Options
Need help with ornery ebayer.
Hub
Posts: 102
I recently sold the following item:
1954 SI Mays
I just got the following e-mail from the winner:
"I just recieved what I thought was going to be an original baseball card, and what I did get was a xerox piece of paper of the original card that I thought I purchased. If I would have known that I was going to get dupped like this.. I wouldn't have spent the money I did on such a worthless item. I was under the impression that the item I purchased was authentic,.. and since this item was guaranteed to be 100% authentic, I am expecting a FULL REFUND!! I will be sending you the piece of paper that you call a graded baseball card back to you in the mail."
I don't think my auction was misleading. I really don't have anything against giving the guy his money back, but I hate to be accused of 'duping' someone.
Any thoughts out there on how to deal with this? or whether my auction could have been drafted better?
Much appreciated!!
1954 SI Mays
I just got the following e-mail from the winner:
"I just recieved what I thought was going to be an original baseball card, and what I did get was a xerox piece of paper of the original card that I thought I purchased. If I would have known that I was going to get dupped like this.. I wouldn't have spent the money I did on such a worthless item. I was under the impression that the item I purchased was authentic,.. and since this item was guaranteed to be 100% authentic, I am expecting a FULL REFUND!! I will be sending you the piece of paper that you call a graded baseball card back to you in the mail."
I don't think my auction was misleading. I really don't have anything against giving the guy his money back, but I hate to be accused of 'duping' someone.
Any thoughts out there on how to deal with this? or whether my auction could have been drafted better?
Much appreciated!!
0
Comments
that being said, i'd give him his money back if he returns the card..
1) What is a Topps SI Card?
2) Who the heck is PSVA?
3) Who the heck would grade a non card like this?
4) Is it a piece of paper or actual cardboard stock?
I would be a tad po'd as a buyer (even though you didn't exactly lie, but didn't quite represent it fully as NOT A CARD or the year it was actually printed.
I would vote that it's a VERY SHADY way of auctioning...just my opinion....sorry
link
Perhaps you should explain to him that his email to you was rude and that you did nothing wrong. Maybe he should check into what he is buying before he places another bid. I would refund him his dough minus all costs that you were incurred.
Steve
Refund the guy and then re-list it on ebay adding the link provided to your auction on the 54 SI paper sheets and let go on it's own merits. I would also take it out of that "no-name" of a grading company card holder as well.
I don't think you "mislead" the buyer but rather didn't give enough information IMO.
As was said, I would have definitely stated in the description that the card was cut from a magazine page insert in the 1954 Sports Illustrated Magazine.
I will say, also, IMO, not to be insulting, but the grading company is highly questionable and I would have taken it out of that slab and sold it in a nice semi rigid holder.
The fact that it is in a "graded holder" could be confusing to the newcomer to the hobby.
Good luck on the resale.
mike
<< <i>Customer satisfaction is our number one goal! >>
This guy may not be an educated collector, but he's also not satisfied. Give him the refund. And as others have said, you might want to refrain from trafficking in PSVA SI cutouts. Your listing isn't necessarily misleading, but you're just looking at more headaches like this one by selling these kind of items.
Buyer deserves a refund because he is not satisfied....for whatever reason.
End of story.
Give the buyer his money and politely explain what the item is. He will then see his money coming back and think back that you really did not try to scam him at all.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
95% of the people who buy these SI reprints do not know what they are buying................hence when this buyer returns you will have to list item for the THIRD time.
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
And the answer that were given for the questions sure could have been a little more helpful.
Q: who is psvagraders.com? I tried to type it in on Google and MSN search and found nothing. Help. Mike
A: I have no idea who they are. Could be a fly by night operation. I'd bid accordingly.
Q: Just wondering how you can tell the difference between the SI version and the Topps version?
A: I'm just going by what the label says.
I'd refund and when relisting try and descibe this a little better so that people who don't know what these are won't mistake it for an actual 1954 Topps card.
