Posted By:
CatThere is really nothing to "convict" Darryl of belonging to that auction, but it certainly is fishy.
The seller is definately fishy: 1) He/she has a net feedback of 22; 2) He/she has recently "privately" acutioned, which personally always makes me skepitcal when it is coupled with a net feedback of 22 and a couple of negative feedbacks to go with it; 3) He/she's most recent sale were fuzzy blue boots with pink flowers (my point being that a lot of scammers build a little feedback by selling goofy or low $$ stuff and then sale a multi-thousand dollar BB card); 4) I personally sent a message to the seller requesting higher resolution scans and he/she sends a message back that "Hey, I updated the acution with high resolution scans. Take a look." This wasn't done, so it looked like he was AGAIN trying to sale something he didn't really have; 5) he started off with the auction of choice for all scammers... one day private auction; 6) He puts a several hours into the development of that auction page (it was actually well done...but overdone), but doesn't put 20 minutes into putting decent scans or pictures of the cards (he had decent pictures of the fuzzy blue boots).
Darryl was ONLY fishy because: 1) He defended the seller as actually possessing the cards and personally seeing the cards although he doesn't seem to be into cards that much; 2) they both use hotmail e-mail accounts; 3) He has implied that they are "the real deal" even though he doesn't know much about cards (use of term "appraised" and doesn't really know there value); 4) Anybody defending a seller with the above long list of circumstantial evidence is immediately suspect themselves.
I'm 95% sure the cards in the scan are real. I just don't believe the seller possesses those cards. It would be nice if he would take a picture of those cards, with that digital camera he photographed the fuzzy blue boots with, and have today's edition of the Detroit Free Press in the background (or the Toronto Sun, if that's his preference).