chard

[sovereignsteve]

15 hours ago, WealdenWoodsman said:

Exactly, there's a lot of arse licking going on here....

I think it's time for a reality check here.

As this thread seemed to spiral downhill quickly, I decided to have a look back at the comments.

At least 75% criticised Chards in some way, a few were non-committal and a couple understood Chards' way of selling this product and that they clearly informed the customer on purchase.

Nowhere did I read anything that could have excused or justified the offensive remark quoted above.

IMO Chardlizzie explained the company's side of the story with clarity and one or two people stated this also. That's as far as it goes and to call such people "arse lickers" is totally out of order and I'm sure most people will realise where the arse actually is around here.

I actually have experience of buying coins from Chards using this method, A few years ago, I bought a number of shield sovereigns at a good price and was told at the time that they only had a couple in stock and I would have to wait for the rest until they could source them.

It took about 2 -3 months to fill my order and my only criticism would be that they could have kept me better informed as to the progress. I did phone them a couple of times to make sure they hadn't forgotten but would have appreciated it if they had taken the initiative on this matter.

[swAgger]

2 hours ago, 999magnum said:

I feel right at home in this thread. On my posts, usually about a coin, people soon start talking about how to filet a salmon.

Yes, some threads can tend to drift.

Fillet of salmon..... wasn't me, then. I like a nice shapely darne of salmon, me. See, the thing about your darne as opposed to your fillet is how you...... oh.... yeah never mind

 

[fehk2001]

4 hours ago, 999magnum said:

Silver is $16.29. What the funkity funk is the problem here???

 

I feel right at home in this thread. On my posts, usually about a coin, people soon start talking about how to filet a salmon.

On your post you normally talk about dog poo and obviously “ so am I “

[HelpingHands]

To prevent this thread running into double digit pages please feel free to start a new salmon dog poo thread.

[swAgger]

8 minutes ago, HelpingHands said:

To prevent this thread running into double digit pages please feel free to start a new salmon dog poo thread.

Don't think i will, thanks. Don't know if you're joking or not. Just trying to lighten the mood.

[AlphaBeast]

At least GSBE fulfil orders...(!)

[ilovesilverireallydo]

7 hours ago, HelpingHands said:

To prevent this thread running into double digit pages please feel free to start a new salmon dog poo thread.

What part of the forum is that subject best suited to please? 

[Paul]

"Sourcing them to Order" "  Acquired from the secondary market"

Flowery posh language for "SELLING STUFF YOU DONT HAVE"

Just wrong, 

Wrong, wrong, wrong IMO in this day and age

Would you make a food delivery with Asda, to be told you will have to wait x47 x48 days for them to source the spuds for your casserole

If Chard they are happy with their "selling stuff you dont have" policy for sovereigns.  As buyers, how can we be 100% sure they would not do this for anything other product they may advertise?

The Bernie Maidoff investors were happy with him "sourcing to order" market-leading % returns on their cash until he that all went tits up

A "Dealer of the Year" not being able to supply x5 sovereign in x49 days without one explantation call or email. Terrible

[WealdenWoodsman]

12 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I think it's time for a reality check here.

As this thread seemed to spiral downhill quickly, I decided to have a look back at the comments.

At least 75% criticised Chards in some way, a few were non-committal and a couple understood Chards' way of selling this product and that they clearly informed the customer on purchase.

Nowhere did I read anything that could have excused or justified the offensive remark quoted above.

IMO Chardlizzie explained the company's side of the story with clarity and one or two people stated this also. That's as far as it goes and to call such people "arse lickers" is totally out of order and I'm sure most people will realise where the arse actually is around here.

I actually have experience of buying coins from Chards using this method, A few years ago, I bought a number of shield sovereigns at a good price and was told at the time that they only had a couple in stock and I would have to wait for the rest until they could source them.

It took about 2 -3 months to fill my order and my only criticism would be that they could have kept me better informed as to the progress. I did phone them a couple of times to make sure they hadn't forgotten but would have appreciated it if they had taken the initiative on this matter.

