It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
F$@k On3p And Jake Doan terrible Business and Team Rider/ Seller
Let me start this off by saying I used to be a big fan of on3p, I rode their skis for 2 years prior and this would have been the third so I'm not just hating. This is going to be a long ass thread so grab some popcorn and sit back... and hopefully learn from my mistake of trusting accountability from team riders and on3p because I know a lot of their riders sell on here.
So to start it off I bought a pair of On3p Prester off Jake Doan on March 28th, Jake told me the skis were like new with one mount and they came with a pair of pretty cosmetically beat up fks 140's but they worked perfectly physically.(he had me send the money to his wife)
So I got the skis no problem and gave them the quick look over and nothing seemed out of place, a few months passed because it was the middle of the summer and I was not touching the skis, then came the day when I sold the fks off them (personally I do not like the orange, too flashy that's why I sold them). So I go to pull the bindings off the skis and I first notice that the little metal bracket in one of the heel pieces is missing (pictured below)
Here is the piece
Then I noticed that the skis had two mounts on them and the one that wasn't supposed to be there is right where I wanted to remount them, so at this point I am furious and go to text Jake about what he sold me-here is our conversation:
IMAGES WITH PERSONAL INFORMATION HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THEY ARE POSTED AGAIN BELOW WITH THE INFORMATION REMOVED.
So basically he stopped texting me and started ignoring me, so I just tried to move on and I was able to still sell the bindings to someone for $115 and yes of course they knew about the part missing and there exact condition.
The more I thought about what happened the more mad I got, so I decided to email On3p and tell them what happened hoping there would finally be some accountability given. I explained to them what happened and I even sent them all the screenshots and info I had. After what seemed like my interrogation they said they would look into it. To add insult to injury throughout the whole thing they never apologized or said I'm sorry for a representative of there company ripping me off . A week or two passed and they emailed me asking if I had an update and of course Jake was not responding so I had none. Then after that they just stopped emailing so I was just shit out of luck and still am.
I was not going to make this thread but with winter approaching and the skis being more valuable as fire wood than skis to me I figured loosing that $260 should be a lesson I learned and shared with everybody. Don't trust Team riders and look over your gear with a super fine tooth comb even if it means pulling off bindings. Also don't ever trust a company to pull through and do the right thing (especially On3p).
TLDR: Jake Doan screwed me over by selling me a pair of skis not as described then when asked to correct his bad decision he refused making excuses. Then when going to On3p and telling them a representative of their Company and Brand ripped me off they made no apology and pretty much ignored the issue.
**This thread was edited on Nov 27th 2016 at 6:06:25pm
I am confused as to why you posted the first picture, it is not relevant at all.
I have to say I would be upset, but if you like ON3P, why would you quit using them just because one athlete "ripped you off". I know nothing about Jake, so I won't make any claims, but there are a lot of pros and people in the ski community who aren't the best people. Not saying that Jake is a bad guy, but you're going to find regardless of company or status that people aren't all that great. If you're pissed thats understandable, but if you truly like ON3P that much I wouldn't bail on them.
I will say that Jake is right, you can remount skis in the same holes if they truly are "the exact place you were going to mount them". I also agree that saying you bought them to use them and then sell them to not lose a lot of money is a bad argument. ON3P skis last a while, and so do FKS. The gear is working, although it may not be in perfect condition.
Sorry about your experience OP. I would be pretty upset too, but I think you're going about this the wrong way.
I would like to add that I think Jake handled your concerns perfectly, based on what I read off the reposted conversation. He offered to give you the missing piece from the binding and did a fine job explaining the holes in the skis / binding mount.
If I were you, I would go get your bindings professionally mounted where you want them or where they can do it and go enjoy your damn skis and don't worry about the money you might lose reselling them some day.
.lenconI have to say I would be upset, but if you like ON3P, why would you quit using them just because one athlete "ripped you off". .
