Carelessness on My Part or Subtle Skullduggary? Or Both?

[clydepepper]

Would you have been fooled on this one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-TOPPS-H...vip=true&rt=nc

I did get my refund, but I have some real issues with the way the card was listed.

After the fact, I saw the one place where 'reprint' was mentioned...but, I think it should have been indicated in the title (just an 'RP' would do) or in the area specifically designated for the item's description.

[mattjc1983]

To his credit he did list it as a reprint in the primary place eBay has designated for it. But I agree, would be logical to note in the title and/or description as well.
Doesn't seem malicious on its face.

17 bids, I assume others were fooled as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by mattjc1983

To his credit he did list it as a reprint in the primary place eBay has designated for it. But I agree, would be logical to note in the title and/or description as well.
Doesn't seem malicious on its face.

17 bids, I assume others were fooled as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One bidder was at 126.00 & another 174.44 - and both had large feedback numbers...so, it wasn't their first rodeo either.


I had my eye on this card all week and never noticed 'the fine print'.

Lesson learned...no doubt about it!

[JollyElm]

It is a completely douchey move by the seller.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It is a completely douchey move by the seller.

I agree he obviously omitted reprint from the title and description intentionally to deceive people. Despite the other comment this seems quite malicious to me.

I'm always suspicious of nice looking raw cards online though and seeing as how this one looked like a 10 I might have done a little more digging before bidding personally. Too good to be true.

[lrspaulp]

I clicked on the link and saw "reprint" within 2 seconds of looking.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I agree he obviously omitted reprint from the title and description intentionally to deceive people. Despite the other comment this seems quite malicious to me.

I'm always suspicious of nice looking raw cards online though and seeing as how this one looked like a 10 I might have done a little more digging before bidding personally. Too good to be true.

My most recent quest has been raw, high-grade Hall-of-Famers for the years 1957-1969.

I'm still sixty base cards away - almost all of the previous cards have come from very familiar sellers with whom I have never had issues.

I missed another, supposedly genuine, copy of this card earlier this week...looked almost as good for about forty dollars less.

Have to remember this lesson and be more patient.

[mattjc1983]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I agree he obviously omitted reprint from the title and description intentionally to deceive people. Despite the other comment this seems quite malicious to me.



I'm always suspicious of nice looking raw cards online though and seeing as how this one looked like a 10 I might have done a little more digging before bidding personally. Too good to be true.

I see where you're coming from, but i think it depends on the seller. A lot of folks ignore the official "original/reprint" feature, and then say something intentionally deceiving like "found this at an estate sale, because I didn't grade this I'm listing as a reprint per eBay rules." My guess is 90% of the time that phrasing is intended to put a seed of hope in the buyer's mind that it's real.

In this case, the seller gave no such misleading statement, and actually utilized eBay's "original/reprint" as intended. An incomplete and lazy auction? Definitely. Clearly and intentionally misleading? I'm not convinced.

Admittedly haven't looked at the seller's other auctions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk