Liar Liar Pants on Fire

julen23

A-Hole

shameful

Julen

Stingray

That is one of my biggest pet peves. He has two PSA 9 OC Mantles for sale?

fsjeter

Did you let the seller know his qualifier reduces the BV? Not that they probably don't already know that and just don't give a darn.

Scott

tkd7

Ebay lets this go but pulls the "PSA 10 1/1" listings. Ridiculous.

fsjeter

I reported it, we'll see what happens.

Scott

poppie

That makes me Puke !

fsjeter

What I emailed the seller:

Shame on you for taking advantage of the unsuspecting! You know the SMR value on the card you are selling is not $3,000.00 because of that qualifier. You should be reported to eBay.




Their response:

SMR does not have separate values for cards with qualifiers... Book value is $3,000.00. What you are referring to is the Market value of the card which can be affected by several factors such as current market conditions, location and scarcity of the product, or special circumstances i.e. the o/c qualifier.
Book value is listed and qualifier is detailed in the description... keep watching and we shall see what the current market value of this card really is. Thank you for your interest

Really is sad. I hope nobody else bids on this.

Scott

BigRedMachine

I have to be honest, the response of the seller is right on.

You are referring to market value and the SMR value for a PSA 9 is $3000. If he was pretending it wasn't off center or providing a scan then it would be different. But the auction is up front and honest with the description.

If you read in the SMR the section titled "Pricing Cards with Qualifiers", there is no defined answers to the value of this card. We've said before a qualifier drops the price two grades, but that's certainly not always the truth. It would for a modern or easy to come by card, but like the SMR says, a 1954 Wilson Franks card would not be as affected since the issue is found off center nearly all the time. PSA 9 OC which is off center 75/25 may not be affected as much as one off center 90/10.

My point is this. The seller doesn't say the card is worth $3000, should sell for $3000, or anything except the SMR for a PSA 9 is $3000.

In reality that is the case.

I'll agree it is slightly deceptive, especially to a new buyer. But there aren't a whole lot of new buyers looking to buy 1969 Mantle's in PSA 9 so I doubt anyone will get burned. A new buyer who knew nothing about PSA or grading would think it's nuts to spend more than $300 bucks for it since that's about the raw beckett value, let alone $3000!!!

My pet peeve is still people listing cards without the qualifier in the title, this wasting my time since I don't care for them.

shawn

poppie

<< <i>My pet peeve is still people listing cards without the qualifier in the title, this wasting my time since I don't care for them. >>

Mine also, Shawn. Good summary!

fsjeter

<< <i>I have to be honest, the response of the seller is right on.

You are referring to market value and the SMR value for a PSA 9 is $3000. If he was pretending it wasn't off center or providing a scan then it would be different. But the auction is up front and honest with the description.

If you read in the SMR the section titled "Pricing Cards with Qualifiers", there is no defined answers to the value of this card. We've said before a qualifier drops the price two grades, but that's certainly not always the truth. It would for a modern or easy to come by card, but like the SMR says, a 1954 Wilson Franks card would not be as affected since the issue is found off center nearly all the time. PSA 9 OC which is off center 75/25 may not be affected as much as one off center 90/10.

My point is this. The seller doesn't say the card is worth $3000, should sell for $3000, or anything except the SMR for a PSA 9 is $3000.

In reality that is the case.

I'll agree it is slightly deceptive, especially to a new buyer. But there aren't a whole lot of new buyers looking to buy 1969 Mantle's in PSA 9 so I doubt anyone will get burned. A new buyer who knew nothing about PSA or grading would think it's nuts to spend more than $300 bucks for it since that's about the raw beckett value, let alone $3000!!!

My pet peeve is still people listing cards without the qualifier in the title, this wasting my time since I don't care for them.

shawn >>



I don't care how you spin it. I've never seen a card with a qualifier sell anywhere near what a card with the same grade and no qualifier sells for. Especially not a high dollar card like that. I may have given the guy the benefit of the doubt if it was the white letter version since it's much rarer but this isn't a rarity and isn't even close to the rarity of the '54 Wilson Franks. If that really is that sellers philosophy, they should use the market value and not the Book Value to sell the card.