Because it is very obvious OP is trying to slander his way into a new pair of skis direct from ON3P.
He is pissed that they arent just giving him a new pair, and so now he is going to try and ruin their rep til they give him free skis in exchange for an apology and thread about how legit they are.
This whole tread is BS, the kid is wrong and I agree with califoniagrown that he is just trying to make enough noise so that ON3P compensates in some way, I hope they don't. If this kid wants to buy used skis for the purpose of reselling them, then he should start a business of his own.
If the bindings were not acceptable to him then why did he sell them to someone else. That part is the shadiest out of all of this. If his standards are so high that he would not use the bindings but there good enough to sell to someone else then he should only buy new equipment going forward otherwise he is just a hypocrite.
waiting4snowIf this kid wants to buy used skis for the purpose of reselling them, then he should start a business of his own.
thats not what he is talking about. he is saying that if he wants to sell them after this year, he will have trouble because there are no mounts left, or the value will be much lower than he expected because of the extra mounts (which he should have known about; his fault).
thats pretty standard. Most people want to maximize the resale value of their gear... its how we afford to have nice gear.
So you got basically new skis for $260 and you're pissed because you wanna resell them after you used them? You usually don't resell gear you buy used, you buy them used to get a good deal and use them until they are likely not usable anymore.
Mount them up, ski em them use them to make a ski chair when you're done with them, dont be some greedy person who wants to sell his used equipment that a good dude hooked you up with. Those skis should've been $400 without bindings but jake hooked you up and now youre just being greedy.
Its quite likely you will be able to reuse some of the holes and then sell them for $100 bucks, whats the fucking problem here dude? Skis can be mounted three times, he gave you a great price and now youve made a complete ass of yourself about it.
californiagrownthats not what he is talking about. he is saying that if he wants to sell them after this year, he will have trouble because there are no mounts left, or the value will be much lower than he expected because of the extra mounts (which he should have known about; his fault).
thats pretty standard. Most people want to maximize the resale value of their gear... its how we afford to have nice gear.
No.. so when you buy something is your first thought how much can I resell it for? If so your in it for the wrong reasons.
Also If you know anything about bindings mounts and extra set of holes drilled but never screwed in then plugged will not effect the integrity of the ski. No to mention they were drilled for 27.5 Full tilts which have the BSL of every other brands 26.5. And on top of that if you have ever seen the hole pattern for FKS's they are so different and narrower than any other binding on the market. If someone were to buy those skis in that size more than likely they do not have a 26.5 BSL boot. And hypothetically lets say they have a 27.5 Full Tilt or a 26.5 in any other brand and want to use FKS bindings the holes that were drilled and plugged but never drilled can be tapped and will retain 100% of there strength.
waiting4snowNo.. so when you buy something is your first thought how much can I resell it for? If so your in it for the wrong reasons.
Also If you know anything about bindings mounts and extra set of holes drilled but never screwed in then plugged will not effect the integrity of the ski. No to mention they were drilled for 27.5 Full tilts which have the BSL of every other brands 26.5. And on top of that if you have ever seen the hole pattern for FKS's they are so different and narrower than any other binding on the market. If someone were to buy those skis in that size more than likely they do not have a 26.5 BSL boot. And hypothetically lets say they have a 27.5 Full Tilt or a 26.5 in any other brand and want to use FKS bindings the holes that were drilled and plugged but never drilled can be tapped and will retain 100% of there strength.
ugh. i intentionally dont beat the shit out of my skis off the hill to keep up the resale value. I intentionally dont ski my brand new pow skis until coverage is good so i can sell them for a good price should i not like them and want to sell. Etc. Resale value is a thing for those of us not rich enough/hooked up enough to new shit every year without. a few hundred extra per year surely helps me out.
And more holes drilled equals lower price, if for nothing else than the new owner can only mount them once.
