1955 Duke - What is wrong with these people?
smallstocks
Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭✭
1955 Topps Duke Snider PSA 8 OC
Listen to the claims the seller is making in this auction. Appears some fools are buying it. This card is PSA 8 OC typically sells for about $300.
Listen to the claims the seller is making in this auction. Appears some fools are buying it. This card is PSA 8 OC typically sells for about $300.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
0
Comments
Just goes to show you the power of marketing.
makes me sick
Give up to nomar--He did a good job of selling a 8 O/C as a 9. I am sure most of you have sold at least 1 card for some outrageous bucks.
Mine was 3 years ago. I sold a 1978 TOPPS RYAN in a PSA 9 for $750.00 . At the time the card only SMR'D for $150. The top bidder on this current auction must have some money to throw around. Check out his 10 winning auctions so for.
"Never tell a joke that ain't funny more than once!!"
Carew29-Selling a card for some outrageous bucks is completely different than purposely trying to deceive someone into thinking they are bidding on something they are not. If someone wants to bid 10x SMR for a low pop card just to make sure they get it in their collection, that's one thing. But to deceive someone into believing they are getting a PSA 9 card when in fact you know full well they are going to receive an 8OC is entirely another....at least in my very humble opinion.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>I'm missing something. Exactly what did he do wrong. It looks the me as if he's flipping the card and making some pretty good money doing it. It appears to be bit of jealousy bubbling to the surface. I'm not familiar with this particular seller or his past history but I feel this transaction is clean and not worthy of criticism. >>
Not worth critcism? The auction title is for a PSA 9 and its a PSA 8OC? When you buy trimmed cards and forget to add that to your discription when you flip them? Oh yeah. I'm real jealous..............
<< <i>I'm missing something. Exactly what did he do wrong. It looks the me as if he's flipping the card and making some pretty good money doing it. It appears to be bit of jealousy bubbling to the surface. I'm not familiar with this particular seller or his past history but I feel this transaction is clean and not worthy of criticism. >>
Sayhey
<< <i>You are bidding on a 1955 Topps Duke Snider #210 (THE LAST CARD IN THE SET)! NM-MT (Near Mint-Mint) PSA 8. Please see pictures. >>
This is his actual card description - no where does he mention it is OC - he does say see pictures - but there's so much spamming and glitz going on that the eye may be averted from the flip to see the card is OC - I can see your point but his method borders on trickery by hyping a card - "I got robbed!" - a little P. T. Barnum? Yes. But also a little larseny also IMO.
Has he broken any laws? Probably not. But the technique isn't designed to foster honesty either.
mike
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>MINT PSA 9 >>
It is not a PSA 9. He thinks it should be, but the title says that it is when it is not. What if I think my Bart Giamatti is a 53 Mick?
Do I get to list it as a 53 Mick?
What if I accidentally mistake Susan Estrich for Sandra Bullock and asked her to marry me?
OK, bad analogy. Forget I said that.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
1)Misleading title
This violation is obvious.
2)Keyword spamming
This violation may not be as obvious as the misleading title, but is technically a violation. Placing PSA 9 in the title, and NOT selling a PSA 9 card is being put there to divert attention to the listing from users who may actually be searching for a PSA 9. It's the same thing as saying "SGC 92, NOT PSA 9" in the title in order to divert people to the listing.
The problem is that most people who see listings like this won't take the time to report it, or don't think that reporting it will do any good. In most cases it probably won't do any good, granted, but if it's NEVER reported it will NEVER do any good. Ebay only moves on things like this if they are reported. They do not monitor listings like this.
So, if anyone wants to report it, click on either of the links above and go to the "rport" link. Personally, I'd try the misleading title violation first.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
We have had this discussion before. But, this world would be an easier place to live if people would be more honest and up front.
However, in deference to the person posting the thread, I don't think he was looking for a lecture on being more observant - I believe he was looking for a discussion on questionable tactics of sellers. This whole ad wreaks of hype, spam, deceit, trickery, possibly larceny to name a few.
And with all due respect, this isn't "fluff" - fluff would be *L@@K*!!!!! e.g. - this is a not so clever act to deceive people into thinking they are getting more than they are IMO. It's a smokescreen.
"Nobody" deserves to be taken - not ever - altho this is a chat room - it would be nicer if we try to keep it in the real world - I don't think anyone here would tell that to a friend, clergyman, aunt, uncle, parent, coworker etc. I prefer to see the honesty and civility in people.
mike
For those of you who are related to the seller (I won't mention any names, but rhymes with "hayseykid"), how you can even begin to justify what this seller is doing is beyond me. Technically, those morons who are having dutch auctions which show the Mantle and Aaron rookies and then send a 1979 Bombo Rivera aren't doing anything wrong either, as long as you don't consider preying on people who don't know better as a bad thing. Yeah, people should look at the picture. That's what I would do, and that's what you would do. That doesn't make it right. The seller is scum.
<< <i>I prefer to see the honesty and civility in people. >>
Mike, you are right. And it starts by offering courtesy first. Somewhere along the line it became stylish to be a jerk. I don't like it.
