristine, it'll kick off.
The other thing is there are already deadstock/grey market sellers of watches. Ashford and Jomashop for example; the latter has poor reputation for service but for the reasons we're already discussing.
Stockx seem to be largely about paying to get airtime and making a killing off volume.

 

[frankmatthews]

This is all for a scratch and an unlaced shoe? Jesus, man they're shoes. Buyers like you are the worst.

Brand new in box deadstock shoes. $300.

They arrive with two scratches, noticeable not tiny ones, and they've clearly been worn.

Like I said, the law is on my side. The seller has a legal obligation to provide what they advertised in return for the cash paid. If you don't accept that, maybe you also need to educate yourself on the terms of a deal. And perhaps if you're sending out worn, scratched shoes that you have said are brand new unworn, and you refuse to discuss a return or partial refund, might I suggest sellers like you are the worst and why people fear being screwed over when buying trainers.
Companies like Stockx claim to fix this issue, yet this conversation shows that they don't.
You and I should be entitled to disagree on what is or isn't ok. Stockx are supposed to be the middle man who brokers it, and mediates if needed. Not absolve themselves.

It should be as simple as "we checked, they're authentic but they're scratched. Do you still want to sell them but offer a discount? Buyer - do you still want to buy them and if so do you accept the revised terms?"
That is how things should work. Stockx are just being lazy.

Well i guess I'd have to see these flaws you speak of, maybe i jumped the gun. From your description it seemed pretty minor. I have a hard time believing they were "clearly" worn and were passed through. A lot of shoes I've bought from retail stores have had scratches or may have even been tried on. I feel like, as a seller, buyers are much more picky when buying through third partys than from retial stores, most would let it go and not file chargebacks and complain excessively, especially on limited shoes that cant be easily exchanged. No one is gonna ask footlocker for a partial discount. I understand you're paying more from third partys but if ur gonna wear em it shouldn't really matter how pristine they are, you either want the shoes or you dont. If the soles are dirty or theres lint, if the toe box is creased up or there is noticeable damage i can understand wanting a refund if someone is passing off shoes worn multiple times outdoors for ds prices, but scratches and such happen in shoes massed produced in third world factories. People may try on a shoe and realize it doesnt fit and want to sell it, i dont think that requires a partial refund or completely ruining a relationship with stockx by filing a chargeback. In my experience some people are much more picky than others, maybe your complaints are warranted but like i said, i guess i would need to see the shoes before jumping to conclusions.

Also, i think discrepancies relating to authenticity will be more scrutinized than minor flaws that may or not be from the factory. From the logic in here they should have declined the pair with scratches so they could make more on the restocking fee if they were really trying to scam people for more money. Cant have it both ways. I think they do what they can, but you cant please all the people all the time, especially the picky ones. Obviously its more of a risk to their reputation to let fakes pass thru than something legit with minor flaws.

 

[frankmatthews]

the process or action of proving or showing something to be true, genuine, or valid.

Stock x isn't authenticating. They're picking and choosing what to let pass through.

they should reach out to the seller and buyer like goat does and show the flaws (albeit, goat is too anal) but stock x gonna be in over their heads when dealing with the purse and watch crowd

I dont know what you think is their motive for picking and choosing what to let pass thru. Like how does that benefit their business? Trying to screw people over any chance they get is not their business model im quite sure. You want more scrutiny and communication with pictures but not as much as goat? Its like goldilocks, you want it just right for your personal preference, whatever arbitrary level of scrutiny that may be. Cant have it both ways. In this particular situation it could have easily went the other way and both buyer and seller could have been alienated by them rejecting the shoes. The buyer may have been ok with minor flaws on the shoes and been pissed they had money toed up for nothing over trivial flaws. And the seller been pissed they were declined and charged fees for something very minor. They could have lost 2 customers had they made the opposite decision. They go through thousands of shoes weekly, they not gonna be able to please everyone all the time realistically. And i highly doubt their intentions are to screw over their customer base at every turn just to make a few more percentage points on a couple hundred dollars at the risk of ruining their ongoing business. This is not some mom and pop or fb reseller.

 

[edshoecator]

I dont know what you think is their motive for picking and choosing what to let pass thru. Like how does that benefit their business? Trying to screw people over any chance they get is not their business model im quite sure. You want more scrutiny and communication with pictures but not as much as goat? Its like goldilocks, you want it just right for your personal preference, whatever arbitrary level of scrutiny that may be. Cant have it both ways. In this particular situation it could have easily went the other way and both buyer and seller could have been alienated by them rejecting the shoes. The buyer may have been ok with minor flaws on the shoes and been pissed they had money toed up for nothing over trivial flaws. And the seller been pissed they were declined and charged fees for something very minor. They could have lost 2 customers had they made the opposite decision. They go through thousands of shoes weekly, they not gonna be able to please everyone all the time realistically. And i highly doubt their intentions are to screw over their customer base at every turn just to make a few more percentage points on a couple hundred dollars at the risk of ruining their ongoing business. This is not some mom and pop or fb reseller.

I see a lot of twitter complaints about stock x sending out shoes that leave people scratching their head...on the flip side denying authentic pairs for "dust".

Stock x knows that 50% or more just sell to fit in and retweet. The others don't care enough and from past events...you can steal 30k and everyone forgets. You can sell fakes and there's still a following...

I don't know.

