joe jackson famous & barr on ebay

[Archive]

Posted By: bill

this card on ebay is a card I sold to a supposed collector
who I knocked the price down for because he told me he was
a real collector and he would love to have it in his collection
I needed the money and came down in price and he agreed and I sent him the card and he got the card and after a few days he called me and said that he notice there had been writing on the back of the card that had been erased
and it was unacceptable for him so I offered to send back a portion of the
money and a couple other cards if he would send back the jackson he said he would keep it if I sent him a babe ruth 1933 goudey also on ebay from this collector he told me because there was writing on the back that If I tried to sell it that I would have to divuldge the writing on the back
well he is a man of his word he has alot of information about the card
but never mentions the writing on the back
I won't do anymore dealing with this scumbag

bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Rand

bad story, have you emailed him about it? i am sure you are aggravated. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Ruth:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-Goudey-149-Babe-Ruth-SGC-30_W0QQitemZ120170334139QQihZ002QQcategoryZ86844QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Jackson:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1916-M101-5-Famous-Barr-Shoeless-Joe-Jackson-SGC-30_W0QQitemZ120170332024QQihZ002QQcategoryZ57993QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

How much did you sell it for?

[Archive]

Posted By: bill

3200.00 i started at 5200.00 but he told me it was for
his collection and i just went down because i didn't want to sell to a dealer to be resold it's my fault i've been collecting my whole life
since around 1965
and have only ran into 1 other person in the hobby that was so dishonest
he was a mr mint guy so i guess live and learn but thats why I
started this thread be aware money is more important than integrity
we all want a deal but honesty is what you have to live with
you guys are true collectors and thats something that i like
but i got burned so beware you never know who you dealing with

bill

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

thanks for the head-up bill. i was seriously considering the card. i've fallen for a couple of those "i need it for my collection" line also.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycle

If he lied about the presence of said back back damage to get an expensive card, that would be fraud. If he was correct about said back damaged being present but did not divulge it at sale, that would be fraud. Assuming your facts are accurate, as he does not mention the back damage in his sales description and the picture he uses does not show said damage, he would have a difficult time in small claims court arguing that there ever was said back damage, and, if you had good records of the correspondence, you would likely win back the Goudey or financial compensation. In this scenario, his sales description would be your evidence, and the only way he could refute this evidence would be to show that his sales description was fraudulent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Yoken

I am the seller of the Famous & Barr Joe Jackson in question.

In full disclosure, I purchased this card from the seller on behalf of a friend who is a Joe Jackson collector. When we agreed to a fair price, we sent a certified check overnight and the card was received in a few days - in much lower condition than described by the seller. My friend was understandably upset considering the substantial price paid for it, and we asked the seller for a refund. However, the seller had no interest in refunding the money, and was very adamant about it. The seller agreed to add an additional card to the transaction to make the deal whole, so he sent along the Goudey Ruth.

What is extremely upsetting and frustrating is that the seller approached me initially about purchasing the card, and I thought his price was too high, which I relayed to him several times. However, he kept coming back to me with lower prices. I finally got in touch with my collector friend, sent him the scans, and he relayed a price he would be willing to spend on the card. At that point, the seller and I came to a fair agreement. Most importantly, I treated the seller with the utmost respect throughout, and told him repeatedly that if he would rather sell the card himself, it might make more sense, and that I wouldn't be able to offer him what he initially wanted, but he kept coming back to me anyway with lower prices.

Due to the disappointment with the overall condition of the card, and the fact that the seller would not take the card back for a full refund, my friend asked that I send the two cards in to SGC and then subsequently sell them for him. Thus, the auctions on eBay.

Regarding the erased marking on the back, I made a regrettable oversight in the description of the card when listing it, and have corrected it with a full addendum, which you should see reflected in the auction this morning. I present my sincere apologies for the omission.