Also, legit question- why will shops only do 3 mounts if you say drilling and then plugging holes does not structurally weaken the ski? (FYI it 100% does, but im not sure to what extent it does).
californiagrownYoure crazy. If you get gear nearly new, itd be dumb to not make a few hundred dollars on it come october the next year.
Like i said, if he brought them for 400 (price they should been) then sure, but jake hooked them up for a pretty good price (260 shipped, so like 220) so why be so greedy? Be stoked you got a good deal for completely usable gear, im sure tons of kids on here would be stoked to get skis for that cheap and this dude makes a huge thread calling Jake and On3p? Its silly
eheathLike i said, if he brought them for 400 (price they should been) then sure, but jake hooked them up for a pretty good price (260 shipped, so like 220) so why be so greedy? Be stoked you got a good deal for completely usable gear, im sure tons of kids on here would be stoked to get skis for that cheap and this dude makes a huge thread calling Jake and On3p? Its silly
oh, i 100% agree with you here, and i think all my previous posts bear that out to a much more low brow extent than what you have said haha.
I was just commenting that resale value is important to a lot of people, even resale value on bought-used stuff. That said, similar to how you tip when using a coupon at a restaurant, you should always pass along the hookup.
Also, legit question- why will shops only do 3 mounts if you say drilling and then plugging holes does not structurally weaken the ski? (FYI it 100% does, but im not sure to what extent it does).[/QUOTE]
This whole conversation would be pointless if the person he sell the skis to has a boot within the adjustment range. Which is like a 33% odds
When a store says they won't mount more than 3 times that's mounts not number of holes. If a hole was drilled but never mounted then it does not cause as much damage to the ski. Plus it's a hole not a mount. Some bindings have 7 screws some have 8 or nine. If he were to remount them with a salomon atomic or marker binding the hole pattern is so far apart that it will not matter. He can apsolutly have the undrilled original holes tapped and used for an FKS if that's the route he wants to go. I would be more than willing to do either of those mounts, or a 4th non FKS mount.
How about this, when he goes to sell his skis he should just advertise what size BSL the bindings are mounted for and leave it at that.
Normally I would prefer to deal with issues directly with someone than have it posted like TMZ, but alas, here we are. Here is the full scope of ON3P's interaction with _salty_ prior to this thread stating "Fuck ON3P and Jake Doan', that we are a terrible business, that Jake is a terrible rider & seller, and that ON3P cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
We were first emailed on 8/30 with a thread stating there was an issue with the purchase and that _salty_ felt ripped off. In our reply, we asked for two things:
First - all to date interaction between _salty_ and Jake so we could make up our own mind. We are in no position to question someone we've worked with for years based upon an email alone.
Second - were the skis bought for the purpose of resale? Why did we ask that? Because when the email was sent, we looked into the threads in question to see what the deal was and found that, as of this email being sent to us, the skis we already listed, for sale, above the price that _salty_ paid for them ($400 for skis + bindings) and there was no mention of the additional mount in the advertisement. As of today, that thread remains active and the listing has not been updated. For full transparency, there are sale threads listing the skis after our conversation with _salty_ that do mention the multiple holes.
This is what _salty_ refers to here.
"After what seemed like my interrogation"
At ON3P, we call that gathering the facts, but to each his own.
Initial email & our response.
Sale thread that we checked out at the time of the email, which is why we asked if the skis were just bought to resell. That is entirely within _salty_'s right, but as a brand that tries to be as clear and transparent as we can (though
admittedly understaffed and stretched thin), we felt the facts should be clear. https://www.newschoolers.com/forum/thread/825721/SUPA-SALE---ON3P--FKS--LINE--JIBERISH-SUPA-CHEAP-
This is what we saw when this email was sent.
_salty_ responded with the proof of purchase & the text string from above.
Once that was received, we responded that we would find out Jake's side and respond when we can. It is true that at that time we didn't have a TM and that team conversations weren't going to start for the season for several weeks, and it is 8/30, going into our business time of year. This also was a situation which, frankly, we are not directly involved in so we have a lot of other more pressing matters at the time.