Scott

DeutscherGeist

This seller is good with words, I have to give him that. A lot of carefully constructed double talk.


Let us say a newbie buys this card for almost $3000 thinking he got a deal at below book. He finds out from us that this card having a qualifier will reduce its value. I am sure he would be ticked off. However, the seller will say that he listed it in the auction stating it had a qualifier and blame the newbie buyer for not reading or some double talk like that (yeah he said there was a qualifier all right but missed the fact that most collectors devalue a card like that too). At the same time, this seller listed a fact that this card in PSA 9 has book value of $3000 leading newbies to believe that is the value. It would be more honest to say that this card is listed as $3000 in the book, but the qualier will have some degree of influence over the market value and bidders should be aware of that. That kind of wording would make it honest.

This is in the same class as Advertising a brand new car for $5000 and in small print it says the car is a Yugo from Yugoslavia. Come on....Its a Yugo for $5000. Advertisers rely on people thinking "brand new car" and not giving attention to the detail that its a Yugo. Why the fine print? It certainly is to cover up the fact its a Yugo. Deception is Deception, no matter how you want to spin it. Its has existed in the past and continues to be on a creative streak today.

When you buy chunk light Tuna in a can, most people believe its low calorie or something to do with dieting. However, the "light" can refer to the color of the Tuna meat and not to the calorie. This was fought in legelese and the Tuna companies won out that they can use the word "light" to mean color hue. Its a creative scheme and advertising lure, but it deceives the consumers--plain and simple. Has capitalism turned from who can build the better mouse trap at the lowest cost to who can deceive the most creatively? I see evidence of the latter more and more. We are getting so used to it that we are beginning not to take notice of it any longer and so this phenomenon continues.

StarWarsFan2003

DeutscherGeist, under normal circumstances I would completely agree with you, but in this case I have to side with the seller. Albeit, he doesn't list it in his auction title, but he does clearly list it in the auction as O/C, If the buyer cant already see it in the auction photo. I also agree with the poster above that states that anyone buying a card of that $ amount should do a little homework, and know what he/she is buying. A simple search of completed auctions would give the buyer an adequate idea of what the price range and/or conditions of PSA 9's sell for, and why some sell for more than others (ie qualifiers). And I really have to comment on that Tuna example you brought up, If someone is stupid enough to buy a can of tuna on wording alone, and doesnt simply turn the can around and read the nutritional facts on the can, is a moron, plain and simple. Also to rebutt your comments, has our society reached a point that we have to safeguard even the most idiotic and stupid? Do you not think it ridiculous that someone actually brought suit against a Tuna fish company because they didnt understand "light" meant color and not calorie content? Or that when you buy a coffee, it's going to be hot, and it'll burn you if it spills on you? Should there be a "stupid clause" on every single consumer item, because hey, you never know, there might be someone who'll misunderstand or be consfused? I think this is beyond ridiculous, our society has become so legal happy, and even more so freakin PC, that it has become impossible to bear some of these idiotic and, better yet, moronic, ideologies. People who do not take the time to properly research and inquire about purchases they make, barring blatant and malicious deception, should have no recourse to complain about.

jmbkb4

Isn't the bottom line that the seller didn't use the OC qualifier in the title, and he clearly should have? It is misleading to young buyers and a waste of time for everyone.

StarWarsFan2003

Ok, lets take this one particular example one step further. Those looking to buy this card, in my opinion, would fall into two categories: the die hard collector, looking to either add this to his PC, set registry or player collection. Or second, the guy looking for a good deal, or "steal", to be able to flip for a profit. No "young collectors" are looking to pick up a 1969 Mantle, let alone in PSA 9 condition. Is the auction title a waste of time, yes, to the die-hard collector looking for the PSA 9 as an upgrade or add, but seriously, is this guy truly as misleading as some of the other auctions we've seen on Ebay, or is he any worse than the 5 million 1/1/ no auto / irrelavent keyword spammer auctions we see daily? Come on people, we're collectors, not the Ebay police. It's reason's like this, actually auctions like this that get reported, that bog down Ebay customer service, that keeps the real scammers on Ebay. If everyone is so inclined to police the BB card auctions on Ebay, why don't you report the true criminals on Ebay, not some guy who doesn't put bright lights and arrows to the O/C designation on this card. Get a life people.



