Locked
Discussion interactions are currently paused.
Supposed “restricted material†goods seized but resold by GSP Pitney Bowes on eBay by same sellers
I have been buying antique and vintage Mah Jong sets on eBay to donate to a museum. A few months ago I had 3 different sets "seized" supposedly because of restricted materials despite having purchased other bovine or cow bone and bamboo sets that I have shipped from UK through to Canada and going though customs with no issue. Recently two sets were posted on eBay UK by two different sellers, with "coincidentally" the same last name, and the same city location, as the Pitney Bowes GSP shipping partner hub. These two sets were relisted using same description as original sellers and clearly are the same sets, as I have photos of the original listings. The exact same paint marks can be seen on the original and relisted item (on lid on tin box on one set,) and the same tiles and set pieces and pencil marks on the paper wrapping are clearly visible on the other set. Also the same identical tiles are clearly shown on both listings that match the original. These sets are more rare and unusual because of the carved subject (Monkey King on one flower set and birds on flower tiles on the other) which is why I was buying them for the museum. These are not valuable in and of themselves, except for the unusual tiles. Clearly there is something terrible wrong when so called "confiscated" goods can be resold, when there clearly is NO RESTRICTED MATERIAL. I've read that wood cannot be shipped from UK to other places, and that is potentially why the sets were "seized". This is ridiculous and not true, as other sets with wooden cases have clearly been shipped through both countries Customs offices to me. Since these sets were clearly made of cow bone or bovine bone and NOT IVORY, as shown in the relisted items, how can eBay and PItney Bowes justify their arbitrary decision? What restricted material? No evidence or proof was offered. No expert wildlife person deemed the goods restricted. No antique dealer who specializes in ivory said these are ivory. It is unconscionable business practice to "seize" goods based on an unfounded and fraudulent pretext (purportedly restricted material) and then allow someone connected to the system (Pitney Bowes) to resell these basically illegally seized goods! I understand that many other users, both buyers and sellers, have complained about these inappropriate and high handed actions, which frankly constitute an abuse of power. Please join in and register your complaint against these unfair and misguided practices. I am also taking this issue directly to the CEO of eBay and the head of Pitney Bowes GSP and going public with the media to expose this reprehensible behaviour on the part of a corporate organization.
kh-cathy
·1 year agoHi everyone,
Due to the age of this thread, it has been closed to further replies. Please feel free to start a new thread if you wish to continue to discuss this topic.
Thank you for understanding.
hm28gm
·1 year agoSadly, GSP is doing the same thing with harmless WW2 relics.
NUMEROUS purchases have been seized by these pirates. I once received a tip that the item was being resold but couldn't find it. I would not be surprised.
eBay. Please look at my recent purchase & call off your dogs. This is criminal what Pitney Bowes is doing
lacemaker3
·2 years agoNo, "most people" did not miss the point. We understand it completely, ad infinitum. We have understood it far too many times already.
OP (and you) have missed the overriding counterpoint, which has been very well explained, again ad infinitum.
We have to agree to disagree.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoSeems lots of people are mistaken and believe these to be ivory and that was the idea behind using good quality dense bone for the best sets. It mimics the look and feel of ivory.
So my concern is what process is used to determine whether or not it is ivory. Since I was specifically told by an eBay Security and Policy enforcement person, (immediately after the seizure of the goods) they "err on the side of caution" that is my issue. Who determines and are they qualified to judge?
If not, then this is an unfair and opaque process, and open to abuse. It is not an objective, fact or evidence based approach, which should be the basis for any business organization to be able to have credibility. My point which seems to be missed, is where is the accountability for the process. If there were indeed restricted materials, ok, take the item. But since it does not seem to contain any restricted materials, what was the basis for the action?
Please read the article as it supports what some people know and understand to be true
https://www.homesandantiques.com/antiques/collecting-guides-antiques/experts/luke-honeys-cabinet-of-...
maplevillage
·2 years agoI feel most people missed the point, the buyer bought the items on eBay in good faith that the sellers did their research, which they did, and eBay allowed it, as it was not removed from the listings. The materials were non restrictive to be shipped through customs. Google mahjong sets (they are made of bovine bone, very very few are made of ivory (you can also clearly see the difference) and customs information, it’s quite clear how to declare and what Customs needs to know. That being said, why was the item pulled and labelled as a restrictive item by Pitney Bowles and then they (Pitney Bowles or an associate) relisted the exact same item on eBay again?
sonomabarn67
·2 years ago"That’s all folks! "
Yea!
