No Repo???

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot 

How could anybody have been fooled by this auction:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2741467068&category=53&rd=1

The darn reprint even says reprint on the back. How could the buyer not have seen it. Having said that the seller is very misleading in his listing---I'm assuming when he says "no repo" he's referring to the signature. Does anybody know if the signature looks authentic?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

His title says NO REPO. I guess that means that card was not aquired thru the repossion process. shrug

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I'm assuming he was referring to the signature, though the clarity of his definition had much to be desired (How about 'Chas. Gehringer hand signed 1933 Goudey Reprint').

An attractive Gehringer signed reprint is a nice autograph, but not worth near the final bid. $30-40 is a decent price range as a buyer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Thinking about it, I must say I'm rather mystified as to why the seller offered all those close-up shots of the back. If he was trying indicate it was a reprint, he could have saved the time and money and said "This is a reprint." Once its understood that it's a Dover reprint (e.g. the card itself is worth 15 cents), no serious bidder needs a variety of closeups of the back ... If, on the other hand, he was trying to prove it was 'Not a Repo', he should have looked at his own scans .... Who knows, perhaps his maze of obscure talk and strange scans was puposeful.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

it says "Gelasso REPRINT" I wouldn't have known. What
was he thinking of? Whatever it was, it worked, didn't it?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I got the real thing autographed at about the same time as this one (blue sharpie, same ruler-assisted signature) when Chas. was around 88 or 89. I understand it was one of the last private signings he did.

Maybe when the buyer gets pissed that he bought a signed reprint, he will want the real thing.