Kelleher auctioning a few of their client's stamps here instead of the Stamp Auction Network
Interesting that Kelleher is auctioning some stamps here. I'm supposing it's a test drive to see how things go. The 20% buyers premium shown in light grey with very small text might lead to some issues for those not paying full attention 
One of several listed:
https://www.hipstamp.com/listing/united-states-819-mint-nh-superb-with-pse-encapsulated-cert-graded-sup-98/49448202
One of several listed:
https://www.hipstamp.com/listing/united-states-819-mint-nh-superb-with-pse-encapsulated-cert-graded-sup-98/49448202
Comments
This stinks. Please join me in writing to Hipstamp in protest to this slap in the face to all the dealers who have been hear for years, none of which can charge a "buyers premium", nor are we (and thankfully so) allowed to charge buyers premiums even when we have certs.
Two additional violations that ALL of their listings have is that, they show only a front stamp image, and there is no listing of the cert. What, just because someone has a seller name of Kelleher, we're supposed to just accept that as credible, particularly when there they have a 5 feedback?
@Mark Rosenberg Please respond IN THIS FORM to this. How are you justifying this? These listings are all ordinary, modern stamps. Is this their new dumping ground? I love that "Hipvalue" shows the value for a 819 at $1.
HS T&Cs state that...Buyer's premiums and/or any other arbitrary percentages or fixed/variable fees are prohibited, unless otherwise exempted by Hip eCommerce via written consent.
Does this means all I have to do is write to HS and get a written approval to charge a "buyers premium" on anything I want to list? What is the basis for this approval? Who would qualify for approval and why?
As I said...something smells fishy.
I have written every Hipstamp and HipEcommerce executive I have a contact for and lodged serious complaint against this. Greg, interesting I didn't think to click on the 5 feedback to see where that is, but now I feel @Mark Rosenberg owes this community an explanation.
If this is some kind of "test" similar to the APS selling on the platform, that wasn't meant to be "seen", then fine, but the buyers premium especially at 20% is a fine print that is just unreasonable. I don't see why anyone would buy any of the listings currently posted, now I see who bought them.
If we had a high res image, running it through RetroReveal could be quite...um...uh...revealing.
But I ran that 34 through my Photoshop routines and it shows clearly a removed cancel.
Figuratively "Look us all in the eye" and tell us that there is a different set of rules for 1200 other sellers because "They have a website that has a 20% buyers premium, and we're just keeping in line with their current policy". (Yes, that's the answer I received from "Support").
That, as Douglas Adams would say "Is a load of feted dingo's kidneys".
So if I set up a website and charge a 20% buyers premium, then you'll align to my policies as well?
And if we over inflate our prices so we can justify 60% discounts, as we do on our website, then we're justified in doing the same here.
Let me check... Oh yeah, that's right the "Terms and Conditions" tiny print at the bottom of the site isn't working. Guess you're busy making a change to it that justifies this?
One again, @Mark Rosenberg WE are your 1200 sellers that this site boasts on a regular basis.
WE have all been told "You can't do this or you will be in violation of the terms & conditions of the site".
WE would like you to answer these questions.
I don't think what we are asking here is unreasonable (a simple explanation, and rationally, how is this business practice ethical? (i.e. this establishes an uneven playing field, and is in itself a discriminatory action if only "Kelleher" qualify for it. This breaks at least regulation of fair business practices, if not constituting collusion and anti-trust.
I'm not making these points as threats (and I know you're listening), rather as points that should be considered before continuing the silence, in order to avoid any "imperial entanglements".
Put another way: I'm not letting this go. Explanations are a reasonable ask here.
(Quote from listing)
SMQ SUP 98; $85. Scott $1. Estimate $100 - 150.
Prices must be realistic, and are not allowed to be excessive. The definition of excessive is at our discretion, but usually only applies to items listed at several times their actual retail value.
There is the caveat, but I've seen them remove users for the same level of excess in the past. So there clearly is not an equal application of "judiciary outcome".
I get that it's a big win for the site to have groups like APS and Kelleher selling here. (I am a frequent buyer at Kelleher Auctions), but this platform is different. And allowing arbitrarily one group (one seller even) to have an advantage at the disadvantage of all other sellers is not only a question of fairness, moral integrity and discriminatory, it disadvantages all other sellers.
I continue to ask for a "Please Explain", I think the selling community deserves an answer from senior leadership on this decision, because we're just asking for justification. We want a fair marketplace, and while not stated as being such in the terms and conditions, to date the behaviors of the site owners have demonstrated that interest in a fair market. This move however, violates the trust of every seller, regardless of the T&C saying "It's our discretion to do this" or not. It does not make it fair, reasonable or just to the other 1200 sellers on the site.