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoThank you for all your advice. I understand I may be tilting at windmills.
A few things, I have not yet clearly shared and stated, as lots of people are telling me about CITES restrictions and UK import/ export etc etc, as if I am unaware.
The elephant in the room, to forgive my pun, is that I may have been singled out. I am of Asian ancestry and have a Chinese last name, even though I actually am a fourth generation Canadian. Is there an assumption because of my background I am trying to buy an illegal and restricted material?
One set is in a tin box and the Haversian lines which indicate bovine bone, can be clearly seen in a photo. I will try figure out how to upload pictures while maintaining privacy, as this will clearly show how inappropriate the actions were. Anyone can see the Haversian lines which prove cow bone, and yet they still took the set in the tin box. Please, how can that be explained?
There is no CITES restriction on cow bone or bamboo that is circa 1920-1947, as both sets taken were early examples of that era.
Even if the set in the wooden slide box was made from a now restricted wood, (which it is NOT), as an antique it is under the required amount of wood weight for exemption, and is well past the age of required documentation. For those that say wood is the issue, export to Canada allows wood that is worked or processed, in other words, a decorative antique box, as long as the thickness of the wooden parts is less than 1.5 cm or slightly more than 1/2 inch. Basically lumber, or raw wood, with bark is restricted, not antique wooden boxes. This is an issue for Pitney Bowes GSP, as they do not seem to honour these guidelines and confiscate many antiques based on just the fact items are made of wood.
However, the antique dealer, who I trust and believe knows her stuff, says it is an ordinary wood slide box, similar to thousands of other slide box Mah Jong sets that have been, and continue to be, bought and sold and shipped internationally daily. All without any concerns.
Since both sets have been listed again as bovine bone, and one is in a tin box showing Haversian lines even in the eBay photo, why did these sets get “seized� Was this random? Doesn’t appear to be.
So why have these two sets been confiscated?
A third set, which was also confiscated by GSP Pitney Bowes, but in US, was similar to the other two sets, and now clearly proven to be cow bone and not a restricted material?
So I have been randomly unlucky three times in a few months, and yet in the end, all sets were proven to be bovine bone or the eBay sellers could not relist them. I dont think this is being unlucky.
Someone in the system believes that bovine bone is code for ivory and perhaps my ancestry plays into stereo types and why I was being targeted.
I am stating that business decisions should be fact based, not based on assumptions or random arbitrary policies that need luck before items can be shipped.
Several users have indicated that it is Pitney Bowes GSP that became a problem for users, and I agree. Since it is the policy and procedures of the shipping partner, let’s address that.
All the items I bought were not CITES restricted material, as cow bone, vintage bamboo and generic wood slide boxes are nowhere on the CITES lists.
I hope that answers some peoples questions about why I am raising this concern. It is not a rare material in these sets that makes them valuable to me.
These are cultural artefacts from the heyday of Mah Jong craze around the world and more significantly, were produced at a time, during the 1920s when countries around the world, including US and Canada, had enacted legislation that Excluded all Chinese immigration from 1923 until long after WWII.
These are examples of an era when there was a strange fascination with Eastern cultures, where people in western countries often held Mah Jong parties, dressed in exotic costumes, and ate what they thought was Chinese food.
But at the same time, didn’t actually want people of those ethnic origins to be allowed to immigrate into their country. The dichotomy of this tension shows in these exported Mah Jong sets and the specific language of the tiles, and these simple carved images actually tells part of this story. These sets were to be part of a collection going to a museum.
Which is why I bought those two sets specifically. And why I still want them, notwithstanding Pitney Bowes and eBay’s stance or policy, or any refunds or any resolution that the system has provided. I want what I purchased legitimately.
There are thousands of sets that are just generic Mah Jong sets to buy on eBay. That is not the point and why just refunding me does not make me whole again or fix the situation.
