Nude Kings: banker.com "it did not sell.....want it?"

[GeorgeK]

At C.I.R.C.L.E.J.E.R.K. 2004 the "sale" of banker.com was trumpeted. See:

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...es11_02_04.htm

"We still had 7 five-figure deals reported, with one of the highest completed at the Delray Beach, Florida trade show. That was Banker.com, purchased by Rick Schwartz for $41,000 in an auction conducted at the conference." described as a "completed" deal, 38th highest reported sale of the year so far according to:

http://www.dnjournal.com/domainsales.htm

Given the WHOIS http://www.whois.sc/banker.com did not change in several weeks, I wrote to the registrant. Mr. Klapow wrote back that "it did not sell....want it"?

Price of banker.com: $150K
Reported "sale" price: $41K
The look on your face when learning the truth: priceless

Moral of the story: Beware of PR masquerading as fact.

0wn3d, yet again!

[JuniperPark]

Wow.... it sounds like some guy named Rick Schwartz ripped off 125 domainers for $800 - $5,000 each.

Since he was 'selling' information, and that information has now proven to be fraudulant, I wonder of attendees can file a chargeback with their credit card companies?

[GeorgeK]

Maybe he's waiting for the DVD money to roll in?

[JuniperPark]

I wonder if he personally talks about this 'sale' on the DVD. I would think that would be evidence of violation of a number of laws.

[GeorgeK]

Shhhhhh, now they'll have to edit that out, and delay the release.

[chatcher]

Moral of the story: Beware of PR masquerading as fact.

George,

The domain name banker.com was posted on the auction board at TRAFFIC 2004 with a reserve price of $41,000. I do not know who posted it for sale, or whether they were acting according to the wishes of the owner. Rick Schwartz bid $41,000 for it, and as the high bidder meeting the reserve price, according to the rules of the auction, won it. I believe the bid was made in good faith, and I believe Ron reported the sale in good faith. I have no other knowledge about that specific sale, and have no explanation for why the deal wasn't completed.

I can tell you that I posted a somewhat lower profile domain name on the same auction board, and Mr. Schwartz was high bidder on it as well. I was paid promptly, the domain name was transferred, and the check cleared the bank. I say this only to provide another data point, and with no desire to argue.

[GeorgeK]

The risks one takes, when describing a deal as "completed". If the WHOIS hasn't changed....

[JuniperPark]

... I believe Ron reported the sale in good faith.

Then surely a person who was acting in good faith and 'accidentally' gave out false information -- particularly regarding a transaction that was one of the 'big attractions' of the traffic conference -- would have made a full and complete public retraction of those statements to everyone involved and every publication printing the false information, right?

Or... is this just more lies from Rick?

[GeorgeK]

Remember, this isn't the first time. Re-read the men.com "sale" (now known to have included dirtyjokes.com).

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=69980

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....

[Duke]

The banker.com sale was annouced at Traffic on Fri. Oct. 22. I check for WhoIs updates at Internic.net. When I did the column Oct. 26 they showed (and still show) the record was updated on Oct. 23, the day after the sale was announced. Internic.net does not show the registrant info for this domain and I did not go over to Verisign to do a look up there assuming everything was in order as the date indicated. In checking Verisign today I do see Lawrence Kaplow listed as the owner. I will look into this further and of course the domain will be removed from our chart if in fact it has not changed hands.

[Anthony Ng]

When I did the column Oct. 26 they showed (and still show) the record was updated on Oct. 23, the day after the sale was announced. Internic.net does not show the registrant info for this domain and I did not go over to Verisign to do a look up there assuming everything was in order as the date indicated. In checking Verisign today I do see Lawrence Kaplow listed as the owner.

Internic.net still shows as of today (Nov 11) that banker.com was last updated Oct 23, which implies that the update you saw on Oct 26 probably has nothing to do with ownership transfer.

[Duke]

Internic.net still shows as of today (Nov 11) that banker.com was last updated Oct 23, which implies that the update you saw on Oct 26 probably has nothing to do with ownership transfer.

It's certainly an unusual coincidence. I should know soon whether it was related or not as I have asked for an explanation from both the buyer and seller.

[jberryhill]

Either way, I fail to see how this discussion falls into the "people to avoid dealings with" forum.

George, were you screwed in some deal here? Or do you simply want to point out what you perceive to be Mr. Schwarz' character flaws unrelated to any breach of a contract of which you are personally aware? I just don't see what is the issue here.

There is no question that lots of people in this world have well-tended egos, and may be prone to puffery. That fact does not rise to the level of what this section is about, IMHO.

You spoke with the registrant. Was there a mutual recission or what?

I will take a closer look at this, and talk it over with my wife, Britney Spears, and see where someone has done someone else wrong here, but claiming that someone is a braggart, and claiming that someone is a cheater, are two different things.

[JuniperPark]

Now this is getting exciting! George "Drudge" K uncovers the story as the "CNN" of the industry, DNJournal, runs the bright red "Breaking News" banner as the story unfolds! We need some of that tense sounding music like they play at the opening of NBC news every night to add to the drama!

[GeorgeK]

lol Juniper Park.

John: I never claimed there was cheating involved -- I wrote exactly what the registrant wrote to me, namely "it did not sell...want it?", after I pointed out the DNJournal story to him, and after confirming that the WHOIS hadn't changed in a long time. Something's fishy. If there's a better category on DNForum, I have no qualms about this thread being moved. Maybe it should be "news"?

[Duke]

I have now heard from both the buyer and seller but it turns out there is also a third party involved (a broker at sedo) that I am now waiting to hear from. Once I hear from him I will have a better idea of what is going on with this transaction and will let you know. Once I have all of the facts I will update our original report if necessary.

[strongvis]

I think this needs to be moved to the "spinning wheels" category.

[GeorgeK]

Sedo still has it "For Sale", odd if a sale is pending:

http://www.sedo.com/search/details.p...ain=banker.com

"Offer comprises: Domain Name banker.com without content.
Description: Please, only serious offers in the low six figures. Outstanding domain name."

SEDO of course was a sponsor of the event:

http://www.targetedtraffic.com/ (bottom right)

[jberryhill]

Something's fishy.

And you know for a fact that there was not a mutual recission of the agreement?

That does not rise to the level of posting in "People to avoid dealings with". Someone reported a deal. It looks to you like the deal was not made. You have no further information, yet you accuse someone of unfair business practices by posting in the warning forum or, as another poster suggested, some violation of law. That's not responsible.

[OnSpec]

Price of banker.com: $150K
Reported "sale" price: $41K

And to think that you could have Bankers.us for a piddley $20k.

Step right up gentlemen... and don't forget your checkbooks!