# Baratza Sette 270



## brabzzz (Apr 14, 2017)

This is the normal version, not the fancy problem-plagued "W" version.

Used for the 18 months that i've owned it since new.

Has worked flawlessly, with a perfect volcano-cone of fluffy grounds after a few seconds of noise.

Currently i have it abroad - but the coffee scene here is minuscule compared to the UK...and given average wages, the market for anything that isn't a hand grinder/Aeropress seems to be very slow.

Despite the faff, i suspect it will be UK bound after the new year to find a new home.

Just curious what one might expect to sell for, in the post-Niche era?


----------



## MediumRoastSteam (Jul 7, 2015)

It's £400 new.

Yours is 18 months old, potentially out of warranty, and, let's face it, those things are not built like a tank.

Do you still have the box and everything else?

I'd say £200 - £230, imho.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

MediumRoastSteam said:


> It's £400 new.
> 
> Yours is 18 months old, potentially out of warranty, and, let's face it, those things are not built like a tank.
> 
> ...


I think you are being generous......and am not meaning to sound cranky.....they are a good grinder......produce a nice mound of coffee.....yes they are noisy and unreliable. Personally, I would keep it till it dies then replace it. if I had to put a value on it, £100.....it could die the next day, or live on till the ripe old age of 3...>!


----------



## brabzzz (Apr 14, 2017)

Yeah, box and papers and all that I have.

What with it not being a commercial/semi-commercial grinder it was never going to hold value like its bazooka sized brethren (not that they do either from new - only used).

I suspect I'll end up sticking it on ebay with a BIN at 200. If it doesn't sell, just keep it for if/when the niche misses a beat so I'm not left hanging.


----------



## L&R (Mar 8, 2018)

Having more than one grinder is a must for me. About the price I would say 150.

BR


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

Ebay completed listings give it a value of about 180-200.


----------



## GerryM (Feb 6, 2016)

Refurbished with a 12 month warranty they were £240 from CoffeeHit https://www.coffeehit.co.uk/baratza-sette-270-refurb.html taking this in to account I think £150 delivered is a reasonable price to ask for yours with 18 months use and zero warranty.

EBay prices may be slightly higher, however, taking in to account a reduction 10% for ebay fees and another 3.4% for paypal fees the net figure is less than the historical sales figures imply.

Additionally on EBay there is increased liability for the seller, the buyer can almost certainly return the grinder within three months and claim a full refund via ebay/paypal if a problem occurs or if they just say one has occurred, the risk of this happening isn't really quantifiable and depends to some extent upon the honesty of the buyer and whether the grinder develops a fault within the first few months after sale.


----------



## brabzzz (Apr 14, 2017)

So, the story ended 3 hours ago. Local buyer via Facebook Marketplace. £210. Bought for £290 new. £80 depreciation over 18 months. I think that deserves a beer


----------



## MediumRoastSteam (Jul 7, 2015)

@dfk41, I should get a new job as a grinder valuator for non-cfuk sales.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

MediumRoastSteam said:


> @dfk41, I should get a new job as a grinder valuator for non-cfuk sales.


very possibly but I valued it to a forum member who may have a bit more insight than someone who is not a forum member!


----------



## brabzzz (Apr 14, 2017)

Indeed. And valued to a UK audience. Any CoffeeGeeks in Prague would give their left arms for the range and value of gear we have on offer second hand.


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

GerryM said:


> Additionally on EBay there is increased liability for the seller, the buyer can almost certainly return the grinder within three months and claim a full refund via ebay/paypal if a problem occurs or if they just say one has occurred, the risk of this happening isn't really quantifiable and depends to some extent upon the honesty of the buyer and whether the grinder develops a fault within the first few months after sale.


Can you back this up with some T&Cs?

The terms on eBay say a case must be opened within 30 days of receipt and covers items: "*not received, are damaged or are not as described in the listing*"

There are unscrupulous buyers, but so long as you take photo evidence of the items condition and video evidence of it working the buyer will not be able to return it for a fault that develops 3 months down the line.

You may be thinking of the terms that cover business sellers selling refurbished items.


----------



## GerryM (Feb 6, 2016)

The Paypal user agreement https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mp...e.x=en_GB#r013 Section 13.5 b states that a buyer may open a dispute within 180 days of the transaction, so it's longer than I said.

Additionally if a buyer uses a credit or debit card to pay via paypal and they then take advantage of the protection offered by Section 75 or a request a chargeback (within 120 days I believe), assuming the bank goes ahead and actions it then paypal just roll over and the seller will have the payment clawed back.

The system is reliant upon honesty, however, not everyone behaves honestly and the above are seen as opportunities by some buyers to get a free hire or a refund if they break an item or it stops working.

There are plenty of horror stories that a google search will bring up illustrating the risk when the buyer is dishonest or just plays the system.