From the get go, we stated that the scope of what we can do here is limited. These were not a sale made with ON3P and technically has nothing to do with ON3P. Athlete skis are given to the athlete are part of their compensation package, so technically I have as much right to reprimand _salty_ as I do Jake about what he does with his own skis.
Obviously we were not happy to receive the email, and while it is unfortunate that this played out as it did, it is not our place to apologize to _salty_ as we did nothing wrong and any suggestion that we did here is asinine. It is not our place to personally apologies for someone else in this case.
To this point, the email basically seemed to more be about complaining about Jake than coming to a resolution, so we asked as much - what is the goal here, because to us, it was unclear.
The response, as it last was discussed directly with ON3P, stated that initially "a bit of kiss assing and that piece of the heal" and then now "$25-50 back would be very fair". So everyone is on the same page, that is now $260 and sending the skis back, based upon my phone call with _salty_ this afternoon.
This final string of our direct conversation basically asked if he had heard an update, which he hadn't, and the info was passed along to me.
That was the end of our interaction with _salty_ until this thread. While I am obviously am not thrilled on the outcome and want all to work out in the world, the assumption that I will just flick the ON3P magic wand and just make this right is not how life works.
The holes in the skis should have been listed - I think it is pretty clear that the fact they weren't was not malicious in intent (unlike this thread) and was done in error. Maybe a different resolution could have been achieved between the two directly, but based upon the text messages, it doesn't seem like a real resolution was ever discussed.
From my understanding, _salty_ never reached out to Jake since their text message string stopped, and this is the first interaction ON3P has had with him since our email string with him. The issue was not ignored and was discussed with multiple people at ON3P, but besides bringing it up with Jake and stating that obviously - that this is an unfortunate situation - what should we have done here?
It might have been a good idea for ON3P to follow up (again) to see if there was any resolution, but frankly, we're busy running a business. ON3P is not directly involved here. We've internally expressed our thoughts on the issue and would like to think, like most issues in the world, a resolution could be established with some more communication from either parties. We're no one's mom and if _salty_ continued to have issues, both Jake & ON3P remained available to talk over the past 3 months, though no contact was made.
Here is my question for _salty_ - what is in fact the right thing? Obviously you feel ON3P owes you a personal apology and that we need to "do the right thing" and no one can "ever trust a company to pull through and do the right thing."
You've stated, with this thread and your statements, that you feel the right thing would be for ON3P to pressure one of our athletes, on a deal that was done between two individual parties, to take the skis back and pay you $260. Is that correct?
I've remember being a broke kid trying to fund skiing - we all know how expensive it can be - and I agree, as I said on the phone with you on today, this is unfortunate - but this thread sort of seems like passing the buck on finding a resolution here. I have a hard time jumping from no contact/messaged in 3 months to a thread accusing Jake of being a crook and ON3P being terrible and uncaring about the situation.
waiting4snowAlso, legit question- why will shops only do 3 mounts if you say drilling and then plugging holes does not structurally weaken the ski? (FYI it 100% does, but im not sure to what extent it does).
This whole conversation would be pointless if the person he sell the skis to has a boot within the adjustment range. Which is like a 33% odds
When a store says they won't mount more than 3 times that's mounts not number of holes. If a hole was drilled but never mounted then it does not cause as much damage to the ski. Plus it's a hole not a mount. Some bindings have 7 screws some have 8 or nine. If he were to remount them with a salomon atomic or marker binding the hole pattern is so far apart that it will not matter. He can apsolutly have the undrilled original holes tapped and used for an FKS if that's the route he wants to go. I would be more than willing to do either of those mounts, or a 4th non FKS mount.
