CAREFUL, well done FATIMA FAKES

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Advertised as photo stock and looks good in the scan but smells of artificial aging and is way too flimsey. This seller is selling fake Fatima Team cards so please be careful guys. I have returned it for a refund. Dan.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=160221745036&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=006

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

This seller is well known for selling reprints and fakes.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

So I guess I should read the chat board more often? These slime balls are getting very good at stealing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I think you were on vacation.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/search?searchterm=marketkingman&sort=match

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Story of my life. I will get my money back or it will be a trip to Florida.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

Does he offer refunds with no questions asked? The auction never said it was vintage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

The idiot seller should change his ebay name to "reprint king" or "imanazhole". This guy's bad news.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

.......do you raely see these without "frawed" corners............. or was that "fraud" corners

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I am in trouble, man can I find them!

From Seller: Robert XXXXXXXX on 4/8/2008 12:04 PDT
I consider the actions by ebay/Paypal in this matter to be highly illegal and will expect a full reversal of the theft/hold of my money immediately. There is absolutely no question that the item was described and scanned in great detail in great clarity and in great accuracy. Regardless of what ploy any buyer might initiate in order to discriminate against me, this discrimination is illegal. The item is fully protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution regardless of what the "card industry" believe. All cards are sold as is, as scanned because they cannot be carbon dated without destroying them. I am not an authenticator, nor do I need to be. The items which I sell are fully in the Public Domain regardless of what ebay or any collector may say about "authentification" or "authorized" cards. You are dead wrong about the law and I will pursue this fully. I have a policy of accepting returns. I will not be illegally intimidated to refund money for non-returned items. That is called theft. This is a fraud which the ebay seller must be protected against or ebay is fully liable for violating basic Constitutional Rights.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rawn Hill

Good luck, sounds like a battle is underway. I hope something can be done about all of the fake crap showing up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Dan - from his response it sounds like he'll return your money if you return the card. He is the jerk, but sometimes you have to eat the cost of shipping to get out of a bad situation. Just make sure you send it with signature confirmation.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I sent it this morning with signature confirmation Matt. Judging by what I read, he probably won't sign for it. He won't answer my emails at all so I don't think refunding is on his agenda. I think he ran to paypal to yank the money but it was frozen from me filing an immediate complaint. That may have saved me. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Dan,

I think that your trampling on the "First Amendment of the Constitution" is deplorable.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I think he accused ebay/paypal of that. I truly am a US Citizen. I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Since the auction isn't still up I can't see what it said but unless it said that he knew these are fakes and was selling them as fakes then he is absolutely wrong. Ebay prohibits (I believe) members from selling things when they are not known about. In other words if he said "selling as a reprint as I don't know"....then he is fine and is correct. On the other hand if he says "selling as is because I don't know if they are real"...then he is breaking ebay rules. (I believe).....I wouldn't worry about this idiot, Dan....

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Is this the same guy that Dave F. recently had problems with?

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

That is the other weird thing. Somehow, I think he had the auction removed so that I couldn't get his info. I had to call ebay directly and WOW! they were very helpful. I almost died. I got better service on the pilot phone in program with my buyer ID then I do with my power seller account. He is still registered and has current items up for sale yet that closed auction was removed. I would love to know how he did that.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Trust me, there was also a legit under bidder as I sniped in late. There was no mention of this being a reprint. And the photo paper got me as previous reprints of this issue were on cardboard. I believe we are dealing with a true thief here. Just my luck.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

if the listing was removed then that's usually a good sign - I would venture that ebay has decided that transaction was bad and removed the listing, as I have seen them do in the past. If that was indeed the case, then Paypal/ebay will get you your money back andyou are in the clear.
-Matt

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I hope you are right Matt. I have been impressed so far with ebay and paypal during this fiasco.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think Matt pegged this action by ebay......Now what they should do is boot his ass off of ebay forever...I realize he can sign up again but they can keep doing it. That is the only way it's going to get better on ebay. Lately it's been really bad....

[Archive]

Posted By: DMcD

Carbon dating? First amendment rights for reprints? I think it is reasonable to assume that your seller is a first class nut job.

[Archive]

Posted By: DMcD

Whoa! Trigger finger kinda spazzed out.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I was wondering what happened there, or if you were just trying to drive home that the seller is a whack job.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Unfortunately, in the past, while I have seen ebay pull several auctions from people they have identified as fraudulent sellers, I can count the instances we're I've seen the seller banned as a result on one mafia mangled hand.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Counterfeiting isn't a protected form of speech, just as passing a bank teller a saying "I have a gun, put the money in the sack" isn't a protected form of speech.