My own experience is having the sale of an expensive lens charged back after several months, the lens was returned and, whilst it was apparent that the buyer had damaged it, paypal were not interested, the buyer was refunded and I spent £500 having it repaired. The buyer claimed it was significantly not as described, I sold it as being in full working order (which it was), it was returned with the body mount partially detached from the lens which appeared to be done by dropping the lens while attached to a camera.


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

It looks like the PayPal and eBay terms are quite different. But you are indeed allowed to file a claim via PayPal directly.

FWIW I have also had items returned and as the buyer had no photos and I did it went in my favour. But this was years ago. My experience of the PayPal system is that it requires the seller to have dated proof of the condition of the item and proof of postage. Most 'horror stories' found online are missing one of these two things - most but not all.

Chargebacks require much more evidence that PayPal and (again in my experience) tend to favour the seller unless the buyer can provide solid proof the seller did not full fill their end of the transaction. They also usually stipulate that the seller must not be trying to resolve the issue themselves or have refused to correct a mistake that is their fault.

In any case, these horror stories are obviously rare compared to the amount of transactions that PayPal deal with, but worth being aware they are out there of course.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Just trawled through Ebay and PayPal's policies as I have a personal interest having just sold a mobile phone on Ebay. Would seem that both Ebay and PayPal (from checking community fora) favour the buyer. That said, the Sale of Goods Act as regards private sales requires only that the goods be as described. Privately sold items don't come with any form of enforceable guarantee unless it can be proven the seller deliberately missold the item in question.

PayPal allows 180 days for a dispute to be opened which is odd as to why a buyer can be allowed to claim SNAD after such a long period. It would seem PayPal are implicitly enforcing a form of guarantee above and beyond that required by the Sale of Goods Act which covers private sales which is both worrying and unfair. How the buyer of GerryM's camera lens could argue it was SNAD after several months is grossly unfair.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

last December, I sold a MacBook for spares or repair or parts only, not working. Someone bought it, then after 2 weeks opened a case on the basis he could not mend it. I told him to naff off and after the 14 days, eBay simply refunded him. There is no human interaction in this process. it is automatic. I had 1200 feedback and ended ringing. up eBay and telling them to stick their account where the sun does not shine. I will never sell on there again


----------



## GerryM (Feb 6, 2016)

Unfortunately DFK41's experience is common, EBay & Paypal tend to favour the buyer and don't appear to take much responsibility for ensuring fair play. I understand that occasionally they refund the buyer and leave the money with the seller too and both parties think they have the stronger case.

Over the years on Ebay I estimate that I've bought and sold in excess of £100K's worth of stuff, my experience has been that most people are honest and straightforward to deal with, however, it stings when it goes wrong even if it's only on small percentage of transactions.

Now, if I sell anything of significant value on EBay, I insist upon cash on collection which means the the buyer can carry out whatever inspection they choose and we all know what the deal is.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

GerryM said:


> Now, if I sell anything of significant value on EBay, I insist upon cash on collection which means the the buyer can carry out whatever inspection they choose and we all know what the deal is.


Good point.


----------



## jymbob (Aug 24, 2017)

GerryM said:


> Additionally if a buyer uses a credit or debit card to pay via paypal and they then take advantage of the protection offered by Section 75 or a request a chargeback (within 120 days I believe), assuming the bank goes ahead and actions it then paypal just roll over and the seller will have the payment clawed back.


Just to pick up on a minor point here: the nature of PayPal means you're unlikely to be able to get a Section 75 chargeback: legally there are two separate transactions, the first being you buying credit from PayPal, the second being you spending PayPal credit on a purchase.

An acquaintance who works in fintech informed me that the nature of the exchange is such that you effectively waive your Section 75 rights when using PayPal.

However, as discussed (and possibly in part because of this) PayPal buyer protection massively favours the buyer in almost all transactions.

Oh, and you're doubly screwed if you put it through as a gift to avoid fees, because you don't get buyer protection either that way.


----------



## GerryM (Feb 6, 2016)

jymbob said:


> Just to pick up on a minor point here: the nature of PayPal means you're unlikely to be able to get a Section 75 chargeback: legally there are two separate transactions, the first being you buying credit from PayPal, the second being you spending PayPal credit on a purchase.
> 
> An acquaintance who works in fintech informed me that the nature of the exchange is such that you effectively waive your Section 75 rights when using PayPal.


They are correct, as paypal are an agent S75 doesn't apply as they are not considered to be the seller (although there are some court cases that have overruled this on occasion I understand).

Chargeback does still apply though when there is no money in the buyers paypal account and they use the card directly to make the transaction through paypal. Chargeback means that a buyer can ask their card company to take back the payment, which in my experience they are happy to do with a small amount of information to support the claim, if this happens PayPal will step back and let them get on with it.


----------

