Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Carelessness on My Part or Subtle Skullduggary? Or Both? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=239745)

clydepepper 05-14-2017 03:30 PM

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.

mattjc1983 05-14-2017 03:40 PM

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

clydepepper 05-14-2017 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattjc1983 (Post 1661333)
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!

JollyElm 05-14-2017 04:57 PM

It is a completely douchey move by the seller.

pokerplyr80 05-14-2017 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 1661353)
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.

lrspaulp 05-14-2017 05:35 PM

I clicked on the link and saw "reprint" within 2 seconds of looking.

clydepepper 05-14-2017 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80 (Post 1661361)
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.

savedfrommyspokes 05-14-2017 06:37 PM

The first thing I noticed was what appears to be a dinged upper right corner in the image followed by the words "gem mint" in the title..... I personally would have back-buttoned at that point.


FWIW, I would have expected a seller to have been more forthcoming about a card being a reprint.

Who paid the return s/h?

clydepepper 05-14-2017 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes (Post 1661372)
The first thing I noticed was what appears to be a dinged upper right corner in the image followed by the words "gem mint" in the title..... I personally would have back-buttoned at that point.


FWIW, I would have expected a seller to have been more forthcoming about a card being a reprint.

Who paid the return s/h?



I paid immediately and then the seller emailed me with 'to be clear, you do realize this is a reprint'. I replied that NO, I had not and requested a full refund. I had the sale canceled and he sent the refund...which, of course, has a hold on it for a couple of days...which is no big deal.

nat 05-14-2017 07:59 PM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.