Sending money order for an item

[Paul Burtchell]

Make sure it is a USPS money order as mentioned above.

I've never been burned on this forum & I've probably done more buying/selling/trading on the forum than most

[doc540]

fwiw: USPS MO is the most frequently counterfeited form of exchange.

True, you have some fraud recourse if they're authentic, but I don't accept them as payment because of the increased counterfeit risk.

I only use and accept bank cashier's checks. They can be counterfeited also, but few crooks use them unless it's for one, high-dollar transaction.

ymmv

Are you sure about that? The postal money order, if cashed at the post office, has to be verified through the postal system before they will give you the cash, which is perfectly secure. If the MO wasn't bought through the USPS, then they won't cash it. Cashier's checks, on the other hand, are easily counterfeited and used constantly in scamming, typically where someone will contract a high-dollar service, send a check for too much money, and ask for a refund of the difference. By the time the bank figures out the cashier's check was fake the refund is already processed and the person providing the service is on the hook for the amount of the cashier's check.

I used to live with a pro photographer, this was a fairly common scam. They've recently introduced more rapid information sharing at the banks, but as it stands I can still print out a cashier's check for $1,000,000 and your bank will gladly deposit it and let you draw against the funds.

Cashing a postal MO at somewhere other than the post office would present the same problem as a cashier's check, the problem being that the cashing/receiving entity has no way of confirming if it is real or not, but if cashed at the post office, there's no way to get burnt.

H.

Yes, I'm sure about it.

Due to their sheer volume, USPS MO's are the most frequently counterfeited.

"The postal money order, if cashed at the post office, has to be verified through the postal system before they will give you the cash, which is perfectly secure. If the MO wasn't bought through the USPS, then they won't cash it."

Exactly. Accepting a USPS MO as a form of payment creates the risk of not getting it funded. The purchaser is at risk.

As I said above, bank cashier's checks are very seldom countefeited for small individual scams unless it involves a high dollar amount and usually a single purchase.

They're too labor intensive to use for amounts like a $1500 firearm.

I think the best form of payment is a Cashier's Check drawn on a major, national bank so the buyer can take it to a local branch and cash it.

I typically pay for my gun purchases by Bank of America Cashier's Check provided the seller has a BoA branch nearby. That eliminates the "one-bank-to-another" risk.

Or I ask the buyer which national bank has a branch in his area and pay with a Cashier's Check drawn on that bank.

ymmv

[addicted]

I prefer PayPal. in this day and age, there is no reason to have to wait for your money. And if there is a problem, PayPal will get your money back faster than any other service. So what if they are anti gun. I'm anti union, but i still buy cars and pay my taxes. Unless you are blatantly obvious in your money transfers with PayPal, how would they even know what it's for?

Postal Money orders are my 2nd choice, mainly because they can be cashed at the post office. But having to go the the PO, wait in line, ect, ect, especially when you are doing it on your lunch break and need to get back to work, not fun. not to mention that it adds several days to a transaction.

[Dan Hefta]

I recently bought a gun on this forum and the seller requested a USPS MO, I sent it but I must admitt, I was really nervous until I received the gun.

[doc540]

I prefer PayPal. in this day and age, there is no reason to have to wait for your money. And if there is a problem, PayPal will get your money back faster than any other service. So what if they are anti gun. I'm anti union, but i still buy cars and pay my taxes. Unless you are blatantly obvious in your money transfers with PayPal, how would they even know what it's for?

Postal Money orders are my 2nd choice, mainly because they can be cashed at the post office. But having to go the the PO, wait in line, ect, ect, especially when you are doing it on your lunch break and need to get back to work, not fun. not to mention that it adds several days to a transaction.

Hate to be a bearer of bad news, but if you have any problem with the sale you have to let Paypal know what it was for.

From their User Agreement:

"13.8 Items Not Covered.

Items that do not have the PayPal Buyer Protection or eBay Buyer Protection message in the eBay listing are not covered by PayPal’s Protection for buyers. In addition, the following items are prohibited under the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy and are not covered even if they do have the PayPal Buyer Protection message in the eBay listing: firearms and firearm parts, illegal and prescription drugs and drug paraphernalia, tobacco, offensive items, child pornography, and any illegal items."

They're not just "anti-gun", they prohibit using their service for firearms and firearm parts transactions.

PERIOD

[smokshwn]

I prefer PayPal. in this day and age, there is no reason to have to wait for your money. And if there is a problem, PayPal will get your money back faster than any other service. So what if they are anti gun. I'm anti union, but i still buy cars and pay my taxes. Unless you are blatantly obvious in your money transfers with PayPal, how would they even know what it's for?

Postal Money orders are my 2nd choice, mainly because they can be cashed at the post office. But having to go the the PO, wait in line, ect, ect, especially when you are doing it on your lunch break and need to get back to work, not fun. not to mention that it adds several days to a transaction.

