Carelessness on My Part or Subtle Skullduggary? Or Both?

[nat]

I always put an "original" filter on eBay searches.

And but also: that's not a 1958 Topps card, despite what the heading says, it's a card that looks like a 1958 Topps card.

[Bestdj777]

I don't think you were careless but anything high grade and raw would cause me to take a second look at the listing. He gave no real indication that it was fake, but I would immediately suspect fake or altered if dealing with a card that sharp.

[bobsbbcards]

It's not a 1958 Topps card, so that makes it fraud. Seller should be booted off eBay.

[REGGIE206]

I have to admit, I saw "reprint" listed in the item specifics right after I opened it. Plus the card photo was way too perfect and the boarders were too white. It didn't look vintage at all. But I'm used to always trying to look for the word "reprint" when I look at raw vintage cards. So I can fully understand if you don't look at raw vintage cards all the time on eBay, especially when the title intentionally tries to fool buyers.

[drmondobueno]

Described as a 1958 in the title, was not issued in 1958. Fraud in my opinion, complicit is eBay. Ran into the same thing on a Clemente Bazooka, seller got a negative before I went refund.

[jchcollins]

I can tell that card is not original from the scan immediately. But that may just be me...

[clydepepper]

Here's another one presented the same way:


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1924-TY-COBB...QAAOSw53NZAQLW


'reprint' is mentioned in the same way it was on the Aaron card, the relisting of which, got up to a whopping $27 before the auction was ended (don't know details of why).