Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>I'm so happy with my first grade education - I see the pictures - I know what the front of the card is.... I know what the back of the card is... Pictures.... pictures.... and nothing more than 2 syllables in the description please.... I realize that dictionary dot com is only a key stroke away but please don't make me use it...

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>My bottom line:<br />I don't need to read lines such as "the unimprovable image will leave even the most seasoned collector speechless, gasping for air, and s------- in his pants." Just tell me: does the card have any of the following defects, including paper loss, writing, erasures, wrinkles, etc. Why is this so difficult?<br /><br />One should not have to work that hard to know everything about a product one is bidding on, especially given the outrageous BPs/consignment fees.<br />Just my opinion.<br />Brian

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>But I don't wanna be a pirate!

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>Jack Richards</b><p>As I mentioned earlier, I love the flowery language. It's interesting; it's not hurting anyone; and it's Mastronet's catalogue, not ours. <br /><br />I also find it a bit ironic in a post entitled "I may be wrong but let's 'here' opinions," that we're critiquing Mastronet's use of the English language. Come on... let's give them a little slack. It ain't a novel. <br /><br />In the final analysis, it seems to me, the verbiage used to describe an auction item is always beside the point. Get a front and back scan and reach your own conclusion.

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I agree different mediums will employ different styles; an auction catalog does not have to be written the way one might write a Master's thesis. Nevertheless, it still needs to be clear, especially when there is a lot of money at stake. A bidder wouldn't want to regret a purchase because he had trouble understanding the lot description.

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>I disagree that a scan is all you need. How many times have you obtained a card that had defects not obvious in a scan (I know I have)? Let's face it, it's pretty easy to hide things depending upon how you scan the card. That forces the potential buyer to ask lots of questions usually.....which could all be avoided if some of the flowery language were replaced with an unvarnished description.<br />Brian

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>It is all figured in. They (sellers) figure a certain pct. will slide through. That buyers will just accept the item and live with the flaw(s) that were not mentioned. Those that dare to attempt a refund or reduction in cost will jump through a few hoops first. My statement is regarding sellers in general and no auction house in particular.<br /><br />JMO<br /><br />Steve<br /><br />

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>My number one rule for auction descriptions is if the description is accurate, it's accurate. If what you say is true and what you believe, there's no need to apologize.<br /><br />

Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I have absolutely no problem whatosever with detailed, and even flowery auction descriptions. Even if sometimes that means that the description is slightly grammatically incorrect, in its effort to be flowery.<br /><br />It's the auction house's job to make every lot as attractive as possible to potential buyers. That means big scans, lengthy descriptions, multiple photos on the website. That's life. <br /><br />If I'm a consignor, I don't want to hand over my cards to an auction company only to open the catalog six months later and read "1981 Fleer Complete Set." and nothing else. I want to read that this is the most beautiful 1981 Fleer Complete Set. I want to read "you'd be CRAZY to pass up on the opportunity to buy this set. The Willie Stargell is practically three dimensional with the crispness of the image. The centering on the Stan Papi is the best we've ever seen! The corners on the Tito Fuentes could cut glass. One of our writers actually went blind from the reflection on the gloss of these cards, and is now collecting long-term disability due to the beauty of these cards. Protective eyewear is highly recommended."<br /><br />It also helps them disclose flaws without having to say "1981 Fleer set with glop of spaghetti sauce on Rickey Henderson card." They can use language to explain that the set is still beautiful, despite the sauce.<br /><br />Last year there was an auction house that put out a catalog with one photo, and one line descriptions on all their lots. So the entire description would have read "1981 Fleer Complete Set." That's it.<br /><br />There were about 20 lots I didn't bid on because they were so poorly described. There were two lots I bought - and one in particular - that I got for bargain prices because the descriptions were sorely lacking. <br /><br />The catalog for this company's next auction? LENGTHY descriptions. FLOWERY language.<br /><br />That tells me that the descriptions work.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />