NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2017, 03:30 PM
clydepepper's Avatar
clydepepper clydepepper is offline
Raymond Culpepper
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 3,698
Default Carelessness on My Part or Subtle Skullduggary? Or Both?

Would you have been fooled on this one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-TOPPS-H...vip=true&rt=nc

I did get my refund, but I have some real issues with the way the card was listed.

After the fact, I saw the one place where 'reprint' was mentioned...but, I think it should have been indicated in the title (just an 'RP' would do) or in the area specifically designated for the item's description.
__________________
.
Need the following 1953 Topps #'s in EX/MT
72,81,88,95,242,243,245,248,251,252, 255,257,258,259,260,266,276,277,278, & 280

Last edited by clydepepper; 05-14-2017 at 03:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-14-2017, 03:40 PM
mattjc1983 mattjc1983 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 279
Default

To his credit he did list it as a reprint in the primary place eBay has designated for it. But I agree, would be logical to note in the title and/or description as well.
Doesn't seem malicious on its face.

17 bids, I assume others were fooled as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Successful transactions with: jp216
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-14-2017, 04:24 PM
clydepepper's Avatar
clydepepper clydepepper is offline
Raymond Culpepper
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 3,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattjc1983 View Post
To his credit he did list it as a reprint in the primary place eBay has designated for it. But I agree, would be logical to note in the title and/or description as well.
Doesn't seem malicious on its face.

17 bids, I assume others were fooled as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


One bidder was at 126.00 & another 174.44 - and both had large feedback numbers...so, it wasn't their first rodeo either.


I had my eye on this card all week and never noticed 'the fine print'.

Lesson learned...no doubt about it!
__________________
.
Need the following 1953 Topps #'s in EX/MT
72,81,88,95,242,243,245,248,251,252, 255,257,258,259,260,266,276,277,278, & 280
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-14-2017, 04:57 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,961
Default

It is a completely douchey move by the seller.
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-14-2017, 05:31 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 2,340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm View Post
It is a completely douchey move by the seller.
I agree he obviously omitted reprint from the title and description intentionally to deceive people. Despite the other comment this seems quite malicious to me.

I'm always suspicious of nice looking raw cards online though and seeing as how this one looked like a 10 I might have done a little more digging before bidding personally. Too good to be true.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.

http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/pokerplyr80
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-14-2017, 05:35 PM
lrspaulp lrspaulp is offline
Paul Peters
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Clyde, New York
Posts: 40
Default

I clicked on the link and saw "reprint" within 2 seconds of looking.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-14-2017, 05:39 PM
clydepepper's Avatar
clydepepper clydepepper is offline
Raymond Culpepper
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 3,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerplyr80 View Post
I agree he obviously omitted reprint from the title and description intentionally to deceive people. Despite the other comment this seems quite malicious to me.

I'm always suspicious of nice looking raw cards online though and seeing as how this one looked like a 10 I might have done a little more digging before bidding personally. Too good to be true.


My most recent quest has been raw, high-grade Hall-of-Famers for the years 1957-1969.

I'm still sixty base cards away - almost all of the previous cards have come from very familiar sellers with whom I have never had issues.

I missed another, supposedly genuine, copy of this card earlier this week...looked almost as good for about forty dollars less.

Have to remember this lesson and be more patient.
__________________
.
Need the following 1953 Topps #'s in EX/MT
72,81,88,95,242,243,245,248,251,252, 255,257,258,259,260,266,276,277,278, & 280
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:01 PM
mattjc1983 mattjc1983 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 279
Default Carelessness on My Part or Subtle Skullduggary? Or Both?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerplyr80 View Post
I agree he obviously omitted reprint from the title and description intentionally to deceive people. Despite the other comment this seems quite malicious to me.



I'm always suspicious of nice looking raw cards online though and seeing as how this one looked like a 10 I might have done a little more digging before bidding personally. Too good to be true.

I see where you're coming from, but i think it depends on the seller. A lot of folks ignore the official "original/reprint" feature, and then say something intentionally deceiving like "found this at an estate sale, because I didn't grade this I'm listing as a reprint per eBay rules." My guess is 90% of the time that phrasing is intended to put a seed of hope in the buyer's mind that it's real.

In this case, the seller gave no such misleading statement, and actually utilized eBay's "original/reprint" as intended. An incomplete and lazy auction? Definitely. Clearly and intentionally misleading? I'm not convinced.

Admittedly haven't looked at the seller's other auctions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Successful transactions with: jp216

Last edited by mattjc1983; 05-14-2017 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part Bruce Lee, Part Ty Cobb, overall just bad! pencil1974 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 9 01-14-2015 08:00 PM
Subtle differences in the T206 set's 15 repeated designs Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 42 02-24-2008 03:56 PM
WHO AM I PART 2 Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 14 01-28-2005 11:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 AM.


ebay GSB