If you make a copy or reprint of a something to sell and don't say it's a copy or reprint, that's counterfeiting.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

http://tinyurl.com/4kkq5l

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

dennis - that's very interesting; was he using it just to get a better understanding of the paper? I can't imagine he would buy that one to use as a source image to make forgeries from.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Incredible! I hope I get my money back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

When I started the other thread, I made a point of asking if anything in his auction was stated incorrectly. I believe he said it was a Real Photo of the 1913 Yankees Baseball Team in the title....which it was. He did not say it was a vintage Fatima card. He did not say it was old. It was not listed in the sports cards section by date range.

In fact I don't think anyone said there was anything wrong with the auction verbage except for David who mentioned that he "omitted" some facts. I'm not saying the scammer is correct, but this did not seem so obvious, hence the original thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gene Palmer

""look what the jerk bought http://tinyurl.com/4kkq5l""


Maybe he bought it to try out his carbon dating skills. This is the same jerk I reported to Ebay a few times with no luck. All he has for sale now is a couple of old chandeliers and a glass globe. All authentic of course. Ebay really needs to get their act together to police these kinds of things before the whole show implodes on them.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If you know something is a modern reprint and do not state that it is a modern reprint at sale, that is fraud. If you made the item, that is forgery.

In short, if you know something is a reprint you have say it is a reprint at sale. No ifs, ands or buts. And that's the law. Saying "Technically, I never said it was vintage" won't get you off in a court of law. The judge is going to say if you knew it was a reprint, you were required by law to tell the buyer it was a reprint.

You can have a sales description that never states the item is vintage or original and still be convicted of fraud. Why? Because you knew it was a reprint and didn't say so.

Obviously the reason a seller intentionally omits that something is a reprint is to gain more money at sale. And if the buyer is paying $600, the seller is perfectly well aware that the buyer wrongly believes the item is original. In other words, the seller is knowingly and strategically defrauding the buyer through deception. In this example, the deception is through the omission of essential fact, rather than included lie.

////

If a soda pop maker says to the judge, "We never told customers there wasn't rat poison in the cream soda," do you think the judge will set them free? There are many examples where omitting important information is illegal.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

I found these auctions. Same thing..stating they are selling real photo card. I wonder if they are the same seller? They are new id's. One was made in Jan '07 and the other was made last month. Isn't Marketkingman from Florida also?


http://tinyurl.com/6fekds
http://tinyurl.com/5lu9xv

Correct me if I am wrong and they are real. I am not an expert on this set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rawn Hill

On the second listing above one of the two sales the person has is to Marketkingman, coincidence?

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

Every picture in a frame at Target, Sears, etc. is a reprint. Some by the Masters (Monet, Van Gogh, etc.). They never say it's a reprint.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Russo

I tried to sue Target for fraud over the "Starry Night" picture I bought. I couldn't prove it wasn't a Van Gogh because the carbon dating wasn't accurate enough.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

When you look at the two listings David posted the verbiage is identical. Both say "Real Photo" in the title.

Also one seller has 0 feedback while the other has 2. One of which is marketkingman, and in the feed back he leaves he says "Excellent Real Photo."

Seems as though he thinks he's found a loop hole with the "Real Photo" line.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I hope that your post was tongue in cheek? Very poor comparison. One is obviously a repro and the other is a scam....Two different things....

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Unless you tell the buyer that you made it. Doesn't matter that you might have the right to make a reprint or that you have a right to free speech or anything else. If you know something is one thing and you sell it as something else you are a crook.

It is getting really scary to buy raw cards from ebay sellers you don't know...

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: D Brown

I'm pretty sure that the Fatima seller is the same guy that sold this Brooklyn 'real photo' last year --

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1167916728/Photo+ID+help+-+is+this+vintage-
[or http://tinyurl.com/6p822l]

If I remember, he was in Florida, too. Same scam, calling photos photos and implying they are vintage, and applying aritifical ageing to them. (But I didn't save any of this auctions -- did anyone else?)

On the Fatima, I think his mistake is saying "tobacco card," which it clearly is not, it's a reprint with a Fatima back printed or stamped on. Even if he doesn't say it's vintage.


David

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

"On the Fatima, I think his mistake is saying "tobacco card," which it clearly is not, it's a reprint with a Fatima back printed or stamped on. Even if he doesn't say it's vintage."

Wholeheartedly agree! It is not a "tobacco card".

Since the listing has disappeared does anyone rememeber whether it said "a photo of a 'tobacco card'"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rawn Hill

Was it similar to auction #250233872327?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

http://tinyurl.com/5cl5e7

edited the longest URL in the history of Net54 683 characters in length!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As far as the Mona Lisa at Target argument goes, it's known as
what are reasonable assumptions.