I really don't feel what I said is offensive. It is the perfect phrase to describe what I feel is going on in this thread and the wider forum as a whole.

If you find it offensive then that is completely down to you but I can't help but think the comment was blown completely out of proportion very quickly, especially when it is inferred that I am also a racist.

[BackyardBullion]

Just now, WealdenWoodsman said:

I really don't feel what I said is offensive. It is the perfect phrase to describe what I feel is going on in this thread and the wider forum as a whole.

If you find it offensive then that is completely down to you but I can't help but think the comment was blown completely out of proportion very quickly, especially when it is inferred that I am also a racist.

I never inferred you were a racist mate. I have explained that I gave that example as a way to demonstrate that the way people say things can be very different to the way that people interpret things.

To not understand that you caused offence after a number of people have expressed that you did actually cause offence shows a distinct lack of awareness and empathy from your perspective.

[WealdenWoodsman]

10 minutes ago, BackyardBullion said:

I never inferred you were a racist mate. I have explained that I gave that example as a way to demonstrate that the way people say things can be very different to the way that people interpret things.

To not understand that you caused offence after a number of people have expressed that you did actually cause offence shows a distinct lack of awareness and empathy from your perspective.

I think it is quite clear what you were getting at 'mate'. I'm not going to get drawn into further arguments, life's too short for that.

 

 

[BackyardBullion]

2 minutes ago, WealdenWoodsman said:

I think it is quite clear what you were getting at 'mate'. I'm not going to get drawn into further arguments, life's too short for that.

 

 

Probably best for everyone involed

 

[sovereignsteve]

6 hours ago, WealdenWoodsman said:

I really don't feel what I said is offensive.

I know you pride yourself on saying it the way it is, aka calling a spade a spade and I can sympathise, as I'm a bit like that myself. However, there are usually more delicate ways of putting things and I think most people on here would prefer that users actually did that. This is a public forum after all which is easy for all to see and if everyone immediately resorted to foul or at best questionable language, it wouldn't portray the forums or all of us in a favourable way. You may not care about that but I'm sure the owners, certainly myself and dare I speculate, the majority of responsible users on here, certainly do.

I would have thought that everyone would have got the idea by now that forums, social media, even email and the internet in general make it oh so easy to give the wrong impression when using the written word without being able to convey tone and body langauge. It's so easy to inadvertantly upset people and create problems. For this reason it's important for everyone to step back before posting and make sure that's really what they want to convey. The use of language that might be misconstrued neatly fits into this . Some people use swear words in  every sentence, it's perfectly normal for them and they don't think twice about it. However, many others don't like it so it's easy to see how communication can break down if people post without giving due consideration to who is going to read it.

I hate to say it, but the use of "smilies" or "emojis" or whatever they're called now can have a positive effect on this problem and I feel this forum needs more of them and certainly ones that are clearly named so we all know wtf the author actually means!

 

edit:

ps sorry for the waffle

 

"It is the perfect phrase to describe what I feel is going on in this thread and the wider forum as a whole."

I think you need to provide evidence and examples as I just can't see it, I'm afraid.

[sovereignsteve]

2 hours ago, Paul said:

"Sourcing them to Order" "  Acquired from the secondary market"

Flowery posh language for "SELLING STUFF YOU DONT HAVE"

Just wrong, 

Wrong, wrong, wrong IMO in this day and age

Would you make a food delivery with Asda, to be told you will have to wait x47 x48 days for them to source the spuds for your casserole

If Chard they are happy with their "selling stuff you dont have" policy for sovereigns.  As buyers, how can we be 100% sure they would not do this for anything other product they may advertise?

The Bernie Maidoff investors were happy with him "sourcing to order" market-leading % returns on their cash until he that all went tits up

A "Dealer of the Year" not being able to supply x5 sovereign in x49 days without one explantation call or email. Terrible

Fair enough Paul, that is your opinion but people sell stuff they don't have all the time. It's called short selling or option trading etc

Not quite the same thing I agree but it has the same effect; the seller is risking losing money if the price goes against them. That's their choice and the buyer has the option of buying or not.