How about this, when he goes to sell his skis he should just advertise what size BSL the bindings are mounted for and leave it at that.
huh, ive always heard the 3 mount rule regardless of binding. thats good to know, I have an old pair of skis that have been mounted 3 times but all with the same PX binding and didnt think i could get it mounted again even with a fks140 or something. good to know.
I just want to start off by saying I'm sorry this situation has come to the point of you feeling like you need to make a thread on NS about this situation. I suggested what I thought was a fair offering for you to make up for what you saw as an unfair transaction.
I'm sorry you felt that I "ripped you off" so badly you felt you needed to make it public, while publicly trashing mine, and ON3P's name.
I will take full responsibility for not mentioning in the initial thread that there were an additional set of drilled holes on the skis. However, I will clarify that the set of holes that the bindings were not in, never even saw a screw or binding, and they were immediately plugged after they were drilled, as a result of a mounting in the wrong position.
Also, you tried to resell the skis for more than you bought them off me? And now you are making all this fuss? Theres not much else that I think needs to be said regarding that.
I tried to reason with you in a mature manner. You began to get even more upset which is why I stated that I was ending the conversation. Did I ever ignore you after you tried contacting me that initial time? No. Did you try contacting me again? No. Instead, you felt you needed to NOT contact me again, and try to bring ON3P into this. They are not responsible for this transaction or have no part in this.
I honestly did not think it would need to come to this. Attempting to publicly shame a company and skier who are both active within the ski industry is a good way of showing a serious lack of maturity and integrity for a tight-knit community I only assume you care about.
Next time, an additional attempt to contact whoever you're unsatisfied with in a calm manner may go a longer way than you think.
I just want to start off by saying I'm sorry this situation has come to the point of you feeling like you need to make a thread on NS about this situation. I suggested what I thought was a fair offering for you to make up for what you saw as an unfair transaction.
I'm sorry you felt that I "ripped you off" so badly you felt you needed to make it public, while publicly trashing mine, and ON3P's name.
I will take full responsibility for not mentioning in the initial thread that there were an additional set of drilled holes on the skis. However, I will clarify that the set of holes that the bindings were not in, never even saw a screw or binding, and they were immediately plugged after they were drilled, as a result of a mounting in the wrong position.
Also, you tried to resell the skis for more than you bought them off me? And now you are making all this fuss? Theres not much else that I think needs to be said regarding that.
I tried to reason with you in a mature manner. You began to get even more upset which is why I stated that I was ending the conversation. Did I ever ignore you after you tried contacting me that initial time? No. Did you try contacting me again? No. Instead, you felt you needed to NOT contact me again, and try to bring ON3P into this. They are not responsible for this transaction or have no part in this.
I honestly did not think it would need to come to this. Attempting to publicly shame a company and skier who are both active within the ski industry is a good way of showing a serious lack of maturity and integrity for a tight-knit community I only assume you care about.
Next time, an additional attempt to contact whoever you're unsatisfied with in a calm manner may go a longer way than you think.
My guy. You da man brotha. This thread has me laughing
JoanAlso, you tried to resell the skis for more than you bought them off me? And now you are making all this fuss? Theres not much else that I think needs to be said regarding that.
This.
Obviously, more clarity on the condition of the skis in the first place should have been there--perhaps the line about the extra holes ended up in the wrong description in the original thread?
But the real reason for all this fuss is that the OP thought that he could flip the setup here. Not illegal, not prevented, just a poor move that's been looked upon with scorn within our community for quite a while. If you're selling them somewhere else, then it's your business. If you're using the community selling platform of NS to flip them, then it's all of our business and we'll let you know it.
Jake Doan is one of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of skiing with. He picked me up at the airport on short notice last winter, and when I managed to smash my dome at Brighton, and he and his roomies took care of my sorry, concussed ass on their couch/in their house until I got a ride north a day or so later. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who shares the opinion of this thread about Joan.