If you put a '1957 Topps baseball card' there is an implication
that is original unless otherwise said so. If it isn't, the
seller has to say so.

If you put a 'car' for sale in the automotive classifieds,
the implication is that it is a real car, not a miniature toy.
A judge will feel the buyer fairly assumed the card would be
real size and won't buy the seller's argument that "I never said
it was real size."

It is no one's assumption that the picture within a $5 frame at
Target is the real Mona Lisa. The judge won't believe your claim
that you thought you were buying the original painting. The judge
will assume that anyone of reasonable intelligence
knows a print in a Target frame isn't the original Mona Lisa.

The law isn't based on the assumption that "No one on earth has
any common sense"and "everyone is brain dead and can't figure out
a Mona Lisa coffee cup isn't the original painting." If you buy a
set of postcards of famous paintings, you won't win your case that
the postcards weren't the real paintings. On the other hand if
that 1957 Topps card turns out to be a reprint, you can win
in small claims court. Why? The judge will believe that it was
reasonable and fair for the buyer to assume he was getting a genuine
1957 Topps. Especially if the card was listed in the 1950s baseball
card section, the judge will see no reason why the buyer shouldn't
have interpreted it that he was getting a real card.

Also note that judge will look at pricing and use common sense. If you
are paying $5 for a Target frame, the judge will say it would be unreasonable,
and even idiotic, to think you are getting a $50 million dollar Van Gogh
with it. He simply won't buy a buyer's argument that he ever thought he was
getting the original painting. On the the other hand, if the buyer is
paying $1,500 for a T206, the judge will believe that the buyer thought
he was buying an original. The price the buyer was willing to pay is evidence
to what he thought he was being offered. Further, the judge may use the $1,500
price as indication that the seller knew, or at least had strong indication,
the buyer thought he was purchasing an original ... If the buyer's highest offer
had been 10 cents and the seller let it for for that price, then the judge would
say this sell price is clear indication both sides knew the card was a reprint.

Lastly, I'd like to see proof that the Target and Sears 'Van Gogh' and 'Renoir'
prints in frames do not have clear indications that they are modern reprints. The
Target Van Gogh argument may be premised on an assumption that is incorrect. The
Target Van Gogh may say on it, "Target Corperation, Mpls Mn, 2008."

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

Thanks. I was quite amazed at the length of that URL too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I don't think how much was paid can be used against the seller - if a seller clearly advertises something as a fake and the buyer chooses to spend $10,000 for it anyway, certainly you would agree that the buyer cannot go to court to reclaim his payment.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Matt, the argument was strictly about a seller who knows the item he is selling is a reprint but intentionally choses to not tell this fact to potential buyers.

If a seller is selling the same reprint, except he tells potential buyers it is a reprint, then there is no issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

David - "intentionally choses to not tell this fact to potential buyers."

I don't know how you could possibly prove intentional omission. If someone posts something on Craig's List with no description and it turns out to be fake, are you suggesting the seller is obligated to return the money? If that is the law, I don't know how the judge could make that judgment.

This case is noticeably different as it could be argued that the seller used misleading language.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Matt, if you want a specific scenario that I envisioned when arguing my point,
it is a counterfeiter who sells his own goods. If the seller is shown to be
the maker, it is hard for him to argue he didn't know exactly what he
was selling.

Many baseball card fakes on eBay are made by the seller. These sellers may
feign ignorance, but they know exactly what is being offered.

If the item and description of the item are made with the intention to deceive
people out of money, that is the definition of forgery. Not telling people
that they are purchasing reprints is an integral part of the deception and the forgery.

People have this idea that if an art or baseball memorabilia forger never tells customers
the item is original he can’t be convicted of fraud or forgery. But this idea is wrong.
If you know something is a modern reprint, you are obligated to tell the customer it is
a reprint-- with the emphasis on the word 'obligated.'

There was a famous case where a master forger’s argument to the court was, “I never
told the buyers the painting were originals. I just never correct them when they
believed they were.”

The judge felt that the paintings were made and marketed with the intention to
deceive buyers (again, the definition of forgery), and the painter was legally
required to tell customers they weren’t buying originals, especially when he knew
they thought they were buying originals. That the painter “never claimed they were
originals” didn’t keep him from being sentenced to prison for forgery and fraud.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

David - I absolutely agree if the seller is the maker. Unfortunately, with auctionkid3, bubbydude and their cohorts, many people are buying the "old looking" reprints and we can only guess for what purposes they are doing so...