I will only post one more time about the answers that I have gleaned from these posts.
bonjourami
·2 years ago"The elephant in the room, to forgive my pun, is that I may have been singled out. I am of Asian ancestry and have a Chinese last name, even though I actually am a fourth generation Canadian. Is there an assumption because of my background I am trying to buy an illegal and restricted material?"
Yes, when in doubt, play the race card, that always works...not.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoWow!
Trolling answers on eBay posts for sure, is not helpful.
This is my response to all those that state “bovine bone†is a euphemism for ivory and the context that somehow luck was involved in having 3 sets confiscated, randomly.
All three sets have ultimately proved to not contain ivory, or else eBay is supporting trade in illegal goods by allowing two recent listings on UK website, is somehow being dismissed as not a reasonable answer to whether or not the seized sets were restricted.
I guess asking for common sense and reasonable and rational fact based decision making for all policies and procedures by the parent organization of its partner shipping company Pitney Bowes GSP is too much for some eBay users and community posters, even those who have agreed about GSP issues. That’s all folks!
bonjourami
·2 years ago"Trolling answers on eBay posts for sure, is not helpful."
'Trolling answers' has nothing to do with it. We see the race or age card played frequently on the boards,it usually doesnt help the posters' credibility.Thats all.
sapphire_studio
·2 years agoSo were you still paid out for the item you sold as if it had been delivered to the buyer? If so then I don't really understand the complaint. If they did not pay you for your original sale then I could see that being more nefarious.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoI feel people believe that getting a refund makes the problem go away.
No, I want the unjustifiably seized sets returned to me, as I bought and paid to the original sellers and they support me and don’t understand why this happened either.
Yes, everyone got their money or their money returned.
However, these two sets have unusual flower tiles which I was specifically buying for a special museum. Since the sets are now “cleared†and do not contain restricted material, nor break any import/ export rules or CITES or any other law of either UK or Canada customs, then I want them shipped on as originally purchased.
I will give the refund back to whomever it is owed to.
This “confiscation†of goods and the following behaviour is not excused by returning money NOR can it be ignored and people say, well now it’s only sold domestically and that’s the answer and that’s how the system works, so stop complaining. Changes need to be made.
klhmdg
·2 years ago@followsunmoontruth you are complaining to people who can not help you.
You have beat this to death.
No one here OR at eBay can or will change the way Pitney Bowes runs their business OR the risks they chose to take when it comes to shipping certain items.
I am 100% sure they are going to be very conservative and not ship anything that they think MAY be restricted.
They also Im sure dont sit and test items to see what the material is... Just because you know it is not ivory the person checking the item may not be sure.
Its time to give up arguing because no one here can make Pitney Bowes change their minds and ship you the item.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoHello,
I am not arguing with anyone.
People are explaining their position, which is accept what is going on. I feel if you accept what eBay and Pitney Bowes are doing, please stop reading and / or commenting.
For those who have had things seized without explanation, or proof or any justification, this is for you.
If you care, please tell your story, and if you don’t care please don’t post.
I am responding directly to answer people, for example someone saying “bovine bone†is a euphemism for ivory is not accurate and that person doesn’t understand what is actually required by CITES or customs in order to export or important any item that contains any animal parts. The type of part needs to be listed and identified for shipping purposes.
When I answer what concerns people have directly raised, I am addressing and saying, that is not the issue. I do not need to argue with anyone. I am simply saying that is not what I am stating.
klhmdg
·2 years ago@followsunmoontruth This is a .com (US) public board.
YOU can not dictate who can ot can not post.
YOU can not tell people NOT to post.
As for "bovine bone" being used as a euphemism - you are wrong. This does happen because people who try to get around the laws think by saying "bovine bone" that they can sell ivory.
You are not getting anything you are being told.
You would be best served to contact Pitney Bowes and see if they will change their company policy.
Good Luck!!
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoI have contacted CEO of eBay and head of Pitney Bowes shipping and will keep you posted. You are right, anyone can post and make comments.
I think other people disagree with the fact that I am challenging the system, not that I don’t understand what they are saying.
I do understand. I just don’t agree
There should be some concrete, fact based ways to deal with real problems. Not just this is the system, suck it up. Many users are frustrated by the circular loop that is how eBay answers are given to issues. I understand everyone in the system has their hands tied, and that is the problem. No one can actually answer me straight up.
