The LLL.com sales report & discussion thread

[italiandragon]

We need this one too guys

This guide will also help LLLL.com holders to understand more the value of their 4 letters .com based on how expensive the similar 3 letters .com are.

From:

http://3character.com/priceguide.html

Pricing Guide for 3-Letter (Composed Of Letters Only) Domains:

Current Observed Minimum Wholesale Price (regardless of letter combo) as of February 1, 2008:

3-Letter .com - $6700 (+ $300 since January 1, 2008 report)

But I consider their guide a bit old since they are not taking in consideration the emergenging countries that appreciate other letters and as we have run a poll here several times lately, the majority of people consider the letters U
and W to be Premium letters.

Let`s have a look at some recent LLL.com sales as reported from NameBio.com :


nak.com $27,135 2007-12-22 SEDO.com
nyz.com $10,605 2007-12-19 tdnam
utw.com $10,100 2007-12-10 SEDO.com
via.com $157,500 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
cgf.com $14,500 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
vkx.com $6,200 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
mje.com $10,734 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
okf.com $8,500 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
our.com $60,000 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
kxr.com $7,101 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
lhg.com $13,613 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
wae.com $10,099 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
hya.com $7,499 2007-12-06 SEDO.com
yrd.com $9,100 2007-12-05 SEDO.com
vfk.com $15,750 2007-11-29 AfterNic.com
qee.com $10,882 2007-11-27 SEDO.com

 

[gilescoley]

YYB.com $68,000
MFF.com $50,000
YYF.com $50,000
YYH.com $50,000
NBT.com $50,000
YYM.com $47,000
YCY.com $37,000
EXX.com $30,000
VEO.com $36,100
NKZ.com $29,382
KEO.com $25,000
PWU.com $17,000

 

[tonecas]

almost all sold to chinese.
and telepathy is selling a bunch of LLLs.

 

[gilescoley]

almost all sold to chinese.
and telepathy is selling a bunch of LLLs.

yeah I noticed that, where did you see the telepathy names...

 

[tonecas]

from historic whois info

 

[gilescoley]

VTY.COM
$22,000

YBF.COM
$55,300

XPR.COM
$30,100

WIY.COM
$16,800

EXN.COM
$19,600

 

[gilescoley]

YVY.COM $16,000
AFJ.COM $27,200
BQI.COM $17,100

 

[gilescoley]

VYC.COM $16,600
IAS.COM $30,000
VVC.COM $19,000

 

[gilescoley]

WMD.com $37,500

 

[gilescoley]

EKC.COM $15,500
HVZ.COM $12,400

 

[gilescoley]

SAU.COM $26,500
ISU.COM $25,000
JHM.com $30,429

 

[gilescoley]

TIE.COM $125,000
BOP.COM $80,000
IGL.COM $23,000
BVF.com $20,000
EYM.COM $20,000
MJU.COM $19,000
IXA.COM $18,000
VMR.COM $17,000

 

[gilescoley]

FIQ.com $16,500
GXM.com $15,000
EKC.COM $15,500

 

[gilescoley]

NUZ.com
$28,000

 

[gilescoley]

LRZ.com
$46,000

 

[gilescoley]

Someone got a nice bargain here

VRO.COM
$6,500

 

[gilescoley]

NUZ.COM
$28,000

 

[gilescoley]

DAR.COM $150,000
GDL.COM $34,500
JHM.COM $30,400
IAS.COM $30,000
VVC.COM $19,450
VYC.COM $16,600
HVZ.COM $12,400

 

[kemjika11]

Someone got a nice bargain here

VRO.COM
$6,500

Surely one of the biggest undersales of the year. seller mustve needed cash badly or not known what he/she was holding.

 

[gilescoley]

JWI.COM
$20,000

 

[tonecas]

another warehousing story, brought to you again by Network Solutions.

the domain is QGI.com and is on auction at SnapNames, which by itself is news since up until now Network Solutions kept selling their unlawfully owned domains at NameJet.

