Unusual Answer from eBay Seller

[deweyinthehall]

Just sharing to see if others find this odd as I did.

I was looking at a slabbed 1964 Rose, and I sent this question:

Hello - I notice slight discoloration in the white space between the R in Reds and the top of the photo, and again in the white border beneath 'Pete' on the bottom. Are these on the card or a product of the image? I am very interested in this card.

And this is the response I received:

I honestly don't know but if you look at others on ebay, you should be able to compare them and see. I think every printing would be just a little different though as far as color.

Not rude or otherwise inappropriate, just baffling it its content. I would have thought the realm of possible answers would be 1) the card is discolored, 2) it's the image, 3) It's very hard to tell, but here's a new image from a different angle, etc. Do you suppose it isn't a card he has in hand?

I am pretty sure the issue is in the image and not the card, but I don't get a warm a fuzzy.

Judge for yourself and let me know if you'd still bite at this - the price is VERY nice. Less than $400.

[Gorditadogg]

It looks to me like some ink rubbed off onto the border.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[tiger8mush]

It appears to be on his jersey as well. Could be worth asking for pics from different angles if it is a card you are otherwise interested in.

[CW]

If you haven't tried already, you could see if SGC has a better image in their cert lookup tool. You will have to login if you want to see a higher resolution image, provided they have one for this card:

https://www.gosgc.com/cert-code-lookup

I tried to enter in the cert, but it is too fuzzy to tell what the actual numbers are. Hopefully you can figure it out.

[NiceDocter]

Cert # is fuzzy but may be.... 2554543 or 2354543? Its close to that....

[CW]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

Cert # is fuzzy but may be.... 2554543 or 2354543? Its close to that....

yep, thanks, Rocky -- I also thought it was 2554543 but that turns out to be a Michael Jordan card. 2354543 shows up as invalid. Good guesses, though.

[CardPadre]

Here you go.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Just sharing to see if others find this odd as I did.

No, I do not find this an odd response. As a seller on ebay, on rare occasions I receive questions of this sort. I have provided the same type of answer as this seller did: "I honestly don't know". I am certainly not an expert on print flaws and I believe most other ebay sellers are not either.

Why respond this way and not speculate on what the flaw is? Because I feel like a buyer is trying to "lock" me into what the flaw is. From there they can purchase the card and once in hand if they don't like the card's appearance, they can open a return stating an opinion different than what I provided in the message and return at my cost.

It seems if you are wanting an image from a different angle, you should directly ask.

If this flaw bothers you, move onto another copy of this card as there are 60+ SGC copies currently available on ebay.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

No, I do not find this an odd response. As a seller on ebay, on rare occasions I receive questions of this sort. I have provided the same type of answer as this seller did: "I honestly don't know". I am certainly not an expert on print flaws and I believe most other ebay sellers are not either.

Why respond this way and not speculate on what the flaw is? Because I feel like a buyer is trying to "lock" me into what the flaw is. From there they can purchase the card and once in hand if they don't like the card's appearance, they can open a return stating an opinion different than what I provided in the message and return at my cost.

It seems if you are wanting an image from a different angle, you should directly ask.

If this flaw bothers you, move onto another copy of this card as there are 60+ SGC copies currently available on ebay.

The OP wasn't asking the seller to speculate on what the flaw could be, he was asking the seller if the flaw was on the card or from the camera. I bolded it in his quote below ...

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I was looking at a slabbed 1964 Rose, and I sent this question:

Hello - I notice slight discoloration in the white space between the R in Reds and the top of the photo, and again in the white border beneath 'Pete' on the bottom. Are these on the card or a product of the image? I am very interested in this card.

[tiger8mush]

Judging by the pic provided by @CardPadre, the flaw is definitely on the card, and as @Gorditadogg mentioned it could be printer ink

[Zach Wheat]

I don't find the response as being odd...he is probably just busy.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

The OP wasn't asking the seller to speculate on what the flaw could be, he was asking the seller if the flaw was on the card or from the camera. I bolded it in his quote below ...

He CLEARLY was expecting the seller to speculate on what this flaw could be based on his response to the seller's response: "I would have thought the realm of possible answers would be 1) the card is discolored, 2) it's the image, 3) It's very hard to tell, but here's a new image from a different angle, etc."

Card is discolored=speculation
It's hard to tell= not speculation


I also bolded it in his quote....

OP asked a vague question and got a vague answer but based on his response was clearly expecting the seller to speculate on what the flaw was on the card.

[ALR-bishop]

No opinion on quality of seller's response but Larry, expert or not, you are one of my go to guys on print flaws

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

OP asked a vague question and got a vague answer but based on his response was clearly expecting the seller to speculate on what the flaw was on the card.

The seller's ONLY question:

Are these on the card or a product of the image?

How is this a vague question? He literally asked "A" or "B". The seller could've replied "A" or "B" and answered the question. Instead he gave the OP a useless & vague response.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

The seller's ONLY question:



How is this a vague question? He literally asked "A" or "B". The seller could've replied "A" or "B" and answered the question. Instead he gave the OP a useless & vague response.

That's right, his question was simple, but his expectations were not. CLEARLY. If you READ the OP's expectations of the seller's response (the entire purpose of this thread, BTW), the OP was asking his A/B question with the intent of receiving a speculation about the flaw from the seller. This is why the OP mentioned the "realm of possible answers" he was expecting (quoted again below).

Perhaps you could explain why the OP has multiple response expectations (realm of possible answers) from a simple A/B question?

FYI, the seller's "vague" response of "I don't know" is nearly congruent with one of the OP's expected responses of "3) It's hard to tell".



Not sure why this is so unclear to you?


Again:
"Not rude or otherwise inappropriate, just baffling it its content. I would have thought the realm of possible answers would be 1) the card is discolored, 2) it's the image, 3) It's very hard to tell, but here's a new image from a different angle, etc. Do you suppose it isn't a card he has in hand?"

[tiger8mush]

I think we agree with each other Larry. Happy Friday

[philliesfan]

Could the discoloration be a wax stain that has not been rubbed off before submission?

[deweyinthehall]

For the record, I have asked other sellers, small as well as some large well-known ones, in the past whether some item or other was on the card or a product of the image. In my experience, they reply immediately with something like "Sorry - definitely the image...here's another view" or "yeah, that's a printing flaw". I assumed that if he had the card in-hand, even in a slab, it would relatively easy to decipher.



Suggesting I go around looking at eBay at other copies of the card was one of the oddest responses I had ever received from any seller on eBay in 20+ years. What if I looked at 1000 other copies? It would have no bearing on whether this particular specimen was marked or not.

In any event based upon the helpful scan above, I will be passing on the card. Thanks to the poster for that.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

No opinion on quality of seller's response but Larry, expert or not, you are one of my go to guys on print flaws

Thank you Al, what I have learned in regard to E/Vs, I owe to you and the other E/V folks on the board.

[JollyElm]

It's certainly not worth arguing about, but that seller's response was ridiculous. Come on now!!

Anyway, I noticed a little, subtle and interesting something about the Rose card.
A bit of the bottom left part of the stem (gotta love typography terminology) in the 'R' of "REDS" is missing (most likely an error during layout). Said stem doesn't go straight down, as it angles inward nearing the bottom.

After looking at a ton of them on eBay, etc., they all seem to have that same flaw. Wonder if there are any out there where that 'R' is full??

Here's a comp with another Reds card from that year with a 'perfect' 'R'...

1964redsroseRdifference.jpg