Poll: Damaged Wynn Tourney Chips Reimbursement Thread (2 Viewers)

[ssanel54]

I don't have any issues with Danny outside of my chips getting damaged and him not making it right prior to posting publicly.

I even offered to buy him a beer after its all said and done. That offer still stands. I'm a pretty forgiving and easy going guy. But if you wrong me, I will flame you for it. I have a backbone. But I also move on after I've said my piece/peace.

Exactly my point. You're not necessarily posting about this to warn the community about his shipping practices, you also want to apply pressure on Danny to agree to a settlement to your liking.

Im the same way, Im willing to drink beer with anyone

 

[jbutler]

I don't have any issues with Danny outside of my chips getting damaged and him not making it right prior to posting publicly.

I even offered to buy him a beer after its all said and done. That offer still stands. I'm a pretty forgiving and easy going guy. But if you wrong me, I will flame you for it. I have a backbone. But I also move on after I've said my piece/peace.

He offered to make it right, just not in the way you preferred. I understand why you didn't and don't want to return the chips, but that was certainly an offer to make it right.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I also am not sure how objective this thread is, to be honest. You and Danny agreed to let the forum settle this, but you are actively in this thread trying to persuade people for a maximum refund, while Danny is sitting back not influencing people at all. Since you refuse to tell us what you think each chip's value is worth, I changed my vote to $250 based on the $4.21 per broken/heavily damaged chip and $1 per chip for the flea bitten ones, with an extra $25 thrown in because there is no option for $225, plus a potential loss in value for not having complete racks.

I disagree. I'm only here to answer specific questions. If I was trying to persuade people for a maximum refund, I would have provided options in excess of $500 in the poll as numerous members clearly would have selected those higher options.

If you guys really want my opinion, and you're going to question my integrity, then I'll help you out.

I think asking him for $500 is too much. You should have been able to deduce this based on the range of options I provided in the poll however. I will also not accept $500 from him even if the poll were unanimous. I have a maximum amount I will accept. $500 is not it. I'm not here to take advantage of the situation.

 

[MegaTon44]

@RainmanTrail - I'm repeating what I included above, but adding a second scenario assuming only a 25% loss on the minor damage chips.

Why not just ask for $300 and be done with it? It's in the middle of your poll range, so it clearly must be deemed a relatively reasonable amount in your mind

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I disagree. I'm only here to answer specific questions. If I was trying to persuade people for a maximum refund, I would have provided options in excess of $500 in the poll as numerous members clearly would have selected those higher options.

If you guys really want my opinion, and you're going to question my integrity, then I'll help you out.

I think asking him for $500 is too much. You should have been able to deduce this based on the range of options I provided in the poll however. I will also not accept $500 from him even if the poll were unanimous. I have a maximum amount I will accept. $500 is not it. I'm not here to take advantage of the situation.

I'm not questioning your integrity one bit. I truly am sorry this shipment was packaged so poorly and some amazing chips were ruined. But I did ask you a specific question regarding what your value of each chip is, which would help us determine a figure, and you won't give us an answer. Since you won't I can only assign the same value to each chip when making my determination.

 

[ssanel54]

I disagree. I'm only here to answer specific questions. If I was trying to persuade people for a maximum refund, I would have provided options in excess of $500 in the poll as numerous members clearly would have selected those higher options.

If you guys really want my opinion, and you're going to question my integrity, then I'll help you out.

I think asking him for $500 is too much. You should have been able to deduce this based on the range of options I provided in the poll however. I will also not accept $500 from him even if the poll were unanimous. I have a maximum amount I will accept. $500 is not it. I'm not here to take advantage of the situation.

If thats the case, I think what you are asking is well within reason. Not sure how it got to this point, but you should be able to come to an amicable resolution.

 

[RainmanTrail]

@RainmanTrail - I'm repeating what I included above, but adding a second scenario assuming only a 25% loss on the minor damage chips.

Why not just ask for $300 and be done with it? It's in the middle of your poll range, so it clearly must be deemed a relatively reasonable amount in your mind

View attachment 47842

Because Danny's request was to let the community decide. I'm trying to honor that request while still addressing relevant questions. I think I've been fair.