Jeff
Miscut Museum
My Mess
-H&W, Inc.
our e-bay auctions
The term "Pyrrhic victory" applies here. By witholding a refund, you may win the battle, but lose the war. Although your ad technically had no false information, it was a setup for this kind of customer reponse because many folks are not familiar with the 1954 SI reprints (including yourself, perhaps), and your ad did nothing to make buyers familiar with them.
There is a saying in the retail business, "the customer is always right". If your primary interest is to maintain a good sales reputation, and as you offered in writing to refund if not satisfied, then put your ego away, and save yourself a lot of grief and just send the refund. In the long run, buyers will respect you for this, and you will win the war.
ebaY would side with the buyer (as I would). Your ad belongs in this category.
paperstock/cutouts
<< <i>Q: who is psvagraders.com? I tried to type it in on Google and MSN search and found nothing. Help. Mike >>
I bought one at a show for $3.00 of Warren Spahn "graded" by a company called "paper stock grading". Yes, I have a 1948 Babe Ruth reprint also. There are great conversation items and I think Hub was fine here. Definitely refund the purchasers money and leave the "card" out on your bar.
Be good my brothers.
<< <i>I'd say you are a scam artist trying to take advantage of unexperienced card collectors. You need to go away, no one appreciates this kind of thing. Be honest with yourself . . . it's plain crooked on your part! I personally am sick of the people that do this sort of thing. No idea how your feedback profile is so high, but I assure you if the buyer has any sense, he'll knock it down a bit!
I think that's pretty harsh!
I've tried to avoid saying anything, but...
I do believe a seller has a responsibility to know the product they are selling. This seller's feedback and the type of items they sell - some very highly collectible cards, lends a certain amount of credibility to all their auctions. That credibility implies a thorough knowledge of their market and their product. In this case, that knowledge would imply that the seller should know that this is not a "card" in the usual sense and that there can be a misunderstanding by the uninformed. On the one hand, this item is a collectible in it's own right, although not widely so. On the other hand, it can be easily mistaken for a card printed on card stock.
Then there is the issue of the grading company. I believe, as many here do, that there are disreputable grading companies out there and they should be avoided by reputable sellers. Some of these fly-by-night outfits do what they do to mislead and in some cases defraud potential buyers. There is no reason why someone dealing in quality merchandise needs to also deal in these highly questionable items. As collectors buying on the internet, the only real solid criteria we can use when making a purchase is to buy from someone with an outstanding reputation. That reputation is worth a LOT. Sellers should be careful to not tarnish that reputation by dealing in questionable items.
Summary: I believe Hub has good intentions and is not out to scam anyone. But, I believe Hub could also do a much better job in doing their research and knowing their product. It is important to the hobby overall that new, inexperienced collectors have good experiences purchasing collectibles. It is up to the good sellers to make sure that happens.
Also, in this particular case, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the buyer. He obviously thought he was going to get a $10k+ card for $70. Idiot! In my book, that's an attempt to take advantage of the seller. He obviously thought he was slicker than she was.
(Steps down from the soapbox.)
That being said, I was simply looking for some advice on this board regarding the item at issue. You have absolutely no right to accuse us of being scam artists or crooked.
our e-bay auctions
Why did he leave the idiot buyer feedback after receipt of payment?
Now before everyone gets in a frenzy all should remember one small item here. HUB did describe what he was selling. HUB stated from POST 1 he had no problem refunding the idiot his money. Hub simply came here for some advice. NOT TO BE CALLED a SCAM ARTIST of which he certaintly is not.
Could he have refrained fvrom the use of the word "card" in his description? Yes.
Where can anyone get a 1954 MAYS for 71.00 ??? Methinks the buyer upon winning the auction thought he was getting over bigtime. If one looks at the bidding history one sees 3 or 4 such idiots fighting over this item. Perhaps these people should do a little homework before they place a bid, especially one that says SI several times.
Steve
Feb-15-06
A: I'm just going by what the label says.
