How would you call this guy

[1963Topps Set]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Bowman...53.m2748.l2649

[1963Topps Set]

This is the card I actually received.

[1963Topps Set]

You sent the wrong card, this one is in very poor condition. I can send scans. Thanks.

Yes, you ordered a low grade as I think you know.. On all the vintage low grade I have in my description in red lettering that I use factory scans and if you want a scan please ask me for one..I assume you oversaw that..No prob..Just send the card back and I will gladly refund you for the card..
Thanks and sorry about the confusion..

Card arrived yesterday, I will apply refund now
Thanks for your patience.

[1963Topps Set]

Card was listed as "Good condition" in the header. This card wasn't even close to good. and stock photos??? Isn't that misleading? Or am I wrong since I did not see his disclaimer? This is the first time I have ran into something like this. What kind of feedback should be left??

[1963Topps Set]

I found a better copy and for less money! It should be arriving soon. Here is what I need in 1952 Bowman:
1952 Bowman Baseball Card Set (252 Cards)

Cards needed: (19)

52, 101, 218, 219, 224, 230, 231, 232, 234, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 250, 251

[ALR-bishop]

I collect variants for my sets and once bought a card from this seller based on a scan in the offer, and received a different card. When I contacted him about it I got a similar response.

I blamed myself in part because I failed to read the description to note he used stock photos. He did make a refund and I did not leave feedback at all. I do not know if ebay has any policy on stock photo listings but had I read the listing and seen it was a stock photo I would have not made the purchase and saved us both a hastle

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

Card was listed as "Good condition" in the header. This card wasn't even close to good. and stock photos??? Isn't that misleading? Or am I wrong since I did not see his disclaimer? This is the first time I have ran into something like this. What kind of feedback should be left??

Positive feedback should be left. This whole thing is 100% the OPs fault because he failed to read the description. It really sucks for the seller because they just lost $ on the transaction.

Several sellers use stock photos and as long as they have a great description like the seller in this case I do not have a problem with it.

Like Al I collect error cards and have done the exact same thing as Tom(OP) and Al and bought the card without reading the description. I handled the situation differently and owned MY mistake. Now make sure I read the description.

[Promethius88]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Positive feedback should be left. This whole thing is 100% the OPs fault because he failed to read the description. It really sucks for the seller because they just lost $ on the transaction.

Several sellers use stock photos and as long as they have a great description like the seller in this case I do not have a problem with it.

Like Al I collect error cards and have done the exact same thing as Tom(OP) and Al and bought the card without reading the description. I handled the situation differently and owned MY mistake. Now make sure I read the description.

I have to disagree. This is not 100% the OP's fault. The card described in the listing is "Good". I don't think anyone that has collected cards of any kind longer than 10 minutes would ever consider the condition of this card as "good". He had drawn on then erased Devil horns and goatee for goodness sake!
Now, I will say that because grading is subjective, on persons "good" is maybe going to be better or worse than another persons. I made the mistake of buying a card this way once and the seller gladly let me return the card. I have since made subsequent purchases but I always request scans of the actual cards first. If a seller is not willing to provide actual scans, I move on.
Glad the situation worked out in the end and I agree that either no feedback be left or what I believe appropriate, is to leave positive feedback but note the card was not as described but the seller took care of you.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Positive feedback should be left. This whole thing is 100% the OPs fault because he failed to read the description. It really sucks for the seller because they just lost $ on the transaction.

Several sellers use stock photos and as long as they have a great description like the seller in this case I do not have a problem with it.

Like Al I collect error cards and have done the exact same thing as Tom(OP) and Al and bought the card without reading the description. I handled the situation differently and owned MY mistake. Now make sure I read the description.

Originally Posted by Promethius88

I have to disagree. This is not 100% the OP's fault.

+1 I disagree too. I don't have a problem with the stock photos in this auction (although I don't like it and won't buy from seller's who use them), but if you're going to list a card as "Good" then your stock photo should be of a "Good" card. If you list it as NM, then your stock photo should be of a NM card. And so on. Your stock photo should be a representation of the card/grade. Either that, or the seller should define their grading standards within the listing. But that card is not "Good." It is POOR and I think even calling it that grade is being very nice. Is there a grade lower than POOR? Really POOR?

[jfkheat]

Using stock photos may be good when selling something new in the box but not for selling collectibles where condition makes a huge difference in the value. I don't care what the seller had in his description.
James

[savedfrommyspokes]

While I do not disagree with Ben in regards to it being a buyer's responsibility to read a listing and understand when stock images are used , it is a case of 100% laziness on any seller's part when they use stock photos in pre 1980 card listings. I say this because, a 1000+ cards can be scanned front/back and attached to their respective listing in less than an hour. So if any seller can't take, at most, an extra 3.6 seconds to scan a card and use actual images vs stock images, they will not receive my business.

