Proof that things are crazy

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I figured getting a t202 side panel would be a cheap way to get a Cobb a card, but this is just stupid, especially given the condition of the panel.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5181839907&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

makes you wonder if people even know what they are bidding on?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Barnes

$250 for a LOW grade $3500 card seems reasonable.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

That is only a piece of that $3500 card...

I picked one up last year (with Jennings/Cobb end panels and the Cobb steals third center panel) for $250 in good condition. The Cobb panel was near perfect, the center panel had the typical crease and a bit of staining.

I agree, either some major shill bidding or people mistaking the card for a T205. I would have anticipated a panel of Cobb in that kind of shape to go for around $50.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

They think they are buying a T205. They are ignorant and working their way up to stupidity. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

is that the t202 panels don't have the team and mascot (or letter)on the card, and the T205s do.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

John Barnes,
T202 cards, know as triple folders, had two players on either end (like the Cobb up for auction), and a black and white action photo in the middle. This Cobb for sale was thus cut off of a triple folder as is only a portion of the actual card. That is why people can't understand the price.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: John Barnes

thank you for the enlightening posts Jim and Julie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

I wouldnt buy a thing from this seller - very deceptive. I sold him a GAI 2 t206 bat on cobb clearly described to note that the back was missing paper. He is now selling the same card without any mention of the paperloss and stating that it is a prime candidate for regrading. He is also selling at least two other cards that were purchased as trimmed w/o disclosing that fact either.

Here is my earlier post on this with links:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1113077600&lp=1113100970

[Archive]

Posted By: vetekbob

Josh,
I emailed the guy on the E90-1 cards and suprise he hasnt responded. I think it stinks that technically you arent allowed to give a bidder aheads up when you know for sure they are being decieved and or truly mislead for risk of being kicked off Ebay. I have warned bidders before if such was the case because I didnt want to see them get taken because of a dishonest seller. The way I look at it personally is if I were to ever get kicked off because I was trying to help someone out and not because I was trying to bid on the item myself then I could live with that knowing I tried to do the right thing. The few times I have tried to contact ebay on matters of such when I could prove the seller was up to no good, I didnt get anywhere with ebay. At least the people here care and try to look out for each other. Ebay is a good thing overall but they certainly could do better than what they do to help prevent shills and what not. I could be one of those poor bidders if I didnt know about this site recently.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Yeah, it sucks that ebay wont take care of things like this. despite the risk, Ive decided to send some warnings out. If all the sudden Im buying and selling under a new id, you all will know why.

[Archive]

Posted By: Texas Ted

That info about the T202 side panel difference to the T205 was new, and very helpful information to me. That is the main reason I lurk around here; always something to learn.

Ted
He who so shall, so shall he who!

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

The seller was a little deceptive in their description. The fact that this is only an end panel and that 2/3's of the card is missing was not disclosed. For those of us that know the T202 series it is fine, but for someone that doesn't know this it's very misleading. I guess you can state the case that you shouldn't bid on something that you don't know about but it's a very poor description of the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Here's the T202 from ebay and a T205 cobb, same image.



Sorry about the size differences.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

One has gold borders one has white, isn't that an even easier way to differentiate?

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

you would think!

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

I'm waiting for today's card manufacturer's to start creating cards out of pieces of vintage cards and call them scraps.

Leon, I agree but I also think paying a 10xxxx premium for a slab is a bit ridiculous, but to each his own.

Just noticed my sentence structure contained more buts than a Hawaiian Tropic commercial.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree with you. So far I have lot's of slabbed cards but haven't ever bought a slab.....If I want plastic I can buy it cheaper without a card in it.....Personally I think the whole registry thing is a marketing gimmic, and is working well, but that's another thread...

[Archive]

Posted By: A List Of

Bushing's Symposium.

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=5181839907

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim N

I've wasted a bunch of time clicking on this guy's auctions lately. In all his auctions he is clearly trying to mislead the less knowledgeable with the descriptions.

His recent feedback (99.2%) includes somebody who bought a 1934 Goudey from him and got a card with "no back" (posted April 13). All Nomar's description has to say about the card's condition is this:

"This card is in very nice shape especially since it is over 70 years old. Please see pictures."

But there's no picture of the back-- ha ha! Every single time I've gone to one of his auctions I've noticed something that's just not right.


It brings up a question I've sometimes wondered about:

should we as a board try to maintain a semi-official list of scammers and questionable sellers? The hobby analogy to a list of virus signatures. Like that, it would always be slightly out of date as the slugs mutate and change their names, but it could help the newer folks a lot.

This would not be for sellers that some people don't like (re the recent 707sportscards and Verkman threads)-- that would be too subjective.

This would be for people who are just flat-out engaging in scamming, shilling, and other forms of out-and-out deception: the libertyforalls, the nomar5378s, etc.

I'm not volunteering to head this up (ha-ha): just wondering if it's something we might want to consider.