I have a stellar reputation, as one can see from my eBay feedback and as many would vouch for, and I respectfully submit that regrettably the seller is retaliating against me for a sense of being wronged, though I gave him every opportunity to 1) not make the transaction originally if he felt he wasn't being compensated fairly, and 2) to have the card returned in exchange for a complete refund.

Frankly, I would have preferred the seller get in touch with me privately about this matter, as I would have been happy to address his grievances, return his cards, etc. but now I must address this publicly.

Please feel free to get in touch with me with any questions.

Thank you,

Dave Yoken
capecodvintage@gmail.com

Edited for grammatical and spelling errors

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

If all you really want is a refund and you're not looking to make a profit, then you should be willing to sell the cards at your purchase price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

a few thoughts....


David R -
is it really fraud to omit a known negative in a sales pitch? I wonder how any used car is sold in this country.


Dave Yoken -
Thank you for coming to the board and giving your side. Very well spoken.


Matt -
huh?!? He asked for a refund from the original seller and did not get it. Does that mean for all eternity - from any buyer - all he should look for is his purchase price? I don't get that one. Seems he wanted a refund... didn't get it... and now he wants a fair auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Joe D - that's assuming you take his word for it and not the OPs. The proposal is meant to determine who's version is accurate. Getting back his money with no loss would prove that his whole intention was not to turn a profit; otherwise he would refuse such a proposition since all he wanted was to turn a profit and his story is a cover to save face.

In my book, the seller needs to prove credibility at this point since he "accidentally" left the writing on the back out of his auction listing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

where I differ in opinion is this.

getting back his money -- from the original seller and the original seller only -- would have shown the buyers intention.

it seems that was proposed by the buyer - and the original seller declined.

so that ship has sailed.


of course.... bill could post a followup and let us know if he did or did not decline sending a full refund for return of the card and instead decided to send an additional card as compensation.



Here is a way to look at it from a collectors standpoint - and this is why I understand the position of the original buyer:

I do not particularly like writing on a card (except postcards). More importantly - if a 'flaw' is there that bothers me.... I don't want the card anymore. That is how I am. If I don't enjoy looking at it - I don't want it.
So, if I purchased a card that had noticeable writing on it. And it bothered me.... And the seller would not give me a full refund - but instead wanted to send me an additional card... I too would look to sell both cards for whatever I could get from them. I certainly wouldn't keep a card I no longer wanted to look at.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Joe D - here's the problem - if writing on the back was a major flaw in your eyes, then as a seller with integrity, you wouldn't "forget" to mention that when selling the item. We're not talking about years later getting his money back; I'm proposing he should be content with getting his money back right now; that would prove his intentions. I would agree that 3 years from now it wouldn't be fair to have that same expectation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dave says one thing, Bill says another. HOw can one tell who is being honest here?

Dave also admits he neglected to include the erased pencil marks in his description of the card -- the very erased pencil marks that caused the problem between the two parties.

Hmm.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I completely agree it was not "forgotten" (the pencil erasure).

I respectfully disagree that he should sell for what he paid. I don't see that as relevant at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Though a seemingly eloquent reply and open acknowledgement by this new member, this sale screams of hipocracy. Wasn't the Writing issue a severe flaw akin to ketchup on the Mona Lisa?.. It was a smart (clever) investment and he knows it.

I side with Bill on this topic. He was keelhauled by a Cape Codder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Joe - we have a he said/he said argument here. If CapeCodVintage wants to prove that they were not in this for the profit and only wanted a refund, then them agreeing to sell for what they paid is a way of proving that. But, if they are just sleazy businessmen who lied initially about wanting it for a private collection to lower the buying price, and then hid a "major" defect when they were trying to turn a profit, they would never agree to sell for cost since their entire purpose was to turn a profit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

The seller is under no obligation to "prove" any profit motive or non-motive to anyone on this board or anywhere else. If he misled the original seller that it was a collection purchase in order to get a lower price, then shame on him. But he has presented a different version of events that suggest that this was not the case, and at this point we may never know.