The Asda example is irrelevant and the Bernie Madoff one too in a way. He was a fraudster, hopefully you're not suggesting anyone concerned in this matter is also?

 

[Roy]

39 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

the seller is risking losing money if the price goes against them. That's their choice and the buyer has the option of buying or not.

This is also how I understand it. We're not talking about potatoes or Amazon tat but gold, which has a floating price.

The buyer and seller agree on a price and a contract is formed. One hopes the price will rise and the other that it will fall.

Relevant to this thread, and the forum as a whole, this is perhaps more common than you may think and I'd like to offer examples.

On a number of occasions, I've sold coins on this forum to fine gentlemen who understand that I am working abroad and cannot deliver until my return to the UK. They pay upfront for the coins and lock in the price even though it may be weeks or a month until they take delivery. One hopes the price will rise and the other that it will fall.

It's trust. They trust me and I'm just Roy from the Silver Forum, not a company with 50 years of experience, million pound stock and a showroom with windows to look through.

The issue here, as others have clearly expressed, is a lack of communication between parties and a failure to understand both the business methods of Chard and, indeed, gold itself.

N.B. 4 pages of discussion and the OP only appeared twice 

[RisinSun]

You're a top lad @sovereignsteve it's only waffle if there's no substance. 

I prefer brown nosing over arse licking myself.

[sovereignsteve]

8 minutes ago, RisinSun said:

You're a top lad @sovereignsteve it's only waffle if there's no substance. 

I prefer brown nosing over arse licking myself.

How about just plain sucking up, boot licking or even obsequiously or sycophantish?

[Roy]

5 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I prefer brown nosing over arse licking myself.

Literally or metaphorically? 

[999magnum]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

How about just plain sucking up, boot licking or even obsequiously or sycophantish?

 

1 hour ago, Roy said:

Literally or metaphorically? 

And I thought @fehk2001  had strange fetishes...

 

[fehk2001]

13 minutes ago, 999magnum said:

 

And I thought @fehk2001  had strange fetishes...

 

 

Only you have  that fantasy 

Sorry I am not in your league 

[999magnum]

Just now, fehk2001 said:

 

Only you have  that fantasy 

Sorry I am not in your league 

Humbleness is a quality of a master bunghole sniffer such as yourself 

And you love Eva!

[fehk2001]

2 minutes ago, 999magnum said:

Humbleness is a quality of a master bunghole sniffer such as yourself 

You trouble maker  

Donald must be you idol 

[onlyroadtoheaven]

Removed

[wilky1]

On 14/05/2018 at 16:49, SummitSteve said:

 

I feel terrible that I just joined the forum this morning, and I am already breaking protocol by not introducing myself in the "new member" section first (I will do that in just a moment).

Customer says "they wont refund my money".  Business says "we will buy them back right now at current price".

Someone is not being very truthful. 

Ok, Why would I sell back at a loss, only a small one of £18.55 but still a loss

" Alternatively, if you rather not wait, we can offer a few different options. As the price of the coins is based on the live gold price unfortunately we can not offer a refund. We can however purchase the coins back at the intrinsic rate, which is currently £225 per coin. Another option would be to upgrade to the newly minted sovereigns, which would be an additional £4.25 per coin. "

So yes I am being truthful.

Wilky

[wilky1]

Hmm, I think I will keep my thoughts to my self in the future, no where did Chards say it would take months to fulfil the order but hay-ho we live and learn, the main thing that shocked me was the fact that they refused to refund and offered to buy back at a lower price which would have been a small loss of £18.55 to me.

Chards

"Alternatively, if you rather not wait, we can offer a few different options. As the price of the coins is based on the live gold price unfortunately we can not offer a refund. We can however purchase the coins back at the intrinsic rate, which is currently £225 per coin. Another option would be to upgrade to the newly minted sovereigns, which would be an additional £4.25 per coin. "

 

Now this comment does not make sense to me as they don't have the gold so how is my money linked to the live gold price?  my funds are just sitting in the bank awaiting the time that they CAN buy the sovereigns so to me that comment is pure rubbish.

So I will just have to keep waiting...lol

Wilky