We bought a raw lot from Goldin and relied on their description.

[Eric72]

Wow.

Hopefully, I'll get to the point someday where I can:

• Spend $1,000+ on a lot
• Not take the time to look at TWO pictures
• Whine about it on a public forum
• Get the auction house to give me a mulligan

Alternatively, maybe I can get to the point where I can run an auction and:

• Significantly misrepresent an item
• Have a CS rep double down on that misrepresentation
• Respond to public scrutiny by telling people to only send their complaints privately

I don't buy or sell often; however, I treat things seriously when doing so. Guess I've been doing things wrong all this time.

[troutbum97]

I was the leading bidder for this same exact lot in the early stages of the auction.

However, I backed off from future bids once I studied the photos.

I didn’t know that looking at photos was a difficult skill to develop.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by troutbum97

I was the leading bidder for this same exact lot in the early stages of the auction.

However, I backed off from future bids once I studied the photos.

I didn’t know that looking at photos was a difficult skill to develop.

Right?!?!?

And I guess it’s doubly difficult before becoming the leading bidder early in the auction….

[troutbum97]

Originally Posted by Frankish

Right?!?!?

And I guess it’s doubly difficult before becoming the leading bidder early in the auction….

LMFAO. Hey, that 95 card lot was a STEAL at $200 !!

I’d still pay $200 for them.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by troutbum97

LMFAO. Hey, that 95 card lot was a STEAL at $200 !!

I’d still pay $200 for them.

I would too!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Wow.

Hopefully, I'll get to the point someday where I can:

• Spend $1,000+ on a lot
• Not take the time to look at TWO pictures
• Whine about it on a public forum
• Get the auction house to give me a mulligan

Alternatively, maybe I can get to the point where I can run an auction and:

• Significantly misrepresent an item
• Have a CS rep double down on that misrepresentation
• Respond to public scrutiny by telling people to only send their complaints privately

I don't buy or sell often; however, I treat things seriously when doing so. Guess I've been doing things wrong all this time.

I would argue that the AH did not "significantly misrepresent an item" due to high quality pictures showing the items.

I would also argue that the owner of the auction house giving all of us his private contact and asking us to reach out privately is good business on his part, and would be the polite thing to do on ours.

But whining on the internet is so much more fun these days.

Doug "but I could be wrong, but either way the buyer is completely at fault" Goodman

[ASF123]

So in your view, it’s perfectly fine for a seller to put whatever false, inaccurate or misleading information they want in the description, so long as they also include a photo?

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ASF123

So in your view, it’s perfectly fine for a seller to put whatever false, inaccurate or misleading information they want in the description, so long as they also include a photo?

In my view, a buyer should use the information presented to them in an intelligent manner.

In this case, the cards were described as being in better condition than the very high quality photos showed, I would have believed my eyes, and chuckled at the description provided.

Had there been no pictures, the seller is at fault.

But there were pictures.

Very high quality pictures.

It is completely the fault of the buyer that he decided to glance at the pictures on his phone.

Speaking of "false, inaccurate or misleading information" :

[ASF123]

I’m completely with you on the BS that is PSA. But the unavoidable bottom line of your logic here is exactly what I posted above. Are you really ok with that?

I’m not saying the buyer doesn’t bear any responsibility - of course he does, and has admitted so. But to completely exonerate the seller is also unfair.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by ASF123

So in your view, it’s perfectly fine for a seller to put whatever false, inaccurate or misleading information they want in the description, so long as they also include a photo?

Exactly what I'm thinking too. Pictures should match the description. Period. If it doesn't, the seller should assume full liability, not the buyer. If we're supposed to go by pictures alone, why even bother with a description?

I hear complaints that eBay seller's don't put qualifiers in the title. So, by the logic in this thread, a qualifier isn't needed in the title because it's shown in the scan, right?

The lack of morals in this thread is really eye opening.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Both sides were negligent but I think Ken handled the aftermath much better; Marty's son should have just said thank you and moved on and not taken another swipe.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I would argue that the AH did not "significantly misrepresent an item" due to high quality pictures showing the items...

So, if alterations are pictured but not disclosed, you're OK with that?

[slidekellyslide]

Marty’s son took responsibility for not viewing the pics on a computer and Ken took responsibility when he was alerted to it. His employees dropped the ball both in the description and how they handled the complaint. What Marty charges for cards has zero to do with this situation but of course Net54 seems to bring out the asshole in a lot of people who never miss their opportunity.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Marty’s son took responsibility for not viewing the pics on a computer and Ken took responsibility when he was alerted to it. His employees dropped the ball both in the description and how they handled the complaint. What Marty charges for cards has zero to do with this situation but of course Net54 seems to bring out the asshole in a lot of people who never miss their opportunity.

Well put.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Marty’s son took responsibility for not viewing the pics on a computer and Ken took responsibility when he was alerted to it. His employees dropped the ball both in the description and how they handled the complaint. What Marty charges for cards has zero to do with this situation but of course Net54 seems to bring out the asshole in a lot of people who never miss their opportunity.

+1
Best summation of this thread.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Marty’s son took responsibility for not viewing the pics on a computer and Ken took responsibility when he was alerted to it. His employees dropped the ball both in the description and how they handled the complaint. What Marty charges for cards has zero to do with this situation but of course Net54 seems to bring out the asshole in a lot of people who never miss their opportunity.

Ding ding ding!!!!!!

[parkplace33]

A saying comes to mind:

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

A saying comes to mind:

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"

Which brings a couple more sayings to mind.

Saying 1:

"Yeah, but you can catch even more flies with a rotting carcass."

Saying 2:

"Who, besides an outfielder, wants to catch flies?"

[drcy]

The buyer should have examined the images closely.

The seller's written description should have been accurate. As far as refunds go, the written description has to be accurate.

I once cataloged a large photograph collection for a national auction house, so understand how mistakes can be made. Doing the cataloging under a time deadline, I calculated that I took an extra just one minute on the description that be another 8+ hours of work.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Eric72

So, if alterations are pictured but not disclosed, you're OK with that?

This conversation is in regards to items where the "alterations" are quite obvious in the pictures.

It sounds like you would like to start a different conversation.

I would like to talk about Alden's ice cream bars, but that would be similarly irrelevant.

Doug

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

...the "alterations" are quite obvious in the pictures...

Obvious to me. Seems like you think so, as well. Apparently not obvious to everyone, though.

With regard to your quotation marks, I have a question. Let's say writing had been removed instead of tape and it was just as obvious to some people. Would the word "alterations" have a different meaning in your mind?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I would like to talk about Alden's ice cream bars, but that would be similarly irrelevant.

Doug

Is that a regional "E" card candy issue?

This thread needs a card or two, and no I'm not showing the backs just in case they have tape residue.
_

[25801wv]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Is that a regional "E" card candy issue?

This thread needs a card or two, and no I'm not showing the backs just in case they have tape residue.
_

I love that E100!

[frankbmd]

Doug, I looked into Alden’s ice cream near me.
Bingo only a half mile away, but it all seems to be “organic”, which is a euphemism for overpriced methinks.
I’m passing on the Alden’s, but will heretofore list all my cards for sale as organic.



Thanks Doug