This is laughable. A guy who has sold hundreds of cards suddenly can't tell the difference between a flimsy piece of paper and an actual 1954 topps baseball card. If you weren't trying to scam someone, you would have explained the difference right then. You would have explained that it was a picture of a card cut out of a magazine. I guarantee you that if you were selling a psa 10 of the actual card and someone asked how it was different from the SI cutouts, your answer would be a lot clearer than "uh...I don't know....I really can't see a difference...I'm just going by the label..." You might as have said you found it in an attic.
Refund the money and do NOT relist that pos in the card section OR with Topps in the title as Topps did not manufacture these. Both are listing violations.
"This is a graded, printed from Sports Illustrated magazine on paper stock, rare item" I don't think anyone could claim foul...granted this does carry some value (certainly nothing close to the original), but the seller should have been more open about this. From the Topps thread, Hub could have claimed that this "paper" stock was rarer than the cardboard stock and I wouldn't have had any problems with the way they listed it.
Do I believe hub is a scam artist? NOT AT ALL, but it's just not worth the negative of a buyer posting that you sell fakes (even though it's not a "fake) under your feedback history when, in fact, they are legitimate sellers...
edit: my response was to say hey
I definitely side with the seller on this one, and I am disgusted with those who are accussing him. I agree that the card COULD have been explained better in the description, but I don't know if anything was done wrong. There was misunderstanding between the two parties, and the seller should refund the buyer because the buyer is not happy.
Don
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
....sorry................... I already said that already......................
but I would think that the seller SHOULD has responsibility to describe EXACTLY what these pieces of paper are in their auctions to AVOID any misunderstanding.
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
1. Hub has had numerous buy and sell transactions of baseball cards on ebay including a good number of 1950's cards. It would be very hard for me to believe that Hub was not fully aware that this SI cutout is a worthless piece of garbage.
2. It's technically not a scam to sell worthless garbage on ebay and try to get lots of money for it. There's nothing wrong with selling an inkjet copy of a t206 Wagner as long as it is CLEARLY stated in the description as such. However, Hub using his good ebay reputation to sell these worthless cutouts I think is deceiving and I believe Hub knows that.
3. No question in my mind that Hub's "plan" for this auction and probably a lot more of these cutouts would be auction 'em off and send 'em out and hope the sellers don't open the plastic holder or don't find out what worthless crap they just paid $70 for. Hub probably figures that he'll have to refund a certain percentage of these customer's money, but in the overall "scheme" of things it might be worth it.
4. That being said...Everybody gets greedy from time to time, and everybody makes mistakes and errors in judgment. Nobody is ever going to equate me with Saint Stephen - LOL. The important thing is how we react and adjust to these mistakes, and attempt to make honest corrections. If Hub quickly refunds this buyer's money and never again attempts to sell these worthless SI cutouts, then that would be good. If instead, he was using this forum for information to hone deceptive practices, and on ebay possibly start selling more deceptive garbage and possibly turn into a scammer, then that would be bad. It's up to him.
Steve
However I disagree with the sentiment that they are worthless pieces of garbage.
On ebay right now is a guy selling the complete set of 27 such cutouts from the magazine that was printed in 54 (his claim)
Also, one can refer to these as topps as they do carry the TCG copyright on the reverse and thus could be deemed a legitimate item. Just because ebay created a cutouts category does not mean it is a listing violation if one places these things on a card category.
Hub if you continue to offer these, plainly state that they are from Sports Illustrated (not SI) and are on paper stock as certain buyers that look to get over on unsuspecting sellers will cry foul when they find out that they were the ones that overpaid and were ignorant of an items true idenity.
Steve
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>I don't think my auction was misleading. I really don't have anything against giving the guy his money back, but I hate to be accused of 'duping' someone.
Any thoughts out there on how to deal with this? or whether my auction could have been drafted better? >>
Hub's original question.
After giving this thought - due to lack of full discloser on the item - the auction could be deemed misleading since it did not state that the item was a "paper" card/cutout from a Magazine insert sheet.
On "duping" someone? I don't think that was Hub's intention - otherwise he would not have come here for input.
