Need your opinion : Buyer claimed shoes were fake 2 years after receiving them ?

[scones]

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

 

[Rumble Gang]

Simple. Buyer swapped a recently bought GM pair and told seller that he only wanted his money back. He probably spent $150-250 for some GM Concords and almost doubled his money by scamming him. When you wear these GMs they start to "brown on the soles due to wear vs authentic yellowing around the pods. Buyer is a scammer

 

[agsz]

Simple. Buyer swapped a recently bought GM pair and told seller that he only wanted his money back. He probably spent $150-250 for some GM Concords and almost doubled his money by scamming him. When you wear these GMs they start to "brown on the soles due to wear vs authentic yellowing around the pods. Buyer is a scammer

100% Agreed with this. Unless the pictures of the Concords are from when he originally received them, although they're still fake, it's not possible for the sole to show NO signs of wear and/or oxidation. This guy that got the Concords is trying to pull a fast one. The other person involved in the deal should pay no attention to him and tell him to f*ck off for even attempting this. I hope this reason exchange was done through PayPal as in he paid $400 and received the Concords so he can get his money back. Also this guy that received his Concords back, did he keep the Galaxy Foams?

 

[from88til]

Some fake Concords or any fake shoe with icy soles can yellow the correct way, not have the correct yellowing, or not yellow at all. These are obvious fakes with blue tinted soles while they should be gray and it's pretty obvious that there's some scamming going on there. Sounds like it's coming from the buyer. Why LC a shoe 2 years later?

 

[23jordan]

Some fake Concords or any fake shoe with icy soles can yellow the correct way, not have the correct yellowing, or not yellow at all. These are obvious fakes with blue tinted soles while they should be gray and it's pretty obvious that there's some scamming going on there. Sounds like it's coming from the buyer. Why LC a shoe 2 years later?

Exactly..it does not make sense at all.  

 

[scones]

Simple. Buyer swapped a recently bought GM pair and told seller that he only wanted his money back. He probably spent $150-250 for some GM Concords and almost doubled his money by scamming him. When you wear these GMs they start to "brown on the soles due to wear vs authentic yellowing around the pods. Buyer is a scammer

Thanks for the info. Didn't know fakes and authentics 'yellowed' in a different manner.

100% Agreed with this. Unless the pictures of the Concords are from when he originally received them, although they're still fake, it's not possible for the sole to show NO signs of wear and/or oxidation. This guy that got the Concords is trying to pull a fast one. The other person involved in the deal should pay no attention to him and tell him to f*ck off for even attempting this. I hope this reason exchange was done through PayPal as in he paid $400 and received the Concords so he can get his money back. Also this guy that received his Concords back, did he keep the Galaxy Foams?

The pictures I posted are of the shoes that were returned to him recently, this month, 2014. They were taken sometime last week.

Unfortunately the 'return and refund' already happened. I explained that the seller did it out of goodwill, and for the reason he did not expect to receive something else altogether different. An expensive lesson this was.

Everything was done in person, face to face. Cash.

Yes he kept his galaxy foams. Yes, a consolation prize I guess you can say so. Perhaps the buyer was unhappy and regretted having made the trade back then (look at where the price of galaxy foams are now and where the price of concords are now).

Some fake Concords or any fake shoe with icy soles can yellow the correct way, not have the correct yellowing, or not yellow at all. These are obvious fakes with blue tinted soles while they should be gray and it's pretty obvious that there's some scamming going on there. Sounds like it's coming from the buyer. Why LC a shoe 2 years later?

yes you raised a good question.

 

[agsz]

He should have looked at the shoes first. Is he friends with the person this deal was made with? I'd be furious. He basically just paid $800 for the foams, which I guess is a good price honestly, but got fake concords back instead of his authentic pair..

 

[timmybrixxx]

He beat himself..SMH...I wish a fool would ask for a refund 2 yrs later and have some worn kicks.. silly rabbits.

 

[firepower]

WTF? He gave a refund after 2 years! 

 

Seller deserves to get scammed for being such a dumb f**k.

 

[cashm0neyand1]

What? i wouldve told the buyer to go F himself. no way i would give a refund after a day, let alone 2 years. F outta here. SMH. Seller was being too nice