Good luck with paypal Wait until they put a hold on your bank account because they "think" a transaction may be fraudulent. Have you ever tried to get their customer service on the phone?? Or better yet, they just decide to lock your PP account, with funds in it, due to any one of a hundred reasons in the user agreement. Not too mention the constant third party assaults on their security that puts your info at risk.

Postal Money Orders are a greater risk than a cashier's check all day long. Even if you ignore the counterfeiting, there is no identification required to get the MO. At the very least with a cashier's check the individual has to have an account at that banking institution which was verified by ID and at the time of withdrawal for the cashier's check it is generally policy to verify the ID again.

[doc540]

I prefer PayPal. in this day and age, there is no reason to have to wait for your money. And if there is a problem, PayPal will get your money back faster than any other service. So what if they are anti gun. I'm anti union, but i still buy cars and pay my taxes. Unless you are blatantly obvious in your money transfers with PayPal, how would they even know what it's for?

Postal Money orders are my 2nd choice, mainly because they can be cashed at the post office. But having to go the the PO, wait in line, ect, ect, especially when you are doing it on your lunch break and need to get back to work, not fun. not to mention that it adds several days to a transaction.

Good luck with paypal Wait until they put a hold on your bank account because they "think" a transaction may be fraudulent. Have you ever tried to get their customer service on the phone?? Or better yet, they just decide to lock your PP account, with funds in it, due to any one of a hundred reasons in the user agreement. Not too mention the constant third party assaults on their security that puts your info at risk.

Postal Money Orders are a greater risk than a cashier's check all day long. Even if you ignore the counterfeiting, there is no identification required to get the MO. At the very least with a cashier's check the individual has to have an account at that banking institution which was verified by ID and at the time of withdrawal for the cashier's check it is generally policy to verify the ID again.

Close...you don't have to have an account at that bank, but you do have to show I.D. to buy a Cashier's Check from a bank.

I've bought them many times from banks with which I didn't have an account. I've just had to pay their fee of a few bucks.

[Matt Griffin]

I'm still not sure why a PMO is considered unsafe; you receive the money order, cash it at the post office, and you're done. If the post office won't cash it, you don't send the item. It can't come back on you, unlike a cashier's check. The only way it could hurt you is if you don't cash it before sending the item, which is cah-razy.

H.

[doc540]

I'm still not sure why a PMO is considered unsafe; you receive the money order, cash it at the post office, and you're done. If the post office won't cash it, you don't send the item. It can't come back on you, unlike a cashier's check. The only way it could hurt you is if you don't cash it before sending the item, which is cah-razy.

H.

Ever presented a counterfeit MO for cash on federal property?

They lock the doors behind you so you can't run.

[Larry White]

If the guy has been around here for a while I usually take a check sometimes a MO. I always use MOs from my credit union because they are right down the street, always have enough tellers and are free. I have done probaly 20 deals here and the only problem was a item rode around in the back seat of a guys wifes car for several days, a PM fixed that. I have done a bunch of grips thur this forum and I always take a check for that. The shady guys and the buttheads dont hang around here long and good folks are a pleasure to deal with.---------Larry

[GrumpyOne]

What I have never understood, is why a seller thinks it's ok to request payment in hand, before shipping the item. Is not my money worth the same amount as the item they are selling? So, in all reality, when you think about it, in this situation, it's the buyer who takes the most risk. He sends his money, has to wait on the seller to get it, then send the item in question. The seller could just as easily take the money once he got it, and never mail the item. If the seller is an honest person, they will send the item, but why must the buyer always have to trust the seller? Why not the seller having to trust the buyer? It is my opinion, if both parties are honorable (that is the crux of the problem though, proving both parties are indeed "honorable"), then once an agreement has been reached for payment and item, that both parties should go ahead and send said payment or item, and trust the other party to do the same. I know this will never happen, as there are too many scam artist out there in todays' world, but you would think with all the feedback in a sellers or buyers profile (say on GB for example) that it should be an easy thing to spot a scam artist. Besides, most of the people on here own guns and know how to use them! I sure wouldn't want someone that shoots USPSA after me......

[Merlin Orr]

I just got home from a trip to find a package waiting on me that a fellow BE'er had sent without any funds from me. There are honorable people out there and it seems to me it is very seldom misplaced trust to feel a fellow shooter is an honest person.

[GrumpyOne]

I just got home from a trip to find a package waiting on me that a fellow BE'er had sent without any funds from me. There are honorable people out there and it seems to me it is very seldom misplaced trust to feel a fellow shooter is an honest person.

I would like to think that too! But why all the rigamarole, when I would think most people (here on this forum at least), would think the same way?

[Larry White]

I dont know for sure cause I dont hang out there, but I hear there are places that are not like this place. But then again ain't no place like this place.---------Larry

[winter5470]

Well I sent a money order for the item in the original post ($115 dollar holster). Got an PM from the seller (after letting him know the check was in the mail) saying that since I took a chance and trusted him by sending a MO, he would put the item in the mail to me before he received the MO. Two days later he got the MO, next day I got the item - all is well with the world!!!!

