Careful, there's a bad ad backed S74 Cobb silk on Ebay!

[BobC]

Sorry, don't know how to attach a link to the Ebay listing but, there's a seller named bonds732001 who has a Ty Cobb - Old Mill backed silk up for sale on Ebay at a BIN of $250 at Listing #111059462377. The silk itself looks legit but, the back doesn't fit quite right and it is definitely an attempt at re-attachment. Can definitely tell because the ad back is actually off one of the actress silks and not even from another ballplayer silk.

I already contacted the seller and informed him of the error. He said he bought it that way and will wait to see if he takes it down or at least corrects the listing. Just a heads-up for everyone.

Bob

[Leon]

yikes....linky..


http://www.ebay.com/itm/111059462377...377%26_rdc%3D1



.

[BobC]

Thanks Leon!

[Bored5000]

The seller has now made mention in his description that he was informed by another collector that it may be an incorrect back.

[T205 GB]

Looks like and actress gave her spot to save a Cobb thank goodness

Probably not a deliberate fraud/mislead since they failed to scratch out the "actress" on the back, and it didn't come from their grandpas attic or basement.

[CW]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

The seller has now made mention in his description that he was informed by another collector that it may be an incorrect back.

Hmmmm, seller must've changed description. I no longer see a mention.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by CW

Hmmmm, seller must've changed description. I no longer see a mention.

I looked again after seeing your post, and you're right. The seller apparently reconsidered full disclosure; it was there earlier.

[Seattle799]

He lowered the BIN price to $190... most likely to account for the lack of honesty.

[Leon]

Here my friends we have witnessed a true trifecta-

Ignorance, honesty, dishonesty .......all in one auction.

[frankbmd]

The second wife of Mike Wallace was an actress named Cobb. It was not a long marriage but lasted longer than 60 Minutes.

[BobC]

Don't beat him up too badly guys. The Seller actually thanked me for pointing out the problem to him and updated the description as he told me he would. He just didn't know what he had. He also told me the back WAS NOT glued on to the silk, so in that respect he may have been a bit misleading. It is still an original Cobb silk and even at the original BIN he had listed it at, it wasn't that overinflated in asking price.

For the earlier poster who commented about him not crossing out the actress reference on the back of the silk, all the silks, whether ballplayers or actresses, mention both names on the back.

Bob

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't beat him up too badly guys. The Seller actually thanked me for pointing out the problem to him and updated the description as he told me he would. He just didn't know what he had. He also told me the back WAS NOT glued on to the silk, so in that respect he may have been a bit misleading. It is still an original Cobb silk and even at the original BIN he had listed it at, it wasn't that overinflated in asking price.

For the earlier poster who commented about him not crossing out the actress reference on the back of the silk, all the silks, whether ballplayers or actresses, mention both names on the back.

Bob

If he is honest why didn't he leave the description amendment? That is definitely the wrong back on that silk and it should be described that way, unless I am missing something? As for the price, that is irrelevant to the issue of there being an actress back on a baseball front, no?

[BobC]

Leon,

From the gist of his correspondence, I got the impression he didn't know any better and that was how he acquired it. The fact that he quickly went ahead and changed the description after I contacted him helped to confirm that feeling.

Of course, he could have just played me and knew exactly what he was doing and decided to change the description once he knew someone else was on to him. Probably just being naive and trying to believe that everyone is inherently good and honest.

Bob

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BobC

Leon,

From the gist of his correspondence, I got the impression he didn't know any better and that was how he acquired it. The fact that he quickly went ahead and changed the description after I contacted him helped to confirm that feeling.

Of course, he could have just played me and knew exactly what he was doing and decided to change the description once he knew someone else was on to him. Probably just being naive and trying to believe that everyone is inherently good and honest.

Bob

Hi Bob
Unless I missed something you are commenting as if this seller is doing the right thing? He isn't. This is a wrong back, almost positively put on a decent Cobb silk. The fact the price isn't a lot more than it's worth doesn't matter that much to me. It should be described correctly.

[BobC]

Hey Leon,

I agree, he misrepresented the item. I was just making an observation that I felt it was more from his ignorance than any any intentional act to try and make more money off the card and incorrect back. In all honesty, I have not gone back to read his new description. It sounds like he still isn't correctly describing what he is selling.....plus, that is one fugly looking silk with that back included. He would be best off to just get rid of the back and sell the Cobb silk solo. Actually not too bad of a silk, sans the incorrect back.

Bob

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey Leon,

I agree, he misrepresented the item. I was just making an observation that I felt it was more from his ignorance than any any intentional act to try and make more money off the card and incorrect back. In all honesty, I have not gone back to read his new description. It sounds like he still isn't correctly describing what he is selling.....plus, that is one fugly looking silk with that back included. He would be best off to just get rid of the back and sell the Cobb silk solo. Actually not too bad of a silk, sans the incorrect back.

Bob

His new description is that he took out the correction that made it a legit description. He changed it to the original which was misrepresenting it. So he is back to being fraudulent. And I agree, not a bad silk otherwise .