I was told it was a reprint..

[Leon]

Sellers could just say it IS a reprint and not prey on people thinking it could be real. And Shoeless's signature on back never looked so good...The seller says it is his wife's signature and Joe couldn't write or read. But we know Joe could write a little bit due to the items we see. If I were in the market for a reprint I would at least get a nice conditioned one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-M101-Jo...item25ae725114


.

[bnorth]

I am still in the camp of nothing wrong with that listing. Yes seller talks up the item but so do most sellers. There is a nice picture of the back of the slab stating it is a reproduction for display purposes. If someone buys one of these thinking it is real they get what they deserve.

I actually like the items and will probably bid on one of their listings. As a display piece they have to be worth at least $20. I know I make custom cards that I sometimes put in slabs and I get more than $20 for them.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am still in the camp of nothing wrong with that listing. Yes seller talks up the item but so do most sellers. There is a nice picture of the back of the slab stating it is a reproduction for display purposes. If someone buys one of these thinking it is real they get what they deserve.

I actually like the items and will probably bid on one of their listings. As a display piece they have to be worth at least $20. I know I make custom cards that I sometimes put in slabs and I get more than $20 for them.

Sounds like a great item for you. Good luck if you go for it and glad I could help .

[nolemmings]

He did not buy that card many years ago as he says, if he ever bought it at all. It is not a reprint, it is a fake, a counterfeit, generated by a laser printer. Many of his other listings are "slabbed" with a label that makes no mention of a reproduction. He likely slabbed them himself, and as you suggested Leon, he knew all along that these were not real-- he did not need to be told.

[drcy]

The whole thing is pretty stupid. How's that for a summation?

The homemade Joe Jackson with reprinted signature of his wife on back is rather ludicrous (Is someone working on the master set of reprinted player's wifes signatures?), but I do agree that when you look at some of his other items it gets shady and problematic. Includes 'fascimile' cut signatures 'for display purposes.' Though the holders do say reproduction on back.

As I often say to beginning collectors, when a seller says something is a reprint believe him. Sellers make up that something's real not fake.

If the items sell for the min bids, I doubt it was worth the maker's effort. I would think he'd be making less than minimum wage or even losing money overall on those creations.

[rocarroll]

What a complete piece of garbage this item is. I can't believe someone actually posted on here that they like this and would buy it. He must be the paper mâché making version of Tony Romo from the direct tv commercials making custom cards. Real collectors are about as interested in buying someone's custom card "art work" as they are my 3 year old's crayon scribbles from day care. C'mon man

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rocarroll

What a complete piece of garbage this item is. I can't believe someone actually posted on here that they like this and would buy it. He must be the paper mâché making version of Tony Romo from the direct tv commercials making custom cards. Real collectors are about as interested in buying someone's custom card "art work" as they are my 3 year old's crayon scribbles from day care. C'mon man

WOW you are super cool. I am about to get some Bowman reprints also maybe you can call me manes for getting them also.

I like the sellers T210 Joe Jackson card. It is a card I will never be able to afford. I collect the set in beater form because yes there are poor people that collect old baseball cards. The card in the case it beat to heck like the real cards I have so instead of a reprint that looks like new, why not buy one that matches my real cards.

[rocarroll]

I just get tired of scrolling through 10 pages of this crap on eBay to get to cards I'm looking for. People list this stuff and reprints under the "pre war" category. They should be put under 1980 and newer as that's when they are made. I'll never own a Wagner either but I'm not going to buy a reprint of it and have someone sign a fake signature on the back. I guess if that works for you and you can "fool yourself" into thinking you have a complete set by subbing in reprints then to each their own. I think its safe to say that the majority of people that collect especially people on this board just get sick of seeing this garbage out there. How many threads do you see on this board by numerous people making fun of that crap. Like Leon said, if this does it for you have at it. But the fact that you seem to be a collector and own plenty of originals and can appreciate the value of them just makes it all the more strange to me. Different strokes for different folks. Come on though, the Romo was funny you got to admit.

Originally Posted by bnorth

WOW you are super cool. I am about to get some Bowman reprints also maybe you can call me manes for getting them also.

I like the sellers T210 Joe Jackson card. It is a card I will never be able to afford. I collect the set in beater form because yes there are poor people that collect old baseball cards. The card in the case it beat to heck like the real cards I have so instead of a reprint that looks like new, why not buy one that matches my real cards.