"How to deal with this?" - was well articulated already.
Onto the SI cards - for the point of clarification.
The sheet of cards from the original two issues of SI has "book" value. The Aug. 16th issue has a value in Nm of 175$ and the Aug. 23rd issue has a book value of 225$.
An astute observation by Barf about the 25,000 SI reprints in 2001 should be taken into consideration since it's said that it is hard to tell them apart - why SI didn't overprint 2001 on them is BEYOND me! But, they are a magazine and probably didn't even think about the hobby consequences.
On cutting them into individual cards/paper? Not sure how I feel - we do allow for the cutup of panels like the Hostess panel - and they have value - this would be a good question for hobby validators like The Standard Catalog of Baseball to make a determination and try to provide a "value" for the individual units.
On calling Hub a scammer?
I think that's harsh and unfair - he came here for advice - scammers don't come here for our input IMO.
mike
Steve - I stated "worthless" because I have never seen any reputable price guide assign any value to these SI cutouts. That whole SI issue with all the card pictures intact usually sells for about $150 on ebay - but it gets that price mainly because it is the first issue of SI - the "cards" certainly add some value but I completely believe that cutting them out of the magazine renders them totally worthless, and IN FACT would make the magazine itself less valuable and possibly near worthless since the cards are an inherent original part of the magazine. If there were never any cards in that first SI issue - it might probably still sell for around $150 but since the cards were part of that issue - cutting out the cards is technically mutilating the issue itself. Mutilating any old magazine greatly reduces its value or renders it worthless.
<< <i><<< However I disagree with the sentiment that they are worthless pieces of garbage. >>>
Steve - I stated "worthless" because I have never seen any reputable price guide assign any value to these SI cutouts. That whole SI issue with all the card pictures intact usually sells for about $150 on ebay - but it gets that price mainly because it is the first issue of SI - the "cards" certainly add some value but I completely believe that cutting them out of the magazine renders them totally worthless, and IN FACT would make the magazine itself less valuable and possibly near worthless since the cards are an inherent original part of the magazine. If there were never any cards in that first SI issue - it might probably still sell for around $150 but since the cards were part of that issue - cutting out the cards is technically mutilating the issue itself. Mutilating any old magazine greatly reduces its value or renders it worthless. >>
Steve
The Standard Catalog of BB doesn't make a statement about the cutouts other than - "they are rarely encountered" - thus not making refererence to whether cutting makes them worthless.
Further, they provide value for the "panel" of cards - not the magazine, as such. This would provide the inference that the sheet may be removed and sold separately and has value.
I have seen auctions selling the mag w/o insert of cards - personally I wouldn't have any use for it - but if someone wanted an original issue and didn't care and could get it at the highly reduced price? Hey, may be a good buy - plus I could see someone "framing" the item and thus doesn't care if the contents are complete.
For reference - I believe the reprint of SI in 2001 can definitely to distinguished from the original in that it is lacking a "mail-in subscription offer" - this was an interesting discussion.
thanx
mike
We've completed almost 5000 e-bay auctions with only a few neg. and neutral feedbacks. And we leave positive feedback immediately upon receipt of payment (including for this particular transaction), so buyers could easily leave us negative feedback without fear of retribution. But they don't. It's because we're honest. Pure and simple. Any suggestion that we have turned crooked overnight is ridiculous and irresponsible. Looking to use this board to "hone deceptive practices"? You've got to be kidding.
No question in my mind that Hub's "plan" for this auction and probably a lot more of these cutouts would be auction 'em off and send 'em out and hope the sellers don't open the plastic holder or don't find out what worthless crap they just paid $70 for. Hub probably figures that he'll have to refund a certain percentage of these customer's money, but in the overall "scheme" of things it might be worth it.
That's rubbish! That Willie Mays card was the only Sports Illustrated card we had. A scheme? Again, why now? Does our feedback record mean anything to you naysayers? The only "plan" we have is to continue to act like responsible e-bayers, i.e., try to honestly describe the cards we sell, mail them out right away, and leave timely feedback. I can't believe this one auction, where I disclosed the issues to anyone and everyone on this board, and considering we have a good e-bay history, would elicit accusations of dishonesty or ulterior motives.
