Carelessness on My Part or Subtle Skullduggary? Or Both?

[clydepepper]

Would you have been fooled on this one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-TOPPS-HANK-AARON-30-BASEBALL-CARD-GEM-MINT-PERFECT-CENTERING-HIGH-GRADE-/391774984212?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=%252B2MmfU5qS6tbEky1Xnl23nBL%252FC0%253D&orig_cvip=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]

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]

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]

It is a completely douchey move by the seller.

[pokerplyr80]

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]

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

[clydepepper]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mattjc1983]

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

[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.

[geosluggo]

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.

The fact that the seller immediately sent you the "to be clear" email means he knew the description wasn't as straightforward as it should have been. Whenever I sell, I try to be as clear as possible about any flaws in a card rather than deal with negative feedback and the hassle of returns (and because it's the right thing to do).

In this particular case, the card looked like a reprint to me and I did notice the "reprint" mention in the details box, but I've been fooled a few times over the last few years as I've been completing 1956-1967 sets with mostly raw cards. Fake cards and less-than-honest descriptions are a growing problem on eBay, in my opinion.

[geosluggo]

I also agree with some of the other commenters: a card that wasn't printed in 1958 is not a 1958 card; it should say "reprint" or "RP" in the description so you don't have to click on it and try to sleuth it out.

[savedfrommyspokes]

The seller relisted this card, and added the following to the listing in the description area:

***REPRINT***

ALL SALES FINAL- NO RETURNS



http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-TOPPS-HANK-AARON-30-BASEBALL-CARD-GEM-MINT-PERFECT-CENTERING-HIGH-GRADE-/322517475331?hash=item4b178a2003:g:SqYAAOSw0hlZERM n

[clydepepper]

The seller relisted this card, and added the following to the listing in the description area:

***REPRINT***

ALL SALES FINAL- NO RETURNS



http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-TOPPS-HANK-AARON-30-BASEBALL-CARD-GEM-MINT-PERFECT-CENTERING-HIGH-GRADE-/322517475331?hash=item4b178a2003:g:SqYAAOSw0hlZERM n



I see his 'adjustment' - it will be interesting to see how many 'fish' he catches with this one. I'm just glad it's behind me. Can you imagine how upset the next high dollar bidder will be when he sees that he cannot get a refund? :mad:

[JustinD]

Careless, but also misleading.

Also anytime I look at raw and it looks to good to be true I dig deep. This seller has a history of selling many more reprints in his past auction search. He's creating this junk.

[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-WILLARDS-CHOCOLATES-39-BASEBALL-CARD-LOW-START-AUCTION-/391791377442?hash=item5b3895fc22:g:ZvQAAOSw53NZAQL W


'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).