<<Mike, you are right. And it starts by offering courtesy first. Somewhere along the line it became stylish to be a jerk. I don't like it.
Very well said Mac. And here's the worst thing of all. I spent a good 15 minutes trying to report the seller to ebay using the ebay site map, and it's virtually impossible. The best I could do was report the listing (by listing #) under the classification "illegal key word use" for the seller using PSA 9 in the title. There's no way the ebay security team can figure out what's wrong with the title, since I can't give an explanation or anything, just the listing #. At one point, I was foolish enough to believe that ebay cared about these things. Now, I don't think they care at all.
<< <i>I'm missing something. Exactly what did he do wrong. It looks the me as if he's flipping the card and making some pretty good money doing it. It appears to be bit of jealousy bubbling to the surface. I'm not familiar with this particular seller or his past history but I feel this transaction is clean and not worthy of criticism. >>
It's misleading and not ethical, plain and simple. If you have an OC card, doesn't it knock the overal grade down a couple of notches in relation to the SMR price? If so, you should not advertise it as:
1915 Cracker Jack BAUMGARNER #131 MINT PSA 9 SMR $8,500
One of these days, a Seller will con you by intentionally mislead in the advertising.
When that happens (even though it probably already has), everyone will point at you and laugh.
But, I firmly believe that every collector in the hobby should feel the need to be at least a little proactive in helping keep the marketplace as safe as possible, for the good of the hobby's future.
Truthfully, being involved in 2 very big collecting market (one is even a worldwide market), the realm of sportscards seems to be the most out of control as far as seller deceit and chicanery.
This is not a preaching post and I would be the last person to tell someone else what they should or should not do, as far as policing the hobby, but with the best interest of the hobby in mind I also reported that seller right after I made my first post.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
Having been in the collectibles game for nearly 50 years, I can report to you that many people with big money to spend trust Wall Street more than they trust their Main Street collectibles dealer. The trend is worsening because of the high quality fakes that can now be produced in the kitchen. As more and more people with cash hear of the problems, we lose more and more of the kind of buyers that we all need to keep prices stable and/or rising.
Collectible stamps that retail for as little as $20.00 are now being produced for 1/30th of a cent. It is not possible for a newbie to detect these counterfiets. The same schemes are at work in the collectible cards market. Most newbies do not know about "graded and expertized"
cards and stamps. All they hear is that fakes "are everywhere," and they take their money to some other investment venue.
Any element of fraud or decipt that is allowed to exist in these markets - whether by silence or complicity - is hurting EVERY person who currently owns and hopes to later sell a collectible item. We can stop it, but first we have to agree that it is NOT OK for some "idiot" to get defrauded, or for somebody "who did not read the fine print" to get shafted, or for somebody who did not "study the scans" to lose his or her money.
Selling items for more than we paid for them is not the problem. Puffery about "future values" is not the problem. The problem is people lying about the authenticity and originality of the items they sell to less sophisticated people than themselves. It is not a moral issue - although fraud is not moral - it is about the future economic viability and sustainability of the "chain letter" that is the collectibles market.
I do - and want to continue to - make money by selling items to new collectors. Any person who defrauds one of my potential customers is directly harming ME. Therefore, every fraud IS "my business" and I will do what I can to expose and limit those frauds when I see them.
End of RANT!
Cher
About the "misleading title" offense. I would think that any item being reported by item number for this offense would have to require someone to actually check the title versus what is in the description and even the picture, which is the only way they will know if it's misleading. And since PSA and ebay have some sort of affiliation with each other I would then assume that they will know there is a difference between a PSA 9 and a PSA 8OC.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
I am, or at least was, involved in the stamp market as well, so I know full well what you speak of. I've seen sellers become very wealthy for literally pennies, making "things" in their basement, all the while ebay looks the other way.
It's up to the hobby participants to self-police.
Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
I do - and want to continue to - make money by selling items to new collectors. Any person who defrauds one of my potential customers is directly harming ME. Therefore, every fraud IS "my business" and I will do what I can to expose and limit those frauds when I see them.
Perfect example of the big issue. I tell my 6-year old at least once a day that life is not all about him. It's no different in the real world. What it all comes down to in the end is "how does it affect me?". It's not a moral issue? WHAT?
IT ABSOLUTELY IS A MORAL ISSUE. Fake Mantles, $5 to ship a PSA graded card, dutch auctions, ending auctions early because the auction isn't going well or someone offered you $$ outside of ebay, listing a card as a PSA 9 when it's a PSA 8OC are all moral issues. It's like stone193 said, a little honesty and civility goes a long way.
nomar5378
Completed my Clemente Basic Registry (2007 - 2014)!
Positive transactions with oakesy25,jasoneggert,swartz1,MBMiller25,gregm13,kid4hof03,HoopGuru33,Reese3333,BPorter26,Davemri,CuseSteve
Sadly, it is not ever going to be possible to make all collectors and dealers do the right thing simply because it is "moral." People always act in their own self-interest. Only when dealers and collectors see fraud in the marketplace as a direct assault on their own self-interest, will the community clean up the mess and deliver a "moral result."