 

[ike2112]

Well i guess I'd have to see these flaws you speak of, maybe i jumped the gun. From your description it seemed pretty minor. I have a hard time believing they were "clearly" worn and were passed through. A lot of shoes I've bought from retail stores have had scratches or may have even been tried on. I feel like, as a seller, buyers are much more picky when buying through third partys than from retial stores, most would let it go and not file chargebacks and complain excessively, especially on limited shoes that cant be easily exchanged. No one is gonna ask footlocker for a partial discount. I understand you're paying more from third partys but if ur gonna wear em it shouldn't really matter how pristine they are, you either want the shoes or you dont. If the soles are dirty or theres lint, if the toe box is creased up or there is noticeable damage i can understand wanting a refund if someone is passing off shoes worn multiple times outdoors for ds prices, but scratches and such happen in shoes massed produced in third world factories. People may try on a shoe and realize it doesnt fit and want to sell it, i dont think that requires a partial refund or completely ruining a relationship with stockx by filing a chargeback. In my experience some people are much more picky than others, maybe your complaints are warranted but like i said, i guess i would need to see the shoes before jumping to conclusions.

Also, i think discrepancies relating to authenticity will be more scrutinized than minor flaws that may or not be from the factory. From the logic in here they should have declined the pair with scratches so they could make more on the restocking fee if they were really trying to scam people for more money. Cant have it both ways. I think they do what they can, but you cant please all the people all the time, especially the picky ones. Obviously its more of a risk to their reputation to let fakes pass thru than something legit with minor flaws.

I think the key considerations are that I didn't want to chargeback. To be honest I probably didn't even want a partial refund, in my mind I'd accepted that I would swallow the shipping cost for being picky about not wanting tarnished shoes, and send them back.
But Stockx refused to engage in any form of communication.

Actually in real stores, if I'm buying a display pair I expect a discount. Same with anything - display TVs for example its standard for them to be 15-20% off.
The stores are selling at RRP. Not more than double, plus $80 shipping plus $108 tax/duty whixh is what I paid.
And if you are in the store, you see the scratch, you make your choice - buy or don't. For me in this instance, I'd have passed. But I didn't get the chance.

I actually feel like the seller is at some fault, as they were either lazy or dishonest in not mentioning the flaw. I sell shoes myself, and I have had some with factory flaws. I check all shoes and note flaws. I sold a bunch of J11s and sold the two with glue marks at a slightly lower price, even though that is a commom thing on 11s. I considered them lesser grade so noted that and priced fairly.

That sort of fairness is what Stockx advertise, yet it takes someone like me to remind them of the minimum legal obligation when cash changes hands.

 

[frankmatthews]

I mean, when you signed up for the service you agreed that there were no returns. Now you are unhappy and want to break that agreement. If they are truly used shoes then yes i can understand, if there are minor flaws from the factory or they were tried on either instore or by the original buyer that doesnt make them used. Perhaps not what you wanted or ideally expected but still not out of the realm of their obligation. Thats just ur personal preference. If you like to be picky and get pristine pairs then you'll have to buy your pairs instore of from retailers who offer returns. Not the secondary market where returns are not offered. You choose to buy from that market and expect them to cater to your personal level of scrutiny, many other buyers may not have cared. Again, maybe the shoes are worse than your description indicates, but a scratch on the leather and an untied lace sounds pretty minor to me. You're entitled to your opinion and to seek resolution thru your bank, but in the future, for the benefit of all partys involved, maybe you should stick to instore purchases and retailers that offer returns if you require your shoes to be in pristine condition.

 

[ike2112]

We're going in circles here Frankie fella, but there's a couple points:
1) the law allows returns. Stockx can write what they want in their FAQs but they can't set a precedent that falls short of consumer rights. They're actually misleading both buyers and sellers in doing so. Used to be the BBB actually cracked down on companies doing this, but online has grown so much I don't think they bother now.
2) "StockX defines a "Deadstock" pair of sneakers as unworn and complete with original box including box lid, as would be acceptable for sale at a retail location. This may or may not include additional accessories, laces, special packaging, etc. We also do not accept B-grades at this time."
These shoes had a tear in the leather. Its patent finish leather and the scratch is 2.5cm. The scratch/dent on the jordan logo is tiny, only about 2-3mm but about as deep and noticeable due to the plastic logo being gold.
You would not pay full price for these in a store - I paid double and then some, plus import tax plus intl shipping. They're also not factory issues, they've been treated poorly at some point and thr seller either didn't check them or didn't own up.
I have the law on my side, and the card company took my side.
I'm not a whiner with no clue, I've been buying shoes since Grant Hill's rookie year. I know what factory quality is. I also however know my rights.

Stockx are going to flame out if they don't wise up, the watch market is carnage and buyers won't accept badly described watches. A pair of Js is one thing but if you get a scratched Rolex its gonna kick off.

 

[mikeycorleone]

So question, since it states no returns. (With exceptions in writing within 3 days) But a buyer is "unhappy" can't you just turn around and resell them back on stockx?

 

[ike2112]

So question, since it states no returns. (With exceptions in writing within 3 days) But a buyer is "unhappy" can't you just turn around and resell them back on stockx?

US residents can yes. I can't. I've beem selling sneakers for about 15yr but Stockx won't allow non-US sellers, to avoid higher postage costs for buyers.
I say, give buyers the choice. I sell probably half my stock to US buyers. It is easier to get the limited editions here in Europe, for example the Royal or Black Toe 1s still aren't even close to selling out there's full size run.
That's the whole benefit of international sellers, they may have access to stock that your own country doesn't.

 

[edshoecator]

An NTer got fake frags from stock x. Waiting on him to hit sneaker twitter to see how this plays out

 

[Arthur Shelby]