 

[MegaTon44]

Because Danny's request was to let the community decide. I'm trying to honor that request while still addressing relevant questions. I think I've been fair.

But you just said that you wouldn't accept $500 even if the poll was unanimous. 60% of the poll respondents believe $500 is fair, a response that is currently 6X that of any other selection. I don't have a dog in this fight, but my thought is we either drag this out until the poll closes on the 17th, at which point you'll share your perfect number (which will likely conflict with the $500 poll majority) which I would project would be in the $300-$350 range based on my quick analysis.

I don't think anyone is denying you were wronged here. I just wanted to put some numbers on paper and propose a realistic estimate for you.

 

[chkmte]

I agree with @MegaTon44 . If you're not even wanting $500, then settle this already. Not sure we need a forum riot if you've already got something in mind. I'm pretty sure @noblecountydanny is ready to move on.

Tim

 

[Whiteside]

To be honest if you have spent $8,000 on this set and you've narrowed the figure you have in mind to more than $150 but less than $500, I'm also not sure that this is worth it.

I can completely understand your disappointment with what's happened but it doesn't appear that $200 here or there will be as big a deal for you and Danny as it might be for others. It looks like $300-$350 might be easily agreed.

 

[David O]

Ok was holding off but now I thought I would just state facts. Most everyone is using emotion when trying to determine a value or how this should be handled. Remember these are only chips(yes I said it). There are much bigger things in life! (Not by much though!)

Anyway a deal is a deal. The seller had a Dollar figure and sold to buyer. Buyer purchases chips and is not happy with the product. In real life buyer returns product for full refund or keeps product and moves on. Seller offer to do partial refund so....

Now how to value them. Well in retail or as someone brought up in the other thread, Costco. What would a seller do in the real world?
1. Offer to a return which buyer already stated it is not going to happen.
2. Offer a partial refund. (Remember that when you buy a hail damaged car they discount the car but the discount off the sales price of the car and not what the perceived value is)
3. Replace broken or damaged items.

If I were the purchaser I would at least expect to be made whole on what was damaged but seller should receive the damaged items in return. I have never seen a buyer get their cake and eat it to! I think if any of the items are kept then the buyer is not due a refund on them. I do not feel that a seller should have to pay back what the replacement cost is since he could have sold them at a higher price as well in the first place. After all he did not sell them for more than $4.21 per chip.

Soooo...

Seller should refund $4.21 per chip for any chips returned to him = fair and equitable
Seller can chose to refund damaged chips not returned but at a reduced cost = fair and equitable

I do not know either of these chippers personally so that is my unbiased opinion for what it is worth!

 

[RainmanTrail]

I agree with @MegaTon44 . If you're not even wanting $500, then settle this already. Not sure we need a forum riot if you've already got something in mind. I'm pretty sure @noblecountydanny is ready to move on.

Tim

I sent him a PM and will close the poll if we can work it out.

 

[David O]

I sent him a PM and will close the poll if we can work it out.

Hope it works out for both of you.

David

 

[k9dr]

Here is what I would do - Keep only the new chips - return all the damaged chips for a refund. You still have an awesome set of mint chips, albeit a little smaller. I would round these new chips down to full rack quantities and keep a few extras just in case. I would then sell sample sets of mint chips to defray some of the cost of your awesome set.

 

[abby99]

This situation reminded me of how insurance companies handle similar situations: A provision found in homeowners and commercial property forms deals with losses involving part of a set or one of a pair. Depending on the wording, the insurer can either (1) repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value prior to the loss, or (2) pay the difference between the actual cash value (ACV) of the property before and after the loss.

The sticky point here is determining the ACV of the damaged set. Sorry that I can't be of any help with that -- my chip universe doesn't include a Wynn tournament set, not even way out there in the distant reaches of the cosmos.

 

[jbutler]

This situation reminded me of how insurance companies handle similar situations: A provision found in homeowners and commercial property forms deals with losses involving part of a set or one of a pair. Depending on the wording, the insurer can either (1) repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value prior to the loss, or (2) pay the difference between the actual cash value (ACV) of the property before and after the loss.