On what grounds were these sets taken, and once cleared and no longer restricted, why can’t I have them? I will give the money and pay shipping, as long as not through GSP!
maxine*j
·2 years agoThese are public discussion boards. It is not your call who reads the discussion or posts comments.
If all you want is agreement and validation, post only to your "friends" and "followers" on Facebook or Twitter, not to a public forum.
-
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoYou are right and that is why I emailed the CEO a of eBay and the head of Pitney Bowes GSP directly.
As far as some of the other comments, I have gotten through various levels of the eBay system and escalated my concerns to supervisors. To varying degrees.
May not get anywhere, but you are right, as very few in this forum seem to have helpful discussions.
Feels like people think I don’t understand the system because I don’t accept the actions.
I know the CITES regulations and the rules for importing and exporting and had no trouble pre until using GSP Pitney Bowes and now understand may have been targeted because several people state that “Bovine bone†is code for ivory, despite almost all sets being made of this material and it being required by CITES for import and export documentation.
kensgiftshop
·2 years agoWhen an item is seized like that, the buyer gets refunded and the seller keeps their payment.
Ebay will then resell the item to make up for the refund, but there wont be any International shipping.
They use the original photos and descriptions for the new listings.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoAgain, I understand the system, but the system does not accommodate when the wrong decision is made and an item unfairly, and potentially unlawfully? Seized.
If there is no restricted material, why should they not follow through on the legitimate sale of the item? This was not customs taking goods, this was Pitney Bowes shipping through GSP.
They did not use the original photos, because they knew I would be looking for the item.
Again, since there was no material that was restricted, especially in the case of the tin box, how can they then justify the behaviour? What restricted material in the case of the tin box and bovine bone.
I understand everyone wants me to understand how the system works, and I do.
But not when the goods are resold under the exact same language and description as the original. Not selling Internationally does not change the sale of the goods seized under false pretences.
tobaccocardyahoo
·2 years agothe system does not accommodate when the wrong decision is made and an item unfairly,
Wrong decisions have been made every day since the Internet was created.
It is likely that more decisions are being made today, and even more in the future when AI is the decision maker.
The economics make that inevitable.
I share the sentiments of this "ain't it awful" thread but accept that it is reality and will continue to be reality.
I can only say that it is better than targeting these items for destruction.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoMy goal is get a transparent process put into place and have another step that can be requested to review decisions in cases like this.
I understand this is the system and everyone keeps reiterating, accept it, you got the money, and it is being resold only within UK, so that solves the problem, and mistakes are made and this is only one small problem etc
No, this has occurred to many users and there is no rational justification for the ensuing behaviour when a concern was raised with the eBay team. The process needs to be reviewed and changes made, especially if there is a red flag for “bovine bone†because some IT person put that in as a key word red flag, when it is in fact required under CITES export and import requirements.
maxine*j
·2 years agoI hope others can read your wall of text, because it's impossible for me, given my eyesight.
If I get the gist of it, however, your complaint is with Pitney Bowes, acting as an international shipping agent for eBay sellers, reselling what it could not deliver. That's how it works: If the item cannot be delivered, both the seller and the buyer are made whole and a portion of that payout is recouped through the sale of the goods.
It sounds to me that the sets were not seized by Customs but were simply determined to be ineligible for export from the UK to Canada, based on materials, and you seem to be saying the questioned material was wood.
There are many species of wood banned or restricted for international trade in the CITES treaties to which the UK and Canada are signatories.
This is a nice rundown of the CITES lists of banned or restricted woods:
https://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/restricted-and-endangered-wood-species/
-
-
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoHello, sorry about the text. I am newish to eBay and first time posting here.
No, the wood was not the issue as I contacted both original sellers (experienced antique dealers) and double-checked. There was no restricted material as the box was not mahogany or rosewood and the other set was in a tin box.
I was told by eBay Security, because I questioned them at the time the sets were confiscated, why? Told they err on the side of caution and thought it maybe ivory, but I said I would like proof that these are ivory, as both sellers assured me they were bovine bone and I trust and believe they would not jeopardize their eBay standing and furthermore, I don’t buy ivory.
