1879 Providence Grays Team CDV - Copy? What do I have here?
 

Purchased on Ebay from a seller of postcards. Thought I might have stumbled on a steal, but with it now in hand, believe I have a modern repro, stained to look old. Certainly not an original photo pasted/monted to a card. It looks to be a printed copy. Time to seek a refund? Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Well, if this is the one you bought,
it did say in the description: OFFERED HERE IS AN AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE - VERY EARLY REPRINT/REPRODUCTION CDV .

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1879-Provide...-/160876763618

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1879-Providen...0w!~~60_57.JPG

Not that auction
 

Thanks. Thats not the same seller or auction.

Mine was listed in : Collectables > Photographic Images > Antique (Pre-1940) > CDV/ Cabinet
and not listed as a repro.

The original is not even a CdV, it's a cabinet card. And that is of course a reproduction of it.

Thanks!
 

Rookie move. I should stick to game used stuff and garage sales I guess. Thanks gents.

To seek a refund or not depends on how it was described. If it was described as an original 1897 CDV, it's not, and you would be justified in seeking a refund. If it was described as an old-looking baseball photo and the seller wasn't sure when it was made, then no, you shouldn't seek a refund.

Sellers shoud not be expected to give refunds based solely on a buyer's incorrect assumptions about an item. If you're trying to get one over on the seller, without asking questions to verify what an item is lest you should tip them off, you just have to accept that sometimes you're going to guess wrong. It used to be called "taking your lumps" or "taking your medicine" or some other idiom conveying an unpleasant part of the learning process, but the climate of eBay has shifted so much to the buyer's side these days (unwarranted returns enforced by eBay/Paypal, negative feedback only allowed by buyers, etc) that the "unpleasant" part of the buyer's learning process is more often foisted back on the seller. And then they wonder where all the kind, helpful sellers have gone.

Great comments
 

It was listed as a 1879 cabinet card and in a antique photo section without indication that it was a repro and not even a photo. I feel I am justified in seeking a refund and luckily the sellers offers refunds.

I should add that a buyer who bids , wins and pays asking price and shipping for an item is hardly. "getting one over on a seller".

In that case, yes, I think you would be justified in seeking a refund.

Edited to change that to: In that case, yes, I think you would be justified in asking if the seller would be willing to refund. That is assuming that you did not see the other guy's question at the bottom, as I did not until dell pointed it out.

Go back and look at the listing again. The seller answered a question saying that they felt that it was an older reprint. Since they posted the question and their answer I would say that you are out of luck and shouldn't ask for a refund.

"Thought I might have stumbled on a steal" is synonomous with "getting one over on a seller" to me. Maybe I misread that, but you clearly seemed to be excited that you had gotten a deal on something because the seller didn't realize what they had, which is what I meant by "getting one over on a seller."

My advice is to always ask questions if you have any doubt as to what you are buying. I do understand that some situations may warrant a "leap of hope," but if you're willing to take such leaps, you also have to accept that you will sometimes fall flat, and it's unsportsmanlike to pull the seller down with you without at least asking if that's okay.

I totally agree

All great points, but pls note that one locates and bids on an item especially as the first bidder one would not typically need to reread the listing over and over. I had not seen the Q&A and should not be expected to look for pertinent details such as an item listed in an antique photo section with no hint that the item may be a repro is now, after listing and with bidding activity is now possibly identified as a repro.

If I were selling this and had accepted new and crucial info like this I would either a) end the auction and re-list the item as a repro or email my bidders and tell them.

The seller posted that he believed it to be a reprint on August 27th and you continued to bid up until SEPT 2. Do what you believe is right but if I was the winning bidder I would feel very uncomfortable asking for a refund.

FWIW - it's the 1882 team, not the 1879 team

In my view, this is a reasonable analysis.

i was watching this auction my self http://www.ebay.com/itm/130756001791...84.m1423.l2649