QGI.com had been renewed until 2013 since at least 2008. then it mysteriously got renewed for another year on 2013 even when its owner and manager had passed away in 2011:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/courierpostonline/obituary.aspx?n=robert-j-camm&pid=149795304

on about February 2014 Network Solutions placed the domain on-hold probably after some WHOIS complaint. but then failed to release the domain do the general public on the expiration date 2014-11-16.

I am sure they have recorded the extenuation circumstances demanded by the RAA 2013 (and before) for holding a (premium) domain for their own profit...

on February of 2015 the domain showed the previous owner information but the expiration date was kept at 2014 and the domain was still on-hold.

now the domain has been placed into WHOIS privacy, renewed up until 2016 and its DNS moved to ZTOMY.com, a telling tale of Web.com action when they snag domains under the woods.

now, lets go bid on the auction and keep filling their pockets

 

[Ms Domainer]

another warehousing story, brought to you again by Network Solutions.

the domain is QGI.com and is on auction at SnapNames, which by itself is news since up until now Network Solutions kept selling their unlawfully owned domains at NameJet.

QGI.com had been renewed until 2013 since at least 2008. then it mysteriously got renewed for another year on 2013 even when its owner and manager had passed away in 2011:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/courierpostonline/obituary.aspx?n=robert-j-camm&pid=149795304

on about February 2014 Network Solutions placed the domain on-hold probably after some WHOIS complaint. but then failed to release the domain do the general public on the expiration date 2014-11-16.

I am sure they have recorded the extenuation circumstances demanded by the RAA 2013 (and before) for holding a (premium) domain for their own profit...

on February of 2015 the domain showed the previous owner information but the expiration date was kept at 2014 and the domain was still on-hold.

now the domain has been placed into WHOIS privacy, renewed up until 2016 and its DNS moved to ZTOMY.com, a telling tale of Web.com action when they snag domains under the woods.

now, lets go bid on the auction and keep filling their pockets

I'll bet you that the company under privacy is Web's shill company New Ventures Services. (Newvcorp [dot] com)

Web.com, Register.com, and Network Solutions dump all their expired domains into this shill company with the hope that the former owner will pay a fee to retrieve it, sometimes when the domain is only expired for one day -- and, sometimes, even when the domain isn't even expired! These entitled bastards just like to steal from their customers. No moral compass or business ethics.

They get away with this behavior because ICANN does nothing about it.

Anyone who does business with these three sirens can expect terrible customer service and possible thievery, especially if they have premium domains.

BEWARE!​

More (no ads):

http://www.scamful.com/2014/07/warning-if-you-own-domain-names-avoid.html ​

 

[Kate]

I have noticed that behavior from netsol many years ago. Apparently they like to repossess LLL.com whose owner has passed away. Makes it easier to blur the history and minimizes the risks of complaints and bad rep. If only the registrants realized what happens to their estate...

 

[JudgeMind]

Think there's anyway to still land an LLL.com now a days for under $5000?

 

[Keith]

Network Solutions is dirty. I know of a domain that's in client hold for 3 years. They're still holding it...

 

[tonecas]

yeah, i have seen that too frequently.

i don't know who is worst, registrar companies like Network Solutions, Tucows and even Name.com, or ICANN.

there is no form to make a complaint about unlawful holding of domains. even the business of auctioning off expired domains is NOT contemplated in RAA. at some point i got a reply from ICANN that they could auction expired domains according to Registrar's rules but that is ludicrous because they cannot place a rule on their ToS that goes against general rules of ICANN. it is so fishy that when i can get through the so frequent dummy first line ICANN complaint reviewers (that don't even know their own written rules!) and reach upper support personnel and they ask for proofs, and I provide them, they go mute and don't give any more feedback.

i find it surprising how hasn't anyone in the USA sue these bastards during all this time. I believe it would be easy given the so blatant rules infringement. it could bring a big settlement and make a changing point on ICANN responsibilities.

by the way, it would be easy to solve this matter by ICANN. just clearly state in the rules that Registrars can hold expired domains and do what ever they want with them. this hasn't been done yet for all these years because:
1) no big player has brought this to public and court's attention
2) doing so it would make it clear to all public eyes how ICANN privileges Registrars in detriment to other people