Buyer Beware: CMIZ5290 board member

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Leon

Oh, trust me, all of them are on the line.

Rightfully so, Leon. I guess this is why we have police. Some people need to be caught and punished because they cannot do the right thing on their own accord. Just don't get putting a 1K price tag on one's reputation.

Even if the seller refunds it should not have even taken being humiliated in a thread to make the correction.

[griffon512]

I guess this means shark's tooth necklaces may no longer be available to purchase on the Board. Damn shame.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by griffon512

I guess this means shark's tooth necklaces may no longer be available to purchase on the Board. Damn shame.

If something isn't illegal, or too offending and in the correct BST spot, a member could try to sell them.

>

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by griffon512

I guess this means shark's tooth necklaces may no longer be available to purchase on the Board. Damn shame.

That would be in the Golf B/S/T under the Greg Norman subheader.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

That would be in the Golf B/S/T under the Greg Norman subheader.

That isn't that big of a deal, to me. This other stuff is. I move threads every day into the correct spots.

And fyi, Kevin might be away doing things outside the hobby, who knows. So the piling on is sort of that. It's an overwhelming sentiment of what should be done and should have already been done. We'll see. With longtime board members I don't think decisions like this should be made quickly, unless there is theft or something. (and I guess one could argue anything but this isn't theft to me)
.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Leon

That isn't that big of a deal, to me. This other stuff is. I move threads every day into the correct spots.

And fyi, Kevin might be away doing things outside the hobby, who knows. So the piling on is sort of that. It's an overwhelming sentiment of what should be done and should have already been done. We'll see. With longtime board members I don't think decisions like this should be made quickly, unless there is theft or something. (and I guess one could argue anything but this isn't theft to me)
.

Kevin HAS been on the board in the last hour.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Kevin HAS been on the board in the last hour.

ok, I didn't check. No response is a response, of course.


.

[ullmandds]

ruh roh?

I'm curious why the card did not receive a numeric grade? I mean aside from looking to be in fair/poor condition I see no obvious signs of alterations (and who would even bother on a card in this condition?)

[bnorth]

I am a little late to the party, here is my opinion. Kevin clearly posted the condition, fair. He guaranteed it to be an authentic card and grade.

The card did not grade so he should refund, pretty plain and simple in my opinion.

[Tao_Moko]

Am I the only one that doesn't like the look of this card? It is not a set I've ever given much attention to, but based solely on the above picture would have walked away. As far as the transaction - we are a community and sometimes bs has to be called out for buyer and/or seller conduct. This is the jury. Pretty overwhelming that a refund should be given.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Am I the only one that doesn't like the look of this card? It is not a set I've ever given much attention to, but based solely on the above picture would have walked away. As far as the transaction - we are a community and sometimes bs has to be called out for buyer and/or seller conduct. This is the jury. Pretty overwhelming that a refund should be given.

After looking at the card on a large screen in my office I ruled out some initial concerns that I had. The image appeared to have discoloration and wear patterns that are consistent with reproductions but appears better when viewed at 42 inches Also, I don't believe Kevin would intentionally sell a reproduction(and skilled at identifying them) so my apologies to him for my above statement. I'll also add, in the spirit of removing divisiveness, that Kevin and I had a disagreement years ago and what I found was our communication turned positive through conversation. Selling miscut cards and discounting/bumping them is not a big deal to me. Having a sales pitch doesn't really bother me either. Kevin has had some pretty beautiful cards that aside from their cut presented extremely well. So, I'm being positive here and suggesting the weight and pull of the community can drive a more positive outcome in the future. Might he have changed his tune with honoring his policy if he didn't feel called out publicly? I've been around card dealers since the early eighties and though some are wonderful, there is a hefty percentage of quirky, stubborn and even outright rude ones too. I would say we are not necessarily better with him gone and we don't know what impact being gone has on his lively hood. Maybe none, but he clearly generates some income from cards. I say give him another chance to make this right according to the communities standards, review his listing style and purchase agreement and be welcomed back for another shot.

edited to ad: GO IRISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cardsagain74]

There are two sometimes seen ways of "marketing" some cards in a listing that are, at minimum, a misrepresentation (and could even be considered fraudulent advertising):

- Quoting the nr-mt BV of a low grade card (in that manner which infers that the card is worth that much)

- Omitting a qualifier from the heading of a listing and/or directly comparing pops and prices of the qualifier card to non-qualifier ones

As others have mentioned, this seller has repeatedly done some of the latter. Regardless of the situation with the Gehrig card, I think any community is better off without that kind of participant.

[Republicaninmass]

Just go and check the last sales of a few of them. Therein lies your answer. I'm all for making a fair profit on a card, but some are just an insult to one's intelligence

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

There are two sometimes seen ways of "marketing" some cards in a listing that are, at minimum, a misrepresentation (and could even be considered fraudulent advertising):

- Quoting the nr-mt BV of a low grade card (in that manner which infers that the card is worth that much)

- Omitting a qualifier from the heading of a listing and/or directly comparing pops and prices of the qualifier card to non-qualifier ones

As others have mentioned, this seller has repeatedly done some of the latter. Regardless of the situation with the Gehrig card, I think any community is better off without that kind of participant.

LOL, we have one of those sellers on here. They acted like they were new to collecting so I PMed them a few times about how bad listing like that looked. Turns out in reality they own or at least owned a card shop because the PP account they paid me with for some cards was from a card shop.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

There are two sometimes seen ways of "marketing" some cards in a listing that are, at minimum, a misrepresentation (and could even be considered fraudulent advertising):

- Quoting the nr-mt BV of a low grade card (in that manner which infers that the card is worth that much)

- Omitting a qualifier from the heading of a listing and/or directly comparing pops and prices of the qualifier card to non-qualifier ones

As others have mentioned, this seller has repeatedly done some of the latter. Regardless of the situation with the Gehrig card, I think any community is better off without that kind of participant.

Of all the things a seller does that bother me, these two don't even break the top 10.