[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Listing worthless scrap cut from vintage magazines in an eBay category labeled "Trading Cards" is deliberately misleading. How do we know? Before "libertyforall" starting listing this worthless crap, NO ONE ANYWHERE would have classified all or part of a page in a vintage periodical as a baseball card.

The description itself is not misleading, but the fact that these items are ALLOWED to persist in an improper category (which safehabor DOES list as a violation), is implicitly deceptive to those who think they're purchasing vintage baseball cards. In fact, I have received several emails from some of the bidders in these auctions and they had no idea these weren't legitimate baseball cards until I told them and provided proof of the images in the original Spalding Baseball guides (among others).


Here are some suggested ALTERNATE categories:

Home > All Categories > Toys & Hobbies > Hobbies & Crafts > Arts & Crafts > Scrapbooking

Home > All Categories > Everything Else > Weird Stuff

Home > All Categories > Books > Magazines & Catalogs

Home > All Categories > Collectibles > Postcards & Paper > Ephemera

Home > All Categories > Collectibles > Postcards & Paper > Scrapbooks


There are MANY on eBay who cannot distinguish between a reprint and an original. So too, there are many who take only a cursory look at descriptions and assume (as any normal person would) that a GRADED item listed in a category for trading cards is indeed a trading card.

Here's a good example of how listing an item in an improper category is deceptive and fraudulent:

Suppose I purchase a 1/64 scale red diecast Lamborghini. Then, I take pictures of it so that the bidders cannot tell if it is full-sized. I list it on eBay under the category -- eBayMotors > All Categories > Sports Cars > Lamborghini -- and indicate that all items I sell are 100% original and not reproductions (in this case, I represent it as an “original collectible car”). I receive bids that are well in excess of the actual value.

Sure, you can find items listed in the Standard Catalog or Beckett Almanac that were issued in newspapers or were printed on thin, magazine type stock. But all of these items, without exception, were printed so that they could be collected. That was clearly the intent of the manufacturer -- not some fly-by-night, back-ally, do-it-yourself-in-your-basement grading service that makes up its own rules as it goes along.

Let's apply a simple, "common man" standard here. These are not baseball cards and they are listed in an improper category in order to deceive bidders.

Also, to imply that "trading card" or "collectible" is vague is to confuse and obscure this issue. While I agree that trading cards come in many different shapes and sizes and are printed on many different types of cardstocks, I don't think the "vagueness" argument is a good one here. I've seen early baseball guides and newspaper articles cut apart. It's called a scrapbook. But when a scrapbook collector brings one of these to me at a baseball card show, I don't look through it and think, "Gee, there's a baseball card of Babe Ruth...and there's another of Ty Cobb." Instead, I see it for what it is and the fact that baseball players are pictured doesn't make me think that I'm looking at baseball cards.

David is EXACTLY right here. These items need to be moved elsewhere. For them to remain in this category is embarrassing AND deceptive. Certainly, a few articles in some major hobby periodicals would be a good start to cleaning up the vintage card listings on eBay.