Cheers,

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Do you suppose this forum could start one?
One that would update any changes to user ID's when discovered, or additional ID's.
I agree with you.
We're only talking about the cancers in the hobby, and not personality clashes.
We go back to the question, can this forum pull that off?
As a collector, I tried back in 1990 to alert most of the dealers at the Texas National about Danny Dupchek, a cancer in the hobby.
The dealers were interested in the facts that I showed them, but they did not band together to fight off a cancer that was threatening their business, and our hobby.
Because of that, Dr, Koos was around longer than he should have been.
Here's a chance for collectors to band together to fight off the malignant growth, and if the dealers want to join us, so much the better.

But first:
Can this forum do it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

I dont see why it cant simply be added to a link up top. But, then again, Im not the one who would have to do the work to maintain it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

What are the legal considerations?

Can a person state his opinion on our board (or eBay feedback) without facing lawsuits?

Specifically can I leave the following feedback on eBay:

FRAUD, court date 5/13/05, contact identify7@aol.com for conviction status.

When the court date is actually a small claims court, not a criminal trial. But the above feedback is less misleading than the card's description. Or am I subject to libel - or other - lawsuits?

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

The truth is an absolute defense to any libel/slander suit. In addition, I would note that putting such info in a link is no different than opening a new thread to discuss each purported scammer - you are still publishing the information.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Personally, I don't like the idea of such a bad seller list.

However, as far as libel goes, it's not libel if:

a) The information is true (If the info is literally correct but terribly misleading, then the specific case can be up for debate).

b) You explicitly say that you are giving your opinion ("In my opinion, Joe Schmoe is a misleading seller and collectors should stay away.")

Just slightly off topic, but reflective of my opinion on these matters. As far as posting publicly that something is a fake, I think one should be certain that the accusation is correct before you make it, admit it when you realize your accusation was incorrect, and forgive those sellers who reform their ways.
<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Believe me.
The Weasel does not want to deal with Lawsuits.
Let's get back to the list.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

From an attorney on another forum:

HERE IS A LITTLE BREAK DOWN FOR YOU:

Defamation is the result of an attack on the reputation of a person or organization; it includes attacks on a person's honesty, integrity, or virtue which result in public contempt, ridicule, or financial injury.

Fair comment: this common law defense guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff.

Libel per se describes statements which are widely understood to be harmful to a person's reputation. For example, referring to an individual as an alcoholic or criminal, or any description which would lower the reputation of that individual in the eyes of others. These words are harmful and libelous.

Libel per quod statements are interpreted as non-harmful except when seen in a particular context. For example, an individual is reportedly seen patronizing an adult novelty store. While this statement in itself may not be libelous, the fact that the person is a Catholic priest would be; the reputation and lifestyle of the individual would be adversely affected by this kind of statement because of his occupation.

Limited Pubic Figure is a private citizen who has voluntarily thrust him or herself into the public eye over a particular controversy to influence the resolution of a public issue. May have to prove 'actual malice' to win a libel case.

Malicious Falsehood is similar to defamation, but proof of damage is not necessary as with defamation -- defendants must only prove the statement was false and published maliciously.

Private Persons are not in the public eye and do not have direct access to media. These people do not need to prove 'actual malice' in a libel case.

Public Figure refers to any person who receives frequent media attention, or is well-known in a particular area. Public figures who make claims of libel must prove 'actual malice' to succeed in such a case.

Public Principle refers to the heavier burden of proof carried by public figures such as entertainers and politicians than that carried by private citizens. Public principle is grounded in the belief that these persons ought to expect a thorough examination of their public actions. Also, public figures have an advantage over private citizens because they have access to the media to respond to criticism.

Punitive Damages are awarded to plaintiffs to punish the defendant. In a standard libel suit, if the plaintiff is a public figure they must show that the statement was made with 'actual malice'; private people are only required to prove negligence.

Reporter's Privilege protects the fair reporting of facts, as long as they are not libelous.

Retraction is an attempt by the plaintiff to correct a defamatory statement by a published or broadcast admission of guilt. The retraction of a defamatory statement may, in some states, lessen the awarded damages.

Slander is a separate charge from libel; it is a false and unprivileged verbal statement which does not originate in print.

Slander of Goods is a version of malicious falsehood in which the plaintiff's goods are spoken of in a negative light, leading to a defamation of the good.

Slander of Title is a rare form of malicious falsehood in which the plaintiff abuses the title of, or falsely entitles the defendant or his or her ownership of property. Calling a local sheriff the Sheriff of Nottingham (after the infamous criminal Sheriff of Nottingham in The Tales of Robin Hood) would be a 'slander of title.'

Special Damages: plaintiffs who seek additional damages, called special damages, are required to prove the libelous statement caused specific monetary losses.

Truth in the questioned statement is the absolute defense to any libel case.

I DEAL WITH THIS STUFF ON A DAILY BASIS.

[Archive]

Posted By: Looks Like

Collectors:
Fend for yourselves, or the catch phrase will always be:

"Is this Real, or Memorex?"