In most cases, this does not apply to modern cards for me.

[jchcollins]

Never buy from a "stock photo" seller, that's a huge red flag - even if you are just buying commons to complete a set. With the prevalence of overgrading out there anymore, and an increasing number of sellers who simply refuse to grade at all (see photos, judge for yourself! God how I hate that...) you are going to find more than a few people that will call a P card Good and a creased VG-ish card EX or better. I'm not wild about professionally graded cards, but do buy PSA on eBay the large majority of the time anymore, even in mid-grade because of this kind of stuff that goes on with raw cards that you can't hold in your hands before buying. TPG's do provide peace of mind.

[1963Topps Set]

Many thanks for responses. I agree that unless you are selling a "new in the box" item, you should not use stock photos. Vintage items vary so greatly from one item to another, they need their own photos. I will not be doing business with this seller again which is shame since they are close to me in vicinity. Yes, they did accommodate me with a refund, but the whole transaction was a waste of time and the card was not even close to the GOOD rating given in the listing header. (Let alone in the stock photo) I felt the card received was an insult to my integrity as an experienced collector of vintage baseball cards.

[Rookiemonster]

Wait you payed 9.25 for a reprint?


I once bought a 1951 Bowman Bill Dickey from batterbox. The description said something about it being between two pieces of plastic. I thought it was weird but hey all my good cards are between plastic. I got the card and it was laminated and unable to be removed. I sent it back.

[ALR-bishop]

I am just a buyer on eBay but am surprised anyone goes through the hastle of trying to sell on eBay theses days.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I am just a buyer on eBay but am surprised anyone goes through the hastle of trying to sell on eBay theses days.

I hear you Al. I am starting to sell to downsize and 99.9% are great buyers. That darn .1% can get on your last nerve though.

[JustinD]

I would say you are at fault for not reading a very clear notice about stock photos. I see these commonly and I understand it for speed's sake when creating listings but refuse to buy from those sellers.

I will also agree that the card was misrepresented as good, when it it is clearly poor. So a bit on both sides and a lesson learned on reading full descriptions. Stock photos = steer clear, if it was a blazer you can bet the seller uses scans.

[1963Topps Set]

I agree I should of been more careful with this listing. However, this is the very first time I have ever dealt with a stock photo dealer of vintage cards after buying hundreds of cards from Ebay over the years. Rest assured this will NOT happen again. HOWEVER, the term "good", the stock photo showing a card in at least good condition as well as the price ($9.00 U. S.) did confuse me into thinking I was getting a card in far better condition then the one I received.

[1963Topps Set]

I once bought a 1951 Bowman Bill Dickey from batterbox. The description said something about it being between two pieces of plastic. I thought it was weird but hey all my good cards are between plastic. I got the card and it was laminated and unable to be removed. I sent it back.

I am amazed you had a problem with Battersbox. I have had many transactions with them and never a problem.

[1963Topps Set]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Bowman...item25d3285b24

Perhaps I am missing something, but no stock photos used here from the same seller. But then again, this is no $9.00 common!

[Peter_Spaeth]

"Please Take Note"

The photos we use are STOCK PHOTOS! They are not the actual products. A good % of the time, unique jersey pieces shown in photos WILL NOT MATCH ACTUAL PRODUCT YOU WILL RECEIVE. If you want to know the specifics of a card, we will be more than happy to forward you a scan, please send us an email.

This was in red bold type in the auction. OP should just own it and move on. A little personal responsibility here.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I once bought a 1951 Bowman Bill Dickey from batterbox. The description said something about it being between two pieces of plastic. I thought it was weird but hey all my good cards are between plastic. I got the card and it was laminated and unable to be removed. I sent it back.

I am amazed you had a problem with Battersbox. I have had many transactions with them and never a problem.

I was surprised to one of my favorite sellers . It wasn’t really a problem is sending a message saying I thought it was in a penny holder or something like that. I didn’t know it was laminated and didn’t want the card. I mailed it back and they gave me a full
refund.

In unrelated news this was my second attempt at buy a 1951 Bill Dickey. The first time the seller canceled the transaction because I ask when he was going to ship it. It was really because I paid 5.50 for it .

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"Please Take Note"

The photos we use are STOCK PHOTOS! They are not the actual products. A good % of the time, unique jersey pieces shown in photos WILL NOT MATCH ACTUAL PRODUCT YOU WILL RECEIVE. If you want to know the specifics of a card, we will be more than happy to forward you a scan, please send us an email.

This was in red bold type in the auction. OP should just own it and move on. A little personal responsibility here.

Stock photo or not, the card was described as GOOD and it is POOR at best. Personal responsibility with deceptive advertising?

Edited to add: the card probably wouldn't even grade a 1 (POOR), it would probably only grade as AUTHENTIC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well OK David I hear you, but reading it quickly the OP's complaint seemed to be that he did not send the card in the scan.