Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick
I don't think we're allowed to post emails here?
The gist is that the items are "clearly marked as replica" and that they have stopped selling CSC items. Oh, and to stop posting or lawyers are going to go after me for slander. LOL.
I told them the main issue is stopping these items from getting into the marketplace. And that maybe the item should be called "digital 1/1 Walter Johnson /replica sig and fabric". NOT "digital 1/1 Walter Johnson sig and /replica fabric".
|
The problem is not just with their descriptions (all of which read "digital 1/1 [Player's Name] sig and /replica fabric" which seems to imply that only the fabric swatch is a replica, but with the pieces themselves. Once removed from this auction, I don't see anything on them that implies that either the signature or the fabric are replicas. (Well, anything other than common sense that is, seeing as how the front and back signatures are identical on each).
The text on the flip is:
Digital 1 of 1......................Signature
[Player's Name]..................Sig / Fabric
Authentic CSI Cut...............ID #
............Club Signatures Inc................
Unless I've got the name of the company wrong (which is quite possible with the fuzzy pics being hard to read), I was able to find zilch on them online, making the ID number pointless. Not only that, but did anyone notice that the ID number is sequential from the front to the back? (Meaning each flip actually has 2 ID #'s on it). Are we to believe that they keep that they are keeping that close of tabs on their "digital signatures"?
Nowhere on the card itself does it say anything about it being a replica or reproduction. In fact, quite to the contrary, it uses the word "authentic."
My take is that, if questioned, the manufacturer would claim that it was clear that the signatures were "digital" (i.e. printed) and they never claimed that the fabric itself was authentic, just that it was really CSI personnel who cut the swatch (because clearly the signatures were printed on pre-cut labels, not cut from some document or other source).
Bottom line: pile of intentionally ambiguous crap that the auction house never should have taken on in the first place.
(Not to mention that if I was a legitimate consignor to an auction house that supplied such lousy photos and descriptions for my items, I would be pretty ticked.)