When the sets were relisted, clearly these are not restricted items, as the sellers took the original sellers words, including bovine bone, and reposted!
Since no restricted material, on not one but TWO sets, and these two “seized†sets posted by two different sellers, (coincidentally however, with same last name, in the same city as the Pitney Bowes shipping hub that “confiscated†the goods,) seems strange (I said ironically, since that is part of the issue!)
Since one set was in a tin box with no restricted material, there was no justification for seizure. The other wood box was not a restricted wood, as the experienced antique dealer said not mahogany or rosewood or any other rare wood.
This is wrongful seizure of goods based on what? Totally open to abuse of power as any item can be “deemed†restricted, seized and then resold. Why were two sets, that were clearly not ivory, basically stolen? It is not the money, it is the principle and a fundamentally erroneous bad faith business practice that I am fighting. I want the sets, not a refund. These are being resold, one sold in less than a day just yesterday, and I am trying to stop the sale and have proof that these are the so called “ confiscated†sets being resold on the same platform that deemed them restricted? Where is the proof or evidence or justification? Clearly tin is ok, and if tiles of that set bovine bone and bamboo, what rational reason for withholding?
Hope that clarifies. Maybe I should post photos? Or the item numbers? Is that allowed?
maxine*j
·2 years agoThat clarifies it, but I have no idea how anyone here can help you, since this is just a peer-to-peer discussion board.
Even if you find agreement here that something smells fishy, no one here has any authority or power to deal with it.
If the goods were seized by Customs, or deemed ineligible for international shipment -- rightly or wrongly -- Pitney Bowes can resell them. Since both buyer and seller are made whole in these cases, only part of that outlay is recouped through the sale.
If you think, instead, that you are the victim of criminal activity, your next move would be to contact law enforcement in Canada.
I suppose you might also contact eBay Security, but I'm not sure this is within its purview:
https://pages.ebay.com/securitycenter/
As an aside, rosewood and mahogany are just two of many, many woods restricted in international trade.
I'd like to be of more help but that's all I have for you.
-
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoThank you for your words of advice. I have posted on UK and Canada and US community boards so answering similar questions.
It was not UK customs and duty that did this, as I would understand and not complain against a decision by them. It was eBay and/ or Pitney Bowes UK
Even if the one item was deemed restricted because of the wood, the other set was in a TIN box and the new seller, who received the “seized†goods used the exact same description etc of the original seller, stating bovine bone! So what was restricted?!
I did in fact reach out to eBay Security when this first happened and they were the ones that said, well it looks like ivory. Anyone who knows anything about ivory can see these are clearly cow bone due to Haversian lines, viewable in the photos. I would not buy an item if I thought it was ivory, because aI respect the ban and am appalled by animal trafficking.
I am posting to the online community to find out how many others have similar stories and saw the exact items that had so called “restricted†material reposted! And by people who seem connected to Pitney Bowes?
I understand the agreement we sign with eBay, but what about when something is wrongfully taken? Our rights don’t count?
I try to abide faithfully by eBay standards, procedures etc and have gotten very nice feedback and I give very fair feedback in return. What recompose do we have when it is the very platform and their business partners that seems to be abusing their power?
lacemaker3
·2 years agoYes, we have seen this before. This has been happening as long as the GSP has existed. Some responders here have even identified the user IDs that are used to resell the items.
If you're looking for a particular item that was rejected, you can find it by watching out for the same title, pictures and descriptions being used in a new listing with domestic shipping only. We have been seeing the same thing you have, for years.
What we're trying to tell you is that this is not illegal, it's just what happens. It's not an abuse of power. You haven't been wronged, you just didn't get what you wanted. I'm sorry about that, but sometimes, it happens.
As I explained before, the GSP is more careful, or conservative, about items that may, potentially, be made of ivory, because they are taking responsibility for the shipping, and transporting ivory over federal borders is a serious international crime. In most eBay transactions, the sellers bear all responsibility for their listings and shipping, but with GSP, some of the responsibility and liability is transferred to the GSP.
And, the phrase "bovine bone" has become a euphemism that often means ivory, so it is now a red flag for a non-compliant listing.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoSorry need to correct you here. Bovine bone is not a euphemism for ivory.
CITES requires that animal parts be identified by type for shipping, and importing and exporting, so this is why the phrase “Bovine bone†is used. Otherwise it may be mistaken for something else.
To clearly identify for international buyers and sellers what animal parts are being imported or exported, so that various Customs officers know what exactly is contained in the package. You have been misguided in your understanding of the use of language for this purpose, and sadly, if that mistaken view is taken by workers at eBay or GSP at Pitney Bowes, that explains a lot.
That is why I have stated and restated the process is flawed and basing seizure on assumptions or presumptions instead of facts, is flawed. Someone who knows how to identify the difference between ivory and cow bone needs to make the decision.
Different types and qualities of cow bone or bovine bone and sometimes water buffalo bone (not restricted) and sometimes ground fish bone were used to make Mah Jong tiles.
For those people who are collectors, good quality dense cow bone is used for best decorated sets because it best “mimics†ivory and in the 1920s, it was used as it was meant to “fool†people that it is a better more expensive material, like ivory. To untrained lay people, they may believe they have ivory sets, and I have had to explain to many people, actually your set is good quality cow bone, not ivory (Including some dealers, who think it is ivory.) The quality in the section of the cows’ bone makes a difference whether you see more Haversian lines so that is why there is a difference to some tiles being very white and clear versus having lots of bone lines but 99.99% of sets are cow bone and very , very rarely ivory.
I understand that this has been happening and especially with Pitney Bowes GSP, but I don’t agree that this is ok and feel that it may actually be questionable legally to take something based on the “thought†it may be something, when it is not.
lacemaker3
·2 years agoThere, you're wrong. You obviously don't know how creative scammers try to get around the law. That is exactly how the phrase is being used, way too often in eBay listings.
It's a waste of time discussing this. I'm not going to waste any more.
lacemaker3
·2 years agoThe GSP is more careful, or conservative, about items that may, potentially, be made of ivory, because they are taking responsibility for the shipping, and transporting ivory over federal borders is a serious international crime. In most eBay transactions, the sellers bear all responsibility for their listings and shipping, but with GSP, some of the responsibility and liability is transferred to the GSP.
They can't just take the sellers at their word when "bovine bone" is mentioned, because some sellers do use that phrase as a euphemism when they really know they are selling ivory. So it's actually a red flag for a potentially non-compliant listing. I have seen listings where the sellers specified "bovine bone" but also included keywords that only apply to ivory, not to any type of bone. It's hard to accept the excuse that the sellers didn't know what the ivory keywords meant. Maybe they didn't, but ignorance is not an excuse.
When items are deemed not eligible for GSP shipping, they refund the buyer in full, and the seller keeps their payment, so the items legally become the property of the GSP. They are relisted for sale domestically, with no international shipping allowed. As I said before, the items are still legal for sale, just not eligible for GSP shipping. So this is not an indication of any wrong-doing or anything nefarious.
maxine*j
·2 years agoExactly. Yes. And that's why in both my replies I kept using the phrase "international trade," but I simply cannot make myself any clearer and am tired of repeating myself (and others are doubtless tired of hearing me).
-
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoHello,
I want to be kind and clear and basically clarify my point.
Do you believe that just because they resell domestically within the UK, the original decision to unjustifiably “seize†the goods was fair and warranted when clearly there was no restricted material found?
The original sellers of these sets were upset by the system too, because their reputations as legitimate sellers was called into question by the seizure.
There was no actual process to determine whether or not there was any restricted material. That is my point. A decision to refund the buyer is not an answer either.
The questionable behaviour is taking items, before due process, and without proving just cause and then after the fact of seizure, saying well, we are free to resell?
Two sellers, with the same last name, have these “seized†goods for resale, but there is nothing going wrong here? And everything is ok?
maxine*j
·2 years agofollowsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoIf the process is not clear and transparent that is the issue.
I agree, I was never given any answers, even though I repeatedly reached out to eBay. Including asking for proof immediately after the items were seized. I spoke to eBay consultant on the security team and he gave the same responses you have too. I asked him to follow up and if the items were cleared for sale, to be allowed to have them shipped to me.