[Intel6]

While I have been on both sides of this (buyer & seller) it stil comes down to what the terms of the "deal" are. If the seller says he wants a MO sent and will send the item then recieved then the potential buyer has to agree with those terms to purchase the item. It comes down to the "want" of the buyer and if they want it then they have to take the risk. No one is forcing a perosn to buy anything off this board so if you don't like the terms of the deal then don't buy it.

It is like those sellers on Ebay that charge exorbinant shipping in order to pad thier profits. If you bid on an item you agree to thier terms and if you don't agree then don't.

Look at any retailer around, they expect payment for an item before they let you take it out of thier store. When I buy gun stuff from Chuck at Shooters Connection he charges my card before he send off the items. I am not sure why a private person selling something should be any different?

Neal in AZ

What I have never understood, is why a seller thinks it's ok to request payment in hand, before shipping the item. Is not my money worth the same amount as the item they are selling? So, in all reality, when you think about it, in this situation, it's the buyer who takes the most risk. He sends his money, has to wait on the seller to get it, then send the item in question. The seller could just as easily take the money once he got it, and never mail the item. If the seller is an honest person, they will send the item, but why must the buyer always have to trust the seller? Why not the seller having to trust the buyer? It is my opinion, if both parties are honorable (that is the crux of the problem though, proving both parties are indeed "honorable"), then once an agreement has been reached for payment and item, that both parties should go ahead and send said payment or item, and trust the other party to do the same. I know this will never happen, as there are too many scam artist out there in todays' world, but you would think with all the feedback in a sellers or buyers profile (say on GB for example) that it should be an easy thing to spot a scam artist. Besides, most of the people on here own guns and know how to use them! I sure wouldn't want someone that shoots USPSA after me......

[-JQ-]

I've had a couple recent deals on here that really took some faith on the buyers end...fairly high dollar items...too big for the USPS guy to cash. Thanks to those members for their trust.

And I expect to make an NFA deal on this board soon too. Talk about stressful (both ends) how about sending a check for something the price of a car - possibly only seeing a picture - knowing you can't even take possession for weeks or months...faith and hopefully a little history around the community.

And like someone else said, I'm not going to cheat someone who shoots better than me - which is most all ya'll.

[Nik Habicht]

What I have never understood, is why a seller thinks it's ok to request payment in hand, before shipping the item. Is not my money worth the same amount as the item they are selling? So, in all reality, when you think about it, in this situation, it's the buyer who takes the most risk. He sends his money, has to wait on the seller to get it, then send the item in question.....

I see your point -- but let's pretend for a moment that I'm selling an item in the Classifieds that you're interested in purchasing, and that I don't know you from Adam...

Our wants are going to be different: You want my item. I want cash -- not necessarily your cash. See the difference?

If the item's commonly available at that price, the buyer has options. If the item is rare (or rare at that price), the seller holds most of the cards.....

I truly don't sweat transactions here -- the worst I've experienced was having to wait for a seller to ship due to a hospitalization -- and he managed to get a message to me. The worst I've inflicted on a buyer, unintentionally, was a roughly week long shipping delay, when my FFL stuffed a gun I had sold into the back of the safe and forgot to mail it, in a timely fashion.....

[ilvwhtgrls]

I'm not a big fan but it a necessary evil when dealing with guns.

[Matt Griffin]

What I have never understood, is why a seller thinks it's ok to request payment in hand, before shipping the item. Is not my money worth the same amount as the item they are selling? So, in all reality, when you think about it, in this situation, it's the buyer who takes the most risk. He sends his money, has to wait on the seller to get it, then send the item in question. The seller could just as easily take the money once he got it, and never mail the item. If the seller is an honest person, they will send the item, but why must the buyer always have to trust the seller? Why not the seller having to trust the buyer? It is my opinion, if both parties are honorable (that is the crux of the problem though, proving both parties are indeed "honorable"), then once an agreement has been reached for payment and item, that both parties should go ahead and send said payment or item, and trust the other party to do the same. I know this will never happen, as there are too many scam artist out there in todays' world, but you would think with all the feedback in a sellers or buyers profile (say on GB for example) that it should be an easy thing to spot a scam artist. Besides, most of the people on here own guns and know how to use them! I sure wouldn't want someone that shoots USPSA after me......

It's a product of game theory. In any transaction of this type there can be only one seller, but there are an effectively infinite number of potential buyers. One dishonest seller can only cause one "broken" transaction, but a dishonest buyer can break transactions over and over. Further a dishonest buyer can outcompete legitimate buyers simply because he's playing with house money. So logically the buyer has to be the untrusted party. Same reason that if you want to control a population, you have to kill the females, since one male can impregnate many females, but each female can only bear one litter at a time.

H.