The sticky point here is determining the ACV of the damaged set. Sorry that I can't be of any help with that -- my chip universe doesn't include a Wynn tournament set, not even way out there in the distant reaches of the cosmos.

It's constructive to think of ways different industries perform valuations, but I think it's misleading to apply insurance industry rationale to this scenario.

The more direct analogy imo, given RT's stated intent to resell part of the set, is that of a vendor to vendor transaction. If Oculus ships an Oculus Rift unit to a small electronics business and the unit arrives damaged, Oculus is not expected to compensate the business owner for the lost profit resulting from his not having a unit to sell in his retail store. Oculus would simply accept the unit and return the money paid by the business owner.

 

[RainmanTrail]

It's constructive to think of ways different industries perform valuations, but I think it's misleading to apply insurance industry rationale to this scenario.

The more direct analogy imo, given RT's stated intent to resell part of the set, is that of a vendor to vendor transaction. If Oculus ships an Oculus Rift unit to a small electronics business and the unit arrives damaged, Oculus is not expected to compensate the business owner for the lost profit resulting from his not having a unit to sell in his retail store. Oculus would simply accept the unit and return the money paid by the business owner.

I'm not sure that this analogy quite applies either though as it is with respect to items that are easily replaced, and at the same cost.

 

[GenghisKhan]

I voted $350. $500 is saying his remaining 145 usable chips are worth less than $1/chip. I'll show you both calculations if you're bored lol.

1st: why $500 is too high

Obviously start with a refund of $4.20/chip for the 7 broken chips ($29.40). Now you're left with 145 usable chips that cost $609. Take the $29.40 already refunded out of the $500 refund most are suggesting and it means an additional $470.60 refund on $609 worth of still usable chips. That seems a bit high. It would mean he paid $138.40 for the 145 remaining usable chips not counting the broken ones he got fully refunded. They're worth less than $1/chip?
--------------------------------------------------
My valuation. (Not an expert and just my opinion since you asked us all)

I voted $350 based on what I believe we'd all be willing to pay for said chips knowing the damage in advance.

Think of it from the point of view had they been damaged already, what would you have paid for each of your groups of chips. The per chip value of $4.20 each should be used as a base point for each group of chips.

7 broken chips = free
(refund is $4.20 x 7 = $29.40)

16 large chunks = worth $1 each
(refund is $3.20/chip x 16 = $51.20)

129 minimal damage = worth $2.10 each
(refund is $2.10 × 129 = $270.90)

Total refund is $351.50 and you keep all the chips.

In my opinion the buyer and most here would have paid the above amounts for those chips had he known damage ahead of time to be able to add usable chips to a rare grail set. I would have paid those amounts for extra chips for my grail set.

*Everything else like shorted racks is not quantifiable. While it's a shame, I don't see how that should play any part of it.

 

[David O]

I'm not sure that this analogy quite applies either though as it is with respect to items that are easily replaced, and at the same cost.

Even if it were the last one on earth they would refund on purchase price not at lost profit.

 

[jbutler]

I'm not sure that this analogy quite applies either though as it is with respect to items that are easily replaced, and at the same cost.

It's extremely easy to apply the same logic no matter the rarity of the item because the rarity of the item would have been reflected in the purchase price. The refund would be at the purchase price which, here, has been offered and refused.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

What were the chips insured for? $8000 (the purchase price) or the higher value that Rainman could get by reselling smaller sets / samples? I'm guessing 8k.

 

[liftapint]

What were the chips insured for? $8000 (the purchase price) or the higher value that Rainman could get by reselling smaller sets / samples? I'm guessing 8k.

I am guessing far less.

 

[Chicken Rob]

This situation reminded me of how insurance companies handle similar situations: A provision found in homeowners and commercial property forms deals with losses involving part of a set or one of a pair. Depending on the wording, the insurer can either (1) repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value prior to the loss, or (2) pay the difference between the actual cash value (ACV) of the property before and after the loss.

The sticky point here is determining the ACV of the damaged set. Sorry that I can't be of any help with that -- my chip universe doesn't include a Wynn tournament set, not even way out there in the distant reaches of the cosmos.

And that's why I believe the actual refund should be $0, and I changed my vote to $150.

The set as is is still worth the full asking price. Danny is willing to pay that. So are others on the board.