Personally, the funds I've raised from selling skis I don't need anymore have helped me out a lot. They've never been sold for anything close to their market value, and I'd like to think that the folks who bought them got a deal for a nice pair of skis. It'd suck to see the ability to sell them here go away--immature responses like this one certainly make me doubt the future of that.
I've been subject to buying used skis on NS and finding more mounts than advertised, so I understand OPs frustration (to an extent). Regardless, the skis were sold at an unbelievable price as a kind act by Jake to keep younger "17 year old highschoolers on a shoestring budget" stoked and able to afford to keep skiing.
I think what is rustling most people's jimmies is the fact that OP tried flipping the skis. Obviously this goes directly against Jake's initial hopes, and hinders the ideals of our community's gear swap system. I don't find myself in the B/S/T forums much anymore but this behavior used to be regarded as the cardinal sin.
hot.pocketSkiers will do this to help pay bills, especially when they don't receive direct money from the company. I used to feel the same way, but the company gave the skis to the rider to help with marketing and whatnot and when the season ends / the skier gets new skis, who cares what they do with the old ones.
The skis aren't given out with the intention of them being returned at the end of the season, when a rider gets a pair of skis from a company the ownership of the skis changes from the company to the rider. If the rider is getting new ones from the company for next season, then the rider should sell off the old ones to help buy next seasons pass / pay for rent / buy a shitload of top ramen / etc...
It helps a lot of up and coming riders continue to ski, and selling used skis is (most of the time) more of a hassle for a company than it's worth.
This. The sponsored skiers are not generally wealthy enough to waste an asset like a used ski. If they can get $400 or something for a used ski that is money they need. Unless you are Candide or someone like that as a team rider you are probably just scraping by.
_salty_Also asking a company for some accountability when some one who is paid by them to represent their brand goes and does something bad is not bitching at them it's stating the facts. Also I did not ask any thing of on3p I have no idea where you are getting that from?
I would say your issue is with the team rider, not On3p. I once bought a pair of K2 AK Launchers from JT Holmes in the spring of 1999. They were sick skis and in good shape, so I had no problems with them. But if I HAD a problem my issue would be with JT. I don't think K2 would have cared if he had misrepresented them to me, it really does not have anything to do with them. On3p should not be happy with the team rider's behavior, but like I said before your issue is with him not them.
dan4060I would say your issue is with the team rider, not On3p. I once bought a pair of K2 AK Launchers from JT Holmes in the spring of 1999. They were sick skis and in good shape, so I had no problems with them. But if I HAD a problem my issue would be with JT. I don't think K2 would have cared if he had misrepresented them to me, it really does not have anything to do with them. On3p should not be happy with the team rider's behavior, but like I said before your issue is with him not them.
I think the other thing to be noted is that this kid is lucky that ON3P even looked into the situation. 99% of brands out there wouldn't give a shit about this kid's bitching.
californiagrownwhat, specifically, did you want On3P to do?
I was literally about to ask this exact question. I don't know what On3p could really do here, they can't tell the team rider not to sell skis, that is absurd. Like I, and others, have said, this is not an issue with On3p. In my post above I mentioned my buying skis from JT Holmes years ago. If I had a problem with the skis and approached K2 they would have laughed at me. I'm not saying they should laugh at you, but what do you expect them to do here? They have not done anything wrong.
I'm sorry you got screwed here, but I don't see On3p as being at fault.
JoanAlso, you tried to resell the skis for more than you bought them off me? And now you are making all this fuss? Theres not much else that I think needs to be said regarding that.
.
This is seriously lame on the part of the OP. When someone hooks you up you don't turn around and try to make a profit.
For what it is worth - I am not hoping to pile on _salty_ and don't see the need to continue to rag on him. I understand his frustrations and would have been frustrated too. That said, to go from where the conversations ended to a thread literally starting "Fuck ON3P and Jake Doan" is going to get a response. Hopefully there is a reasonable compromise that can be made at some point.
dan4060On3p should not be happy with the team rider's behavior, but like I said before your issue is with him not them.