As to the card, not mentioning the erased mark was clearly not an oversight - certainly not given the other details about condition that are meticulously mentioned. On the other hand, it is graded a 2 and that should cover the presence of the mark.

So this is another version of the debate as to whether there is any obligation to disclose specific condition issues that are reasonably reflected by the grade given.

But "prove" anything to me by selling for purchase price only? Nuh-uh.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Joann - certainly there is no obligation for CapeCod to "prove" their side of the case. However, presumably, they posted here to save their reputation so that board members would buy from them, both now and in the future. As this is a he said/he said case, I was suggesting a way for them to prove their side of the argument, and thereby regain our trust. As it stands, I would imagine the bulk of the board members would be reluctant to do any business with them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

I can see the erased writing on the back of the scan in the link provided above.

Maybe I am missing something but: Did Bill initially provide a scan to CapeCod of similar quality that shows there was writing that had been erased? Or, did he disclose in writing that there had been erasures?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

The difference in my mind is that the original sale was apparently of a raw card. It has now been slabbed and graded a 30/2. To me, this alone is enough to tell me what Im getting. And as mentioned, scans are shown in the listing.

[Archive]

Posted By: bill

here's a quote from an e-mail
"bill i am definitely a collector my cards aren't going anywhere
except in my collection where they will be cherished for years
(and for my kids and grand kids in time)"
he got the card and said he didn't want it (jackson) I offered him a combination of a couple of cards he may want and he said he was interested in the ruth goudey I said i'll send him the ruth and 1800.00 if he sent back the jackson he said if I sent him the ruth he would keep the jackson
that I would be lucky to get 1800.00 for the jackson he said he needed to
get compensated remember that I sold him a card a few months ago
and since then he has called me on the phone a couple times and e-mailed me
a bunch of times asking for me to send scans of other cards he wouild like for his collection that he had if he was true to his word
then he and we discussed selling the jackson he should sell the card and if he is compensated fully then he should send back the ruth and we could
go our seperate ways again he wanted the ruth for his collection
I told him I didn't like selling to dealers so they can make money
little did I know

bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Snyder

name of douchebag noted!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I don't have a dog in this fight, as Michael V. might say, and have never dealt with Cape Cod, but it does seem worth pointing out that:

1. There's no evidence Cape Cod has never represented himself as anything other than a dealer. Apparently all along he has been negotiating on behalf of a private collector, which is an accepted hobby practice. We know nothing substantial about the original negotiation, but if the card was originally intended for the client's collection, then I don't see how the dealer telling the original seller that was a misrepresentation.

2. If the buyer felt there was a significant flaw on the card that was not disclosed, and yet the seller refused to give a full refund when asked, the buyer was perfectly within his rights not to want to keep the card (or the extra Goudey). What else should he do with it if he doesn't want it but sell it? Then Cape Cod becomes the consignee-- another perfectly acceptable hobby practice. The idea that Cape Cod or the original buyer should now be morally prevented from realizing any profit on the card is ridiculous.

3. Not mentioning the erasure is regrettable, and will call Cape Cod's scrupulousness into question for some collectors. However, as someone just pointed as I was writing this, the card is now graded by SGC, and so has been examined and graded by the most respected company in the field. It is a 30, and is not being represented as anything else.


I have as healthy a skepticism as the next person about the practices of some card dealers, but there does sometimes seem to be a rush to judgment on this board. What do we know about the OP anyway? I have no reason to doubt his honesty, but we just don't know anything about him, you know?

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I think you guys are sharing too much dirty laundry.
As I see it you both agreed on a price and card swap pot pouri, the rest is kind of irrelevant now.
Besmirching eachother on this board when essentially an agreed upon deal was consumated is unbecoming to you both.
And I agree with Joann completely. The buyer/now seller's motivations for gaining the card - which he says was on behalf of a third party, has zero impact on my understanding of where it all sits now. That's on his conscience because none of us can know his true motivations, and there's every chance his version of events are equally accurate. If he had screwed Bill out of money by not paying an agreed amount then he should be hazed mercilessly. Wants to sell the card immediately, big woop.