So, yes, I don’t know the process and didn’t get the answers, but my point, is reselling on eBay clearly confirms they were not ivory.
So, ironically, the circular statements made by eBay staff are similar to the statements made by posters here.
So either all of you agree with eBay’s and Pitney Bowes processes or you are committed to push the same position.
Explain how a tin box, containing bamboo and bovine bone tiles (as described on the current eBay listing) is ok, if in fact it is a euphemism for ivory, that means someone is currently selling ivory on eBay?
Also, since everyone can see the listing, if the box is tin and there are clearly no restricted materials, (otherwise they couldn’t list it to sell on eBay,) which is exactly the same conditions under which I bought originally, I will ask you to say why you believe the decision not to ship was made? Where is the proof of any issue with export?
I understand that is the process, Pitney Bowes, sells to recoup their money, but in this case since neither the box, nor the tiles are restricted, people are saying I am not justified in complaining that it was seized? It makes no sense
It was GSP that decided they couldn’t ship internationally, but in the end turned the item over to be listed as bovine bone and bamboo?
I understand clearly their policy and their procedure, but no one has given any explanation, either from eBay or any one else through the system, nor any posters here, how any item now proven through the current selling listing on eBay, to NOT be ivory, how that is ok.
The sellers and I discussed the issue after the seizure. That’s how I know how they feel.
The unwarranted and unfair seizure statements is coming from the sheer fact that both sets were listed again on eBay. So yes, I was not there during the decision making or discussion, but the fact that they are permitted to post again on eBay proves the outcome, that these sets does not contain restricted materials
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoI would understand except the items clearly were bovine bone and not ivory.
I had a long conversation with an eBay security consultant immediately after the sets were “confiscated†and showed him websites where other Mah Jong experts had both bovine bone and ivory sets and showed him the difference and explained Haversian lines versus Schreger lines in the photos of the sets on eBay.
I clearly understand trade in ivory is illegal.
Here is the problem, when I contacted the Security consultant on eBay, immediately after the sets take, I asked that they get an expert, someone who knew and understood how to tell these apart to consult and if they said ivory, well ok. Keep it, if it is truly made of ivory, I know that is restricted.
However, none of this occurred and I was clearly justified in my position, that there is NO IVORY. I explained very clearly, these are unusual sets, not because of the material, but the carved flowers and I wanted the sets for a museum, not a refund.
Despite registering my concerns at the time the sets were taken, they did not release the sets to me, instead allowed others to take and post for sale. These are not restricted items in either country, UK or Canada. I explained to another eBay user that suggested CITES restrictions etc, but the issue is they are not following the actual laws of the UK customs restrictions or Canada customs which allows these materials.
Even if they had an issue with the wood box, which is not made from any of the items listed on the endangered list and are older that any of the CITES required specifications, then say how and why the can explain taking and keeping The Tin box?
Bovine bone and bamboo, which is almost 100 years old, is not restricted on any CITES or any restricted list, so how to explain restricting the set in the tin box? There is no explanation. An error has been made, but no one wants to fix it to resolve it and that is fundamentally the issue.
lacemaker3
·2 years agoSorry, but this is not a debate. eBay CS explained their position to you, but they were not having a debate with you. It doesn't matter what you said, the person you were talking to did not have the authority to make a decision on the issue, or to change the outcome.
Nobody here can do anything to change this either. It has been discussed before, but GSP is not going to take on the risk and liability of potentially shipping ivory across international borders.
Since you have located the new listings for the items you want, you can sign up for a freight forwarding service in the UK, and purchase the items with a shipping address in the UK. You will probably need to make the freight forwarding address your primary address in order to be allowed to bid on or purchase the items.
maxine*j
·2 years agoThere are about 18,000,000 sellers on eBay, with about 1,500,000,000 listings on any given day. Think about those numbers. There is no way that eBay can "call in experts" on this or that disputed item, even if the number of disputes was a very small fraction of one per cent.
The only experts who matter in this instance made their decision. You can keep saying that the decision was wrong, and perhaps it was -- but, in fact, you have no evidence of that because even if you are a credentialled expert in ivory and in woods, you never had the items in hand to examine them.
