Eating Crow: GOOD EXPERIENCE w/ sicollector1954; Poor Misunderstanding by Me

[scooter729]

I don't know either party involved here, but I'm totally with Kyle on this one. You can't advertise signed photos as being 'signed' when they're copies. I would totally expect $50 each for signed photos to be a fair rate - we're not talking Ruth and Gehrig here.

Yeah, he refunded the money, which is great - but seemed like a deceptive selling tactic in the first place. There are cards signed by AAGBPL players on eBay for $10 - $20, so why should $50 for an authentic signed photo seem ridiculous?

Again, glad the seller refunded - but don't love the selling attempt here....

Scott S@r!@n

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by scooter729

I don't know either party involved here, but I'm totally with Kyle on this one. You can't advertise signed photos as being 'signed' when they're copies. I would totally expect $50 each for signed photos to be a fair rate - we're not talking Ruth and Gehrig here.

Yeah, he refunded the money, which is great - but seemed like a deceptive selling tactic in the first place. There are cards signed by AAGBPL players on eBay for $10 - $20, so why should $50 for an authentic signed photo seem ridiculous?

Again, glad the seller refunded - but don't love the selling attempt here....

Scott S@r!@n

One of us is reading this wrong. I gathered that these are copies of original photos, but with REAL autographs.

[D. Bergin]

Ahh, this is a tough one, but it just seems like a big misunderstanding.

My initial impression was that these were just copies of signed photos. Not copied photos with legitimate signatures, as the correspondence seems to state.

So to clarify, these were "copies" of vintage photos, that the ballplayer in question had signed by other ballplayers and had hanging in her house?

I mean, when it comes down to it, the majority of signed photos are just copied photos to begin with.

I have no idea of the market for AAGPBL signed material otherwise, but $50 bucks seems in line with what also seems like a fundraising effort which might bring a little bit of a premium for the cause.

On the other hand, in my own specialty, I've sold hundreds of of old signed boxing photos through the years, guaranteed authentic and with great provenance... Hall of Famers, Stars and the Obscure, for under $50 bucks apiece.

I can understand why Kyle might have been expecting something a little nicer then what he had received.

If I've misinterpreted this whole thing, and it turns out these were all straight up copies (photos AND signatures), that's a whole different story, and I wouldn't blame Kyle for being slightly pissed.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Ahh, this is a tough one, but it just seems like a big misunderstanding.

My initial impression was that these were just copies of signed photos. Not copied photos with legitimate signatures, as the correspondence seems to state.

So to clarify, these were "copies" of vintage photos, that the ballplayer in question had signed by other ballplayers and had hanging in her house?

I mean, when it comes down to it, the majority of signed photos are just copied photos to begin with.

I have no idea of the market for AAGPBL signed material otherwise, but $50 bucks seems in line with what also seems like a fundraising effort which might bring a little bit of a premium for the cause.

On the other hand, in my own specialty, I've sold hundreds of of old signed boxing photos through the years, guaranteed authentic and with great provenance... Hall of Famers, Stars and the Obscure, for under $50 bucks apiece.

I can understand why Kyle might have been expecting something a little nicer then what he had received.

If I've misinterpreted this whole thing, and it turns out these were all straight up copies (photos AND signatures), that's a whole different story, and I wouldn't blame Kyle for being slightly pissed.

LOL, looks like I'm late to the party and took too long to respond.

I guess Kyle has a right to be pissed.

I don't think the seller had bad intentions, but he did misinterpret Kyle's interest in his material. Glad things were made right other then a lot of time and energy being wasted on both ends of this transaction.

50 bucks IS a bit steep for straight up copies...even if they did come framed from a ballplayers house.

[Leon]

The seller should have stated the pictures AND signatures are fake reproductions. It's on the seller to state what he is selling imo.

If I sold someone here a picture of a T206 card, and didn't state it was a reproduction, then that is my fault.

Here is what happened when I got sold a picture of an N173 on ebay. My case was immediately dismissed by an idiot at Ebay. I escalated to a higher up person whom I know and got this in an email right after I told him what happened.

We've sent you a refund

Hi Leon,

After reviewing this case, we decided to refund you for this purchase. We did this because the item was not as described.
We're sorry you had a problem with this purchase.
A refund of US $757.75 will be credited to your original payment method. It may take 3 to 5 business days for the refund to be completed.


See case details

1888 Old Judge Cigarettes Mike Slattery N173 Post Card 5.75" x 3.75" -GUARANTEED
Order number: 25-06643-73887
Seller:
caliscottage

Quantity: 1
Case #: 5263079765
Case opened: Mar 8, 2021
Case closed: Mar 8, 2021

Email reference id: [#e904d171ad2b43e59778799f168d191b#]
We don't check this mailbox, so please don't reply to this message. If you have a question, go to Help & Contact.
eBay sent this message to Leon Luckey. Learn more about account protection. eBay is committed to your privacy. Learn more about our privacy notice and user agreement.
©1995-2021 eBay Inc., 2025 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125

[NiceDocter]

Just to be clear…. did the items sent turn out to be copied photos with genuine in ink autographs or were they copies of autographed photos with nothing original about them? Is the original autograph the problem or is it the copied photo or is it both? Either way Im glad you had a quick resolution ….. Rocky

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

Just to be clear…. did the items sent turn out to be copied photos with genuine in ink autographs or were they copies of autographed photos with nothing original about them? Is the original autograph the problem or is it the copied photo or is it both? Either way Im glad you had a quick resolution ….. Rocky

The bold part is correct. They were copies of autographed photos with nothing original about them.

The communication from the beginning led me to believe they were original items from his collection, albeit the cheapest items that he was willing to sell.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The bold part is correct. They were copies of autographed photos with nothing original about them.

The communication from the beginning led me to believe they were original items from his collection, albeit the cheapest items that he was willing to sell.

I see now. This makes it different, I can't imagine not saying they were total copies.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I see now. This makes it different, I can't imagine not saying they were total copies.

I was confused too and read the seller’s response the same way. I thought that he said that they were copies but were actually signed by the ball players.

[parkplace33]

Kyle, thanks for the information. I always like to see feedback (good and bad) on net54 dealings.

[Joe Hunter]

if the cost of the photos had been $5.00 each, then you could make the assumption that the photos were copies. At $50.00 each, that assumption could not be made; the fact that they are copies(photos and signatures) should have been clearly pointed out in the correspondence.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I was confused too and read the seller’s response the same way. I thought that he said that they were copies but were actually signed by the ball players.

Thank you for commenting this. This clicked for some reason that I misunderstood that the autographs were NOT copies, and actually real as cleared up by Dave via phone call after reading this post.

The original post has been updated to reflect a public apology to Dave Pearce for my misunderstanding.

Crow is not as good as turkey for Thanksgiving.

[ALBB]

Crow isnt too bad for Holiday dinner
..pumpkin flavored..