If Bill wishes he'd made more money on the deal, that's on him. If he wanted the card to go to a collector who would hold it for 20 years - then that's a fantasy he needs to shelve if selling more cards to other collectors.

No offense Bill, as you seem like a nice guy.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason Duncan

Dave-


I have a simple reasonable solution! Sell me the Jackson for $3200! Of course you need to throw in the RUth also.....Then nobody has to feel guilty. I will be waiting for your reply.


Jason

edited for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

To me both the buyer and seller seem like good guys and this is a deal that went south. It happens. I wish, for both parties sake, that all of the laundry didn't get so aired out on the board but so be it. Cape Cod has 817 perfect feedback on ebay. I think that does say something about credibility. "Bill" has been on the board a long time and has always had good posts and responses which also says something positive about his character. I hope this all gets worked out soon and both parties can move on. If I can help mediate, off the board, I am willing to try. Best of luck either way..... regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

that merely saying to a seller that "it's for my collection" will get you a discount!!! This is amazing news! I'm going to start trying this immediately!!!!

Regarding the who-said/what said:
I typically assign infinitely more credibility to the person who can express himself clearly, with some punctuation. This is a prejudice of mine, and something I need to work on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Red

I heard that if you mention that it's "for your collection" most of the major auction houses will waive the buyer's premium for you.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycle

I was always under the impression that you're charged more if you're a collector. Except for Shop at Home at 1 am where they claim buyers are making savvy investments. "Babe Ruth game used jerseys have gone up 500x in value in the last twenty five years. This is why you would have to be insane not to invest in this Bert Blyleven autographed hat."

My favorite Shop at Home schicht is when someone says the price may be an error, too low. "(Speaking to someone off camera) Is this price correct? I thought we agreed they'd be $499 not $399. Oh well, we're on the air so it's too late now." .... (Looking at his sales sheet and talking to himself) "Some of these prices aren't correct. We'll have to correct them after the show." If you watch, they do this a couple of times a show ... Evidently Shop at Home can bring investors the great savings as they don't invest in good typists.

In defense of the show, their stuff generally has legitimate authenticity documentation, including Steiner, JSA, PSA/DNA, player LOAs, etc. They had Yankees game used jerseys with Yankees/Steiner LOAs. It's clear they are concerned about offering autographs and game used items that are genuine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

I'm a neutral party here, but I have had several transactions with Capecod and I have always have found him to be reputable. His EBAY feedback also speaks for that.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

davidcycle-

that might be a record for editing (11 times)...

you always edit a lot, but this one takes the cake!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

David - edit one more time - I think you meat "shtick" and not "shicht"

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Nieves

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1111600930/

For what it's worth, Dave Yoken (capecodvintage) was caught lying on this message board by Pete Calderon in March of 2005. Barry Sloate referred to Mr. Yoken's behavior as being deceptive and unacceptable. And Leon threatened to ban Mr. Yoken from the board if it were to happen again.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycle

I'm a perfectionist, which means nothing is ever perfect.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Regarding the who-said/what said:
I typically assign infinitely more credibility to the person who can express himself clearly, with some punctuation. This is a prejudice of mine, and something I need to work on.

 

Jason, no offense but your a con mans dream.

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Whether we believe Bill or CapeCod on this initial issue, we now have proof of at least 2 cases where CapeCod conducted shady business practices. As a result, I don't see how CapeCod can be defended as being an honest dealer. I would also suggest that despite passing on a really nice card, it would probably be better for the industry overall if we did not support them by bidding on this item. In the long run, it hurts every one in the industry when we have bad dealers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I know what you mean...but like I said, I've identified it as an area of weakness that I'm working on!

and so far, I have benefitted from the fact that most con men don't fish for guppies. But if I ever turn into a bigger fish someday, then I will need to watch out, agreed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Guppies = me

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

He should be tortured, killed and eaten. But I don't mind an erased pencil mark on a low grade and professionally graded card, so I'm still bidding on the auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

He is just s shrewd business man. He is totally in it for the profits. Nevertheless, he has done nothing illegal. You should have ebayed it yourself. Dave, My offer still stands. If you choose to take the higher road and exercise your morals then I will still take the Jackson and Ruth at $3200. It would atleast clear your conscience.


Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jeff - do as you see fit - I didn't suggest not to bid because of the mark; I suggested not to bid because you're supporting a bad dealer, and doing so in our hobby hurts us all. Of course, I understand that with the opportunity at a rare card, people don't care about such "greater good" issues but that was my suggestion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

I don't have the money to go after something like this anyway..but based on what has been put in this thread, I'd stay away anyway. Just my two cents.


By the way Matt- sent you an email a while ago this morning..not sure if you got it or not. If not, you can send to my alternate email at road_reclaimer@yahoo.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

He didn't mention erased pencil marks on a graded card. Should he have? Sure. But people are making him out to be the anti-Christ here.

If the buyer would have got the card and didn't like the erased marks, I'm sure Dave would have given him a refund.

and Jason, you're joking right? sell you the card or he doesn't have good morals? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being facetious.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

I get a laugh out of buyers who try to convince me to lower card prices because it is for their collection; I always think "and I care because ...?". What a buyer wants to do with the card has nothing to do with me nor should it have anything to do with any other seller's decision. If anything, when someone really wants a card for their collection they should be charged more; after all, it's for a collection and not to make a profit.

I also don't see anything wrong with a buyer running down the condition of a card based on flaws. Again, if the buyer offers enough, who cares what his opinions are; my response is "don't buy it if you don't like it."

The question of the disclosure of the writing is one that we've kicked about from time to time with no clearcut answer. FWIW, when I sell a card I usually (I'd say always but someone here would Fuhrman me with some years-old post if I make an absolute statement) state the flaws that might not be visible in the scans, like hairline creases and so on. I can see a person selling a low grade slabbed card not bothering because the grading company has in effect made the call for him. I can also see the countervailing argument.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

This case is different then a normal one of disclosing flaws, because here, the seller has openly acknowledged that the undisclosed flaw in question is so severe that having known about it, he never would have bought the card in the first place, yet he hid it when he was trying to sell it.

That, on top of the other thread that Tom Nieves exposed, point in the same direction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I agree with Matt. The failure to indicate the pencil erasures in the listing is not offensive by itself; it was the use of the markings to haggle a lower price. Secondly, trying to get a lower price because it is for one's 'personal collection' is not only irelevant but just slimy if one is a dealer.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycle

This is a case where a person initiated and established the significance
and financial value of the damage (the refund). However, I don't know
the originally advertised versus current grade. The damage should be described
at resale as the current owner felt it so significant. However, if the current
owner bought the card as Vg and the revealed damaged lowered the grade to Gd,
the damage did cause real financial impact to the current seller and is
reflected to the public in the grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I tune out all that "personal collection" stuff. It is of no consequence what somebody does with a card after I sell it; it no longer belongs to me. If he sells it five minutes later, I don't have a problem at all.

But that said, it doesn't give him a free pass for bad behavior.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"The failure to indicate the pencil erasures in the listing is not offensive by itself; it was the use of the markings to haggle a lower price."

Jeff - unless I am reading the thread incorrectly....
the use of the marking was not used to haggle a lower price,
rather, it was used to request a refund and a return of the card.

This was not accepted by the seller - who preferred (by actual action) to send a card as compensation.


If I ask for a return of a product I am not happy with -
and the seller declines - but offers some sort of compensation -
I may very well take the new deal and look to sell both cards as is being done here.
It seems perfectly rational to me.

If it was such a bad resolution... why didn't the original seller just grant the refund and sell the cards elsewhere?


(I agree - the failure to indicate the pencil erasures in the listing was definitely a purposeful omission.)