-
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoRelisting the items using the same words as original sellers should be the proof.
Otherwise, why would eBay allow listing restricted materials that were confiscated.
The issue is, if the items were in fact restricted, they could not be relisted.
Since they were allowed to relist, using same words, why can’t they be shipped as planned?
kensgiftshop
·2 years agoListing it isn't the problem, they just can't be shipped Internationally.
What part of that don't you understand?
maxine*j
·2 years agoAs has been pointed out already, and more than once: Many items are banned or restricted in international trade but not in domestic trade. That includes many items covered by CITES and similar treaties.
-
gwenscupboard
·2 years agoI have the same problem trying to read a wall of text (and I'm only 60-something).
I call that "black on white blobbery", because that's what it looks like.
maplevillage
·2 years agoInteresting, I am a seller but I use Canada Post for shipping and I have never had a problem selling and shipping items made of bone to other countries even when specifying the item in customs forms. Are you able to give the item numbers for comparison? Also, as a dealer who has dealt in old mahjong sets, I have never seen a mahjong set made with ivory tiles. The majority of mahjong tiles are made from either cow bone or ivorine (an early form of celluloid), mounted onto bamboo, as ivory was too expensive. Also it is easy to tell the difference between ivory and bone (bone does not have cross-hatching like ivory does).
maxine*j
·2 years agoI think the problem was the wooden box.
OP says, "I've read that wood cannot be shipped from UK to other places, and that is potentially why the sets were "seized". This is ridiculous and not true, as other sets with wooden cases have clearly been shipped through both countries..."
OP may not be aware how extensive is the list of threatened and endangered species of woods that are banned or restricted in international trade under the CITES treaties.
-
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoHello,
Please see my response above, as I reiterate concerns that you also raise.
Yes, I agree, GSP Pitney Bowes seems to be the problem, as I also have purchased many sets from UK, USA and Australia and had no issues with importing any wood cases or bovine or cow bone sets through any other shipper who has also had to import through Canada customs and export through all these countries customs as well.
I also had a set confiscated by Pitney Bowes US that I did not raise here, because aI don’t have irrefutable proof like in the case of the newly listed and sold UK sets.
However, the US set was nearly identical to one of the UK sets, and also was not made of ivory.
Most sets, for those who know anything about Mah Jong, as the first eBay replied, are NOT ivory. Ivory is rare and I also do not want to traffic in ivory and totally understand the ban.
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoHello,
Sorry for late reply to your post. I posted on eBay UK site and eBay Canada community sites because sets were taken in UK and I am in Canada and am responding to multiple posts.
Explaining to others that there was no restricted wood, nor ivory in the sets I purchased. Since the newly listed reposted items, used the original sellers eBay descriptions, almost verbatim, clearly there was no restricted material. That is the point! The issue is two seized sets were posted by two sellers with same last name, virtually on same day. How is that possible?
To go back to your post…Yes, because I am buying to donate, I have done extensive research on Mah Jong sets and you are correct, very, very few sets contain ivory. Which I tried to explain to multiple layers of people on eBay including a member of the security team.
Furthermore, to your point, I have purchased sets from US, UK, Australia, Netherlands and none of these other countries had any issue or concern exporting or importing the sets to Canada.
The issue seems to be Pitney Bowes GSP and the system they have set up, which appears to be unregulated and does not seem to have any corroborating evidence of restricted material to justify the unwarranted seizure and eBay is implicated by not doing anything about it. I have heard feedback from many others of similar cases.
My case is unusual in that I have clear proof these are the same “seized†sets, but don’t think I can post item numbers for privacy reasons. Maybe I can post photos, as I took photos of original listing and also the newly posted items?
followsunmoontruth
OP2 years agoHey, To anyone who is interested in learning more about whether ivory or cow bone used…
Here is a link to a UK magazine article where an antique dealer, who specializes in collecting Mah Jong sets talks about how most people are convinced their sets are ivory,
but he states “I have never seen an ivory set. Jade yes, but not ivory.â€
Seems lots of people may be mistaken and believe ivory ???
https://www.homesandantiques.com/antiques/collecting-guides-antiques/experts/luke-honeys-cabinet-of-curiosities-1920s-mahjong-sets