Cher
The subject card was sold to nomar on May 29, 2005. The seller FULLY disclosed the nature of the card, and
nomar was the high bidder at $355.
(I personally think that it is a very nice card. The high-grade horizontal cards are not
offensive OC, in my opinion. BUT it is now, CLEARLY, being marketed deceptively.)
SMR on a straight 8 is $3,250. 7 = $675. 6 = $365 (If I owned the subject card, I would not
retail it for less than $600+.)
Nomar got an equitable deal at $355, but he/she "seems to be" trying to turn a double into a grand-slam through FRAUD and DECEPTION.
cher
It's good to see that the guy in my signature line is not the only one who gives a $hit about the rules (rent the big lebowski if you don't get this reference)
Brian
Detroit good job. You should create another account for contacting the bidders. Ebay could suspend you for auction interference.
<< <i>Apparently nomar is a female.
Detroit good job. You should create another account for contacting the bidders. Ebay could suspend you for auction interference. >>
Well then I bet she's ugly
I hate to say it, but that's why I don't contact people. You never know when you contact the bidder and they turn out to be the seller's shill bid account.
I really do need to get around to creating a vigilante account...
Brian
<< <i>Well then I bet she's ugly >>
<< <i>Good work - I wonder how long before mr nomar shows up - it should be interesting. PA should post one of those fight clips.
It's good to see that the guy in my signature line is not the only one who gives a $hit about the rules (rent the big lebowski if you don't get this reference)
Brian >>
btw: big lebowski was a great movie..
On the issue of "tortious interference:" Anyone can state any claim under the U.S. legal system. Maintaining a claim and prevailing on that claim is a different matter. The large auction sites know that they are open to being accused of being culpable in civil RICO litigation against the fraudsters in the "collectible industry." The suspension of a "whistle-blower" by an auction site would be a risk that such a site would not take if the site had competent legal counsel in the matter.
There is no question that some people are "interfering with auctions" that they in good faith believe are fraudulent. The auction sites encourage and facilitate such "interference" through their own "complaint system." If the auction site fails to act or fails to act "with reasonable rapidity," it is both reasonable and lawful for a third-party person or persons to "expose the perceived fraud" in defense of that person's own "personal interest;" such "interest" can and usually does apply to the "welfare of others."
If an auction site wants to read about "suspended complainers and fraud-busters" on the front pages of mainstream and specialty newspapers, they could suspend a user for engaging in some of the very activities that some of us claim to have engaged in today. It is doubtful that the "self-interest" of such sites would be well served by issuing such suspensions.
On the issue of "defamation:" There is no question that some of the fraudsters are feeling the sting of being called "thief." The truth is an absolute defense to any complaint that might be made by the fraudsters against the fraud-busters. Still, some crooks often feel the need to claim that they have been "wrongfully defamed." (They do this on the theory that the best defense is a good offense. But, it NEVER works.) Just make sure that you are ALWAYS right when you make the kind of allegations that are being made here today. The truth is often hurtful to the liar, but its consequences are never actionable at law.
If the auction sites will simply start doing the kind of "work" that some of the people here are doing, threads like this one would be redundant and would vanish.
Posters here should be pleased that the shareholders at CLCT fund the bandwidth for this venue. And CLCT should be pleased that some folks are trying to stop the frauds before we come to the point that PSA slabs are routinely being counterfeited and passed off as real, using links to fake PSA "verification sites." (Obviously, even the real verification is far from flawless because it does not tell you where the card resides at any given time. In any event, t is always best, IMO, to use the verification link on the PSA site itself.)
Good Luck!
cher
Brian
Look at his newly listed auctions :
1970 Topps Clemente PSA 9 (forgets to mention it is OC)
1972 Topps Aaron PSA 9 (forgets to mention it is OC)
1972 Topps Clemente PSA 9 IA (forgets to mention it is OC)
1977 Topps Ryan PSA 9 (forgets to mention it is OC)
1977 Topps Carlton PSA 9 (forgets to mention it is OC)
Completed my Clemente Basic Registry (2007 - 2014)!
Positive transactions with oakesy25,jasoneggert,swartz1,MBMiller25,gregm13,kid4hof03,HoopGuru33,Reese3333,BPorter26,Davemri,CuseSteve
Winning bid: US $10.61
Ended: May-22-05 17:29:44 PDT
'33 Goudeys - HOF - POOR - Trimmed - lot of 11
Low grade of 11, 1933 Goudey. Lot contains #3 trimmed, #4 trimmed, #37 corner clipped, #43 trimmed, #58 not trimmed but Poor with back damage., #80 trimmed, #90 trimmed, #94 trimmed, #96 trimmed, #133 Fred Lindstrom HOF crease free but trimmed & #140 trimmed. The trimmed cards have been trimmed on all sides. Backs are clean except for som residue from mounting. Backs are 100% readable (except #58). Other than being trimmed cards would grade VG or Good. Winner to add $3 postage. Money orders or Paypal.
good work guys - the buyer must have backed out!
this time however, this basturd is using a private auction
sd