Bend twist and turn

[Archive]

Posted By: scott hassel

8701164251

Check out the above listing on ebay. This is why
I don't trust dealers anymore. What is implied is that THIS listing is for a baseball card. Instead of an Irish politician.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Scott:

While the write-up isn't the best, I don't think Will was intentionally trying to mislead anyone into thinking this was a baseball card.

Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Wow, Will is a great guy to deal with,ive had many transactions with him but this auction is very misleading in my mind.I have no idea who the subject on the card is but i know hes not part of the baseball set.Since its listed in the pre-1930 baseball category,its part of a baseball set according to the label and he mentions the word baseball twice it wouldnt be too hard to imagine someone might get the idea its baseball related.Anyone who has a price guide couldve looked this card up,not seen it listed among the baseball players and assumed it was an unlisted card,possibly a manager,or owner.The label on the holder doesnt help either to sway that thinking,so all things considered its misleading....now whether it was intentional or not is another thing.

heres the link to make it easier for others:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8701164251

[Archive]

Posted By: scott hassel

Kevin. Are you kidding me? It plainly says
Baseball and then Baseball again. Why would anyone think it would be anything but a Baseball card. All the key words are there. How would you feel if you were the winning bidder and found out you purchased a card that has a value in this condition of maybe $35.00 but paid almost $600.00???

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree it's misleading and should have been described differently. Someone spending over $500 on a card should know what they are buying though.....and I hope this person did. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

He certainly looks like a baseball player.........well, maybe a 19th century Johnny Damon.

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

There is no excuse for this. This should not have been listed in the baseball category.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Scott:

No, I'm not kidding you.

I already said the write-up was not the best. Because of that, could a reader unfamiliar with the early years of baseball misinterpret the baseball references and think this was a "baseball" card? Sure, I guess.

But the seller also has the card listed in the "Collectibles > Trading Cards > Other Non-Sports" section, so I think he knows it not a baseball card. Your comment was that the description was written purposefully to mislead. My comment was that he did not write the description to intentionally deceive a potential bidder.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

This is a line directly out of the auction:

"Good-looking card for the grade and a treasured rarity from the very earliest days of baseball, much less baseball cards. 1886 N167 Old Judge Parnell, serial #10264784."

If that's not misleading then I don't know what is.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Yes, it does look like Will made a mistake.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I have seen situations where non-baseball cards from multisubject sets are listed in the baseball heading and I can see the logic of doing that if the card is from a notable and rare set because some baseball collectors will want to pick up a card from the set that isn't baseball, just to have as a type. N167 qualifies, IMHO. That said, the description does indicate that it is a baseball card and should be better written so as not to be misleading. Any buyer, however, has to take some personal responsibility on something like this. If you are going after a very rare, very valuable "baseball" card, I think it is reasonable to expect you to know something about the set, at least whether the card is part of the set. Cracking the big book would instantly provide that info.

Incidentally, how hard are the non-sport N167s to find?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brent Butcher

From my experience they are as hard to find as their baseball counterparts. I saw one at the national that probably would have graded vg/ex to ex for $200. It was a Civil War General.....Gen Sherman maybe.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott hassel

Non baseball in this series are not common but they do come up from time to time. I purchased a group of four N167 actress cards on ebay a few years back ( same seller but seperate auctions ).
The cards were found in a scrap book and had the type of glue that just released with water, lucky. I've owned a total of 7 over the years and that's all I've seen. However , $500+ is a bit steep.

....and that's my story and I'll stick to it as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

"Good-looking card for the grade and a treasured rarity from the very earliest days of BASEBALL, much less BASEBALL cards. 1886 N167 Old Judge" who would ever think that this is a baseball card from that discription?????

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

Judging by the auctions that the winner has bid on in the last 30 days it looks to me that they thought they were bidding on a baseball card.