The only reason why I posted my question in the first place is because we get so few complaints. I sincerely wanted mature advice on how to handle the situation. Apparently these SI issues have caused quite a bit of consternation within the hobby. I didn't know. Now I do.
By the way, we sincerely appreciate the constructive comments several of you have made. And we especially appreciate the private e-mails many of you have sent.
I'm a HUGE fan of the discussions on this board. Some of the stuff you guys come up with is not only educational, but incredibly witty. I guess that's why I'm so disappointed that so many of you would think the worst.
our e-bay auctions
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>Which is why I would never ask for general advice on a public board. Next time ask your friends by PM >>
In general, I understand this.
But, unless someone is terribly thin skinned or unsure of themselves, asking questions in a forum of this size can reap some great and varied responses that may not happen from a select few friends.
If anyone reads this board on a regular basis, one would expect many POVs and anything can result.
The good, IMO, outweighs the bad.
mike
<< <i>We've completed almost 5000 e-bay auctions with only a few neg. and neutral feedbacks >>
Hub
Your record speaks for itself.
All and all, many have taken the time to come up with enough information to give you a "read" on where you stand.
The few who feel that you "scammed" are just being honest, and perhaps, are responding from the wonderful experience of dealing with so many different ebay sellers.
My last suggestion...contact SCD and Robert Lemke and ask him his impression of whether cutting up a sheet has any value.
Good luck, and I do understand how you may feel unfairly attacked and for that I'm sorry.
mike
our e-bay auctions
<< <i>The Tiger Woods SI for Kids sold for over $100,000.00 Who is to say that the 1954 Willie Mays is worthless. Yes he could have been more descriptive in the listing, but the buyer could have also done a goole search and learned all about the item. There is even an eBay buying guide all about the 1954 Topps SI cards. I would still issue a refund, but the buyer is an idiot. >>
Allen
I think the cut up cards may actually have individual value even tho not stated that way in the catalog.
And, yes, how can anyone think they can get a card like that for so little money.
In the world of "con" artistry - except in situations where you are dealing with the elderly e.g., - a person has to have a little larceny in their blood to be scammed - my dad always told me when someone offers you a great deal that is too good to be true or "something for nothing" - RUN!
mike
Simple - the buyer probably thought he was getting a legitimate reprint (ie. an actual card.) Those things aren't reprints - they're pictures of cards cut out of SI's first issue that are then authenticated in some loser's basement to give the illusion of authenticity. You can buy the entire issue for around $100.
Bottom line is they aren't cards and that is why ebay specifically set up the paper cutouts category for this garbage. Any listing that describes them as cards is a fraudulent one and anyone who lists them in the cards category risks having his auctions pulled.
Oh and that you say is still worth 71.00???????? cmon
the buyer thought he ws getting a deal. he thought he was getting a 1000.00 dollar card for peanuts!
the seller said in big bold letters SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (SI)
A person can place an auction in any category they choose.
why does ebay allow more then one category then??
Steve
Seriously, what Steve said.
There's no way I'ld pay that much for a reprint.
And, BTW, I was talking in more general terms about people kind of "scamming" themselves by thinking they could get something for nothing - type thing.
mike
Wrong. You can look up ebay's listing violations if you want.
Why do you think libertyforall quit listing them in the card category?
As far as stating "sports illustrated," please. If the seller had any intention of being honest, he would have stated it was a picture of a card cut out of a magazine and wouldn't have dodged a direct question from a potential buyer. The buyer may have been a fool, but the seller was equally foolish to think the buyer wouldn't respond negatively when he got a paper cutout in the mail.
Feb-15-06
A: I'm just going by what the label says.
This is where they should have come clean in my opinion....it was on the table to be admitted...
A: This is from a Sports Illustrated Magazine and was not produced by Topps