[pbspelly]

As a lawyer who happens to focus on false advertising, I find these kinds of listings fascinating. Regardless of what disclaimers a person puts in their ad, the key question is usually going to be what is the net impression a reasonable consumer would take away? Here, I think you would be hard pressed to say that a reasonable consumer would feel that the seller was "claiming" the card to be real. On the other hand, I think a lot of reasonable consumers would say the seller was claiming that there is a chance it could be real. In that respect, then, the claim is deceptive, since, presumably, the seller knows that it isn't real, and knows that there is no possibility of being real. Still, it would be pretty tough to argue that the consumer was taken advantage of, since a consumer who bought it thinking it was real was buying it hoping, themselves, to take advantage of a seller's mistake.

From an ethical standpoint, though, I do think these kinds of listings are unethical. If the seller knows that a card is a copy, I think it is wrong to deliberately list it in such a way that someone might mistakenly think you were wrong. But it is an interesting issue. At least to me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

As a lawyer who happens to focus on false advertising, I find these kinds of listings fascinating. Regardless of what disclaimers a person puts in their ad, the key question is usually going to be what is the net impression a reasonable consumer would take away? Here, I think you would be hard pressed to say that a reasonable consumer would feel that the seller was "claiming" the card to be real. On the other hand, I think a lot of reasonable consumers would say the seller was claiming that there is a chance it could be real. In that respect, then, the claim is deceptive, since, presumably, the seller knows that it isn't real, and knows that there is no possibility of being real. Still, it would be pretty tough to argue that the consumer was taken advantage of, since a consumer who bought it thinking it was real was buying it hoping, themselves, to take advantage of a seller's mistake.

From an ethical standpoint, though, I do think these kinds of listings are unethical. If the seller knows that a card is a copy, I think it is wrong to deliberately list it in such a way that someone might mistakenly think you were wrong. But it is an interesting issue. At least to me.

These little ploys on ebay could make a book. It's interesting to me too.

[drcy]

It's an annoying and unethical ebay sale no doubt, but a buyer would have an impossible time winning a lawsuit considering the seller say he's selling it as a reprint, the back of the holder says it's a reproduction, the seller specifically tells bidders to read the disclaimer on the back of the holder, and nowhere does he say he's offering an original.

I have seen where sellers strongly imply a reprint is authentic or that they believe it to be a reprint, but "have to sell it as a reprint because it's not graded." You know, the old "My local card shop owner says it looks real, but according to eBay rules I must sell it as a reprint for $999." That's crossing the border into clear cut scamming land.

You can break the law without saying without saying whether or not something is original. The law says if you know it's a reprint (and especially if you made it yourself) you have to clearly say you're selling a reprint. Saying "I never said it was original. It the buyer thought that that's his fault" is not an excuse, in particularly when you in so many words implied that the item was or could be real. A big art forger went to prison after trying to use that as a defense. He never said his artificially aged to look centuries old creations were originals, but he never corrected buyers when they thought they were. There's a thing called lying by omission.

[JustinD]

I also get annoyed at pages of this junk, with the majority having completely misleading descriptions. If someone wants it, they should be relegated to buying it from a replica site, much like a fake Rolex.

I don't understand how these continue to be so prevalent when ebay has specific rules forbidding this that are completely unenforced.

This link clearly outlines these as against ebay rules -

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...unterfeit.html

"We don't allow replicas, counterfeit items, or unauthorized copies to be listed on eBay. Unauthorized copies may include things that are bootlegged, illegally duplicated, or pirated. These kinds of things may infringe on someone's copyright or trademark."

Every one of these should be removed the moment it is listed.

[Kevin.Shenker]

I spoke to him and he updated every listing.

[pokerplyr80]

We have discussed similar cases in other threads and my response is the same for this one. I have no problem with Ben or anyone else buying a reprint as long as they know what they are getting. The problem is when sellers try to say or insinuate that there is a chance, however small, that the item in question may actually be real.

I am sure there are people who see these type of cards and think to themselves if there's even a 1 in 100 chance that this card I can buy for 10, 20, 100 or whatever might actually be worth 10s of thousands of dollars, why not take a shot?

I know it's difficult to police, but I think the card collecting industry would be much better off without these listings on ebay. Unless they were in a separate reprint or reproduction section. It would be nice if they wouldn't show up when searching for real and original cards.

[Leon]

then ya' have ones like this....yikes

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1912-T202-Ha...item2ca2cbd38a

.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Leon

then ya' have ones like this....yikes

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1912-T202-Ha...item2ca2cbd38a

.

This one is much worse. I might even fall for something like this. A trusted seller with 13k positive feedback shouldn't be selling reprints as original cards.

[drcy]

That one isn't a reprint, but a part of a card.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by drcy

That one isn't a reprint, but a part of a card.

I assumed due to the nature of this thread Leon was pointing out another reprint.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I assumed due to the nature of this thread Leon was pointing out another reprint.

It is a part of a reprint. It looks hideous.