Getting a refund valued at round trip shipping cost seems like the max value that should be awarded. This is less than $150 IME.

 

[abby99]

It's constructive to think of ways different industries perform valuations, but I think it's misleading to apply insurance industry rationale to this scenario.

The more direct analogy imo, given RT's stated intent to resell part of the set, is that of a vendor to vendor transaction. If Oculus ships an Oculus Rift unit to a small electronics business and the unit arrives damaged, Oculus is not expected to compensate the business owner for the lost profit resulting from his not having a unit to sell in his retail store. Oculus would simply accept the unit and return the money paid by the business owner.

Even though I don't agree that a vendor-to-vendor transaction is a more direct analogy, it seems that we've reached the same conclusion with respect to at least one solution, which is to return the chips for a full refund with seller covering shipping both ways.

I think that the insurance analogy is relevant with respect to alternatives to returning the chips for a full refund. Per that analogy, the parties could agree on a discount equal to the difference between $8K and the value of the set as a set today, as is, including the damaged chips. I don't think it's reasonable to consider RT's plans to sell off part of the set for (hopefully) a profit. The other remedy provides for the repair or replacement of the damaged items, which unfortunately is not possible in this case.

I've got to remember that if I'm posting in the same thread as JB, it's best to be ultra-precise.

 

[Psypher1000]

For the record, I think the best option is full refund at seller's return shipping expense in exchange for all chips sent back to the seller.

The set as is is still worth the full asking price. Danny is willing to pay that. So are others on the board.

I disagree here slightly. I don't think Danny is willing to "pay" anything because he's not buying anything. He's providing a refund. A refund isn't a purchase and doesn't set value, IMO, but rather is simply an acceptance of previously sold merchandise in exchange for previously paid funds (at which point the value was initially set). I would argue that the refund, if it's actually buying anything, is buying back his good name.

But I guess that's just a matter of semantics, particularly in light of...

So are others on the board.

If that's true, and someone is in fact willing to pay that same $7600 for the same lot of chips that Rainman currently owns, at that point I'd believe the chips retain their value. Ideally I'd like to see the actual transaction which would prove the matter, but that's straight silly in this case. There's no Rainman's going to sell them for that same price he paid.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If I were to put a simple dollar amount down after Danny offered to buy the whole thing back, I would be wrong. The whole set, broken chips and all is still worth $8000 to someone.

But if you want a figure larger than zero, this is what I would do.

Allow Danny to short sell the whole set in an auction - i.e. he sells them while you're still the owner. You get to put in a final bid of $8000. If the bid (excluding yours) is less than $8000, your bid of $8000 wins auction, and the Danny ships you the difference. If the final bid goes for more than $8000, you ship the chips. Danny pays you for shipping and 50% of the amount over $8000.

It's win-win if you keep the chips, or win-win-win if a 3rd party picks them up.

I should be an arbitrator.

 

[RainmanTrail]

OK, we've reached a resolution via PM. $350. I will close this thread.

Thanks for helping us work out this issue everyone, and thank you @noblecountydanny for your willingness to make it right.

 

[RainmanTrail]

It looks like I don't have the power to close it. I sent a PM to Tommy, hopefully he'll be able to help us out.

 

[Chicken Rob]

For the record, I think the best option is full refund at seller's return shipping expense in exchange for all chips sent back to the seller.


I disagree here slightly. I don't think Danny is willing to "pay" anything because he's not buying anything. He's providing a refund. A refund isn't a purchase and doesn't set value, IMO, but rather is simply an acceptance of previously sold merchandise in exchange for previously paid funds (at which point the value was initially set). I would argue that the refund, if it's actually buying anything, is buying back his good name.

But I guess that's just a matter of semantics, particularly in light of...


If that's true, and someone is in fact willing to pay that same $7600 for the same lot of chips that Rainman currently owns, at that point I'd believe the chips retain their value. Ideally I'd like to see the actual transaction which would prove the matter, but that's straight silly in this case. There's no Rainman's going to sell them for that same price he paid.

The fact that rainman himself won't even sell them at full price shows they're still worth at least that much to him.

 

[liftapint]

Now...can I buy a small set, at $4.20/?