I'm going to amend this. After reading through the thread it seems to me like the primary fault is with the OP. Maybe the extra set of holes should have been mentioned but it does not seem to be that big of a deal. When you add the fact that the OP tried to flip them it makes him look pretty bad. I think he was pretty much hooked up and tried to profit off of the situation, bad karma.
From what I have seen over on TGR On3p is a great group of guys making great skis. They have quite a following over there.
dan4060I'm going to amend this. After reading through the thread it seems to me like the primary fault is with the OP. Maybe the extra set of holes should have been mentioned but it does not seem to be that big of a deal. When you add the fact that the OP tried to flip them it makes him look pretty bad. I think he was pretty much hooked up and tried to profit off of the situation, bad karma.
From what I have seen over on TGR On3p is a great group of guys making great skis. They have quite a following over there.
Don't worry they have a pretty good following over here too.
@ On3p I thank you for your response and the phone call it meant a lot.In the end some one who represents your company sold goods not as described to a highschool kid who can barely afford the sport as it is. If your ok with that then so be it, I obviously can't change any thing.
@ Jake I was on the fence about buying the skis at first but I went through with it because I saw a orange name and saw that you were riding for a standup core company. I put my faith in you, I never meant any of the text to be mean I was just calling it how I saw it from my perspective.Also I want you to know im still up for a compromise on this issue.
@ both: I am sorry about the title if I could go back and change that I would. As you can imagine with the christmas season being here and having a big chunk of change missing from my pockets it really hurt not being able to get stuff I wanted.
This is my last response, I figured this thread would go this way with the following On3p has. I wanted to make sure I got heard by on3p and jake and I did.
Thanks for yalls input.
_salty_@ On3p I thank you for your response and the phone call it meant a lot.In the end some one who represents your company sold goods not as described to a highschool kid who can barely afford the sport as it is. If your ok with that then so be it, I obviously can't change any thing.
@ Jake I was on the fence about buying the skis at first but I went through with it because I saw a orange name and saw that you were riding for a standup core company. I put my faith in you, I never meant any of the text to be mean I was just calling it how I saw it from my perspective.Also I want you to know im still up for a compromise on this issue.
@ both: I am sorry about the title if I could go back and change that I would. As you can imagine with the christmas season being here and having a big chunk of change missing from my pockets it really hurt not being able to get stuff I wanted.
You're still trying to blame On3p? Come on dude.
The fact here is that you're only mad because you have some expectation that your gear should be worth something after you use it. Buying skis from someone, for a very, very good deal and then deciding to flip said gear that you got for a good deal is a big no-no in this community, which I feel like you are aware of. As many people have stated, mount your skis, ski them and then try to sell them later. People will buy skis for $100 with multiple mounts if you take care of them.
Have you even tried to mount them yet? Are you going to use existing holes? You're just assuming the skis are worthless after you use them, which isn't exactly true. I think you need to give up, realize that you got a screaming deal on some skis. Jake admitted that he made a mistake on the info, but in the end it really doesn't matter.
The only real solution here is you send the skis back, Jake pays you back and then he sells them to another skier who actual wants a good deal on skis and will use them. Hell, put those skis up for $250 shipped and I bet you sell them pretty quickly, you clearly don't understand that is a great price for a pair of practically new skis. Either way, you should just get rid of them if you cant appreciate what you bought.
_salty_This is my last response, I figured this thread would go this way with the following On3p has. I wanted to make sure I got heard by on3p and jake and I did.
Thanks for yalls input.
It has nothing to do with the following on3p has. It has everything to do with your intentions, and then subsequent actions. I hope you learned something from this thread.
Chip off the old block, id love to see how your parents are. You gotta get entitled baby attitudes from somewhere....
Good thread, though. I think we all made complete asses of ourselves (still do) at least once as somewhat newer members so its fun watching others do the same.
