- 776
- 171
- Joined
- Dec 19, 1999
Hey guys,
Wanted to get your opinion on this issue.
This surfaced in one of the local FB groups that I am in and it really is either puzzling or shocking to me ...
[No names are disclosed; mods please move this thread if it's not appropriate on here particular sub-forum thanks]
Back in January of 2012 a deal was struck between a buyer and a seller for a trade : a pair of DS Galaxy Foams for a pair of DS Concord mids (that had just been released 23 Dec 2011) + $400 in cash.
Both parties inspected the shoes, the cash changed hands and nothing went on for 2 years, which during this time, the buyer wore the Concords several times.
In April of 2014, the buyer of the Concords claimed that he had performed a legit check on one of the local FB groups on the same Concord pair he claimed he had purchased 2 years ago, and that it was verified as a fake (GM).
Buyer went back to seller, and asked him for a full refund. He wanted to return the shoes (which had been used) and demanded a full refund of the cash portion of $400 which was paid 2 years ago.
The seller claimed that the shoes were completely authentic and purchased back in 2012 from Footlocker, but out of goodwill, and most importantly seller thought that it could be simply a matter of differing opinion on authenticity i.e. the shoes are in fact authentic but buyer is probably misinformed or unsure or uncomfortable, or received a differing opinion, and that there was no harm in getting the shoes back since they were going to be legit anyway - and so the seller accepted the request for the refund.
So the (used) Concords went back to the seller, and $400 was refunded to the buyer.
For some reason, the seller forgot to check the shoes at the time of meeting up for the refund. A couple days later, the seller showed the shoes to a couple of friends, who was shocked that the soles were so icey, absolutely no yellowing, not even on perimeter of the pods [see pictures] ...
There exists only 2 possibilities :
(a) the buyer had swapped out an authentic pair purchased in 2012, for a GM pair purchased recently, and returned the GM pair to the seller. That seems to explain why the soles on the returned pair was so icey ...
(b) the original pair sold to the buyer in Jan 2012 was a fake GM pair. If that was true, for some reason, the icey soles never yellowed one single bit on the GM pair
Need to get your opinions on this rather unique case. The only tricky bit on this issue is that the return was accepted and the seller forgot to check, and now it's a matter of the buyer's word against the seller's word ...
Is it possible that ER/GM/fakes may have used different materials for the outsole that didn't yellow one single bit after 2 years ? Could it be possible that a GM pair purchased in 2012 did not have yellowed soles ?
While at the same time we all know that it is not possible for legit pairs to not have yellowed one single bit after the same period of time.
View media item 974919View media item 974920View media item 974921View media item 974922View media item 974923View media item 974924
Wanted to get your opinion on this issue.
This surfaced in one of the local FB groups that I am in and it really is either puzzling or shocking to me ...
[No names are disclosed; mods please move this thread if it's not appropriate on here particular sub-forum thanks]
Back in January of 2012 a deal was struck between a buyer and a seller for a trade : a pair of DS Galaxy Foams for a pair of DS Concord mids (that had just been released 23 Dec 2011) + $400 in cash.
Both parties inspected the shoes, the cash changed hands and nothing went on for 2 years, which during this time, the buyer wore the Concords several times.
In April of 2014, the buyer of the Concords claimed that he had performed a legit check on one of the local FB groups on the same Concord pair he claimed he had purchased 2 years ago, and that it was verified as a fake (GM).
Buyer went back to seller, and asked him for a full refund. He wanted to return the shoes (which had been used) and demanded a full refund of the cash portion of $400 which was paid 2 years ago.
The seller claimed that the shoes were completely authentic and purchased back in 2012 from Footlocker, but out of goodwill, and most importantly seller thought that it could be simply a matter of differing opinion on authenticity i.e. the shoes are in fact authentic but buyer is probably misinformed or unsure or uncomfortable, or received a differing opinion, and that there was no harm in getting the shoes back since they were going to be legit anyway - and so the seller accepted the request for the refund.
So the (used) Concords went back to the seller, and $400 was refunded to the buyer.
For some reason, the seller forgot to check the shoes at the time of meeting up for the refund. A couple days later, the seller showed the shoes to a couple of friends, who was shocked that the soles were so icey, absolutely no yellowing, not even on perimeter of the pods [see pictures] ...
There exists only 2 possibilities :
(a) the buyer had swapped out an authentic pair purchased in 2012, for a GM pair purchased recently, and returned the GM pair to the seller. That seems to explain why the soles on the returned pair was so icey ...
(b) the original pair sold to the buyer in Jan 2012 was a fake GM pair. If that was true, for some reason, the icey soles never yellowed one single bit on the GM pair
Need to get your opinions on this rather unique case. The only tricky bit on this issue is that the return was accepted and the seller forgot to check, and now it's a matter of the buyer's word against the seller's word ...
Is it possible that ER/GM/fakes may have used different materials for the outsole that didn't yellow one single bit after 2 years ? Could it be possible that a GM pair purchased in 2012 did not have yellowed soles ?
While at the same time we all know that it is not possible for legit pairs to not have yellowed one single bit after the same period of time.
View media item 974919View media item 974920View media item 974921View media item 974922View media item 974923View media item 974924