PS jmbkb4, isnt it also a waste of your time when your searching for 1993 Finest refractors, and they dont list the year in the title, and you have 300 listing from 1994-2005? Should we report and flame every single one of them for NOT including year in the title? yes, I know it';s not as harmful as not disclosing an O/C qualifier, but is it any less a waste of time?

DeutscherGeist

StarWarsfan,

Granted, the auction in question is not the most deceptive and I am certainly not going to wish society so accomodating for the ignorant. A little bit of homework should be done to know that an O/C will lower the value of a card. I am a teacher, so I am all for people reading up before purchasing anything. However, I am also very hard nosed about poeple being more upfront and not putting things into double talk and fine print.

There have been times when I spent hours making a major purchase and the sales rep is excited to make commission and so on. Paper after paper that I sign, I read everything. There comes a point when I see something I don't like and tell the sales rep that. He says he cannot change that. At this point, I think they are all banking on the fact the customer is too tired to care and will sign off anyway. However, I tell them I don't like this clause because its so disadvantageous to a consumer and tell them you should have stated this earlier when I asked about it. I walk away. The sales rep gets angry. He can get angry, but he must also understand that I am practicing caveat emptor and have wasted just as much time as he all because I refuse to be an idiot and just sign things without reading. Now I am the bad guy all of sudden for reading everything.

Things like 2 year warranties on a rebuilt automatic transmissions for parts and labor sounds nice. But why do they have to print it so small that its only valid if the oil is changed by the same company. Why make that so difficult for consumers to see. This is deception. Its in fine print because they don't want consumers to see it right away because it will make them disinterested in getting a rebuild job in the first place with that company.

Scams and deception are not always blatant. The use of double talk can really be confusing as corporations find ways to separate poeple from their money instead of offering them good value. Look at car dealerships and how they put "add ons" right after they tell you the price of the car. What about organic foods? Are they pesticide free? We think organic means that, but surprise surprise, it doesn't always mean that. Companies have used the term "organic" to mean something else as well.

MorrellMan

A friend has a PSA 9 o/c Cracker Jack card that would shatter SMR if he ever wanted to sell it. Buyers must truly beware. This from the SMR pricing guidelines:


Pricing Cards with Qualifiers
When it comes to pricing, there is no general rule that can be applied to cards that exhibit qualifiers such as OC (off-center), PD (print defect) or ST (stain). It really turns on the eye-appeal of the card and the inherent difficulty of the issue. For example, since a 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card is relatively easy to obtain free of qualifiers, one of these cards would drop in market value significantly if any qualifier is present. The value would drop as much as 1-2 grades, at minimum, in terms of value. In other words, a PSA Mint 9OC would probably sell between PSA NM 7 and PSA NM-MT 8 value.

On the other hand, there are issues that are so difficult in high-grade that the qualifier, depending on the type and the severity, would not lower the value greatly. For example, a 1954 Wilson Franks card with an OC designation may not be severely affected since that issue is extraordinarily difficult to find nicely centered. In addition, the degree of the qualifier can also be a factor. A PSA 8OC 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #144 that features 72/25 centering will usually carry more value than one featuring 90/10 centering. This is also true for other qualified cards, like cards exhibiting stains or print defects. Severity is the key. The more the qualifier hinders eye-appeal, the more the value will suffer.

WinPitcher

barring blatant and malicious deception,

Sounds like our friend Tony and this auction. Title and description BOTH claim card is in MINT 9 condition. Luckily for the potential buyer it has a picture.


Steve

FavreFan1971

Just email the top bidder two hours ago. Gee look what happened.

User ID Action / Explanation Date of Bid and Retraction
seveb69 ( 275) Retracted: US $700.00
Explanation: Seller changed the description of the item Bid: May-06-06 07:42:14 PDT
Retracted: May-07-06 06:18:41 PDT

ToppsCo1lector

^^Well, it wasn't stated and imo it should've been. Some guys will bid without looking at the whole auction(I have sometimes, not realizing that soandso doesn't accept Paypal). I picked this up on the Bay this past week for a cool 9.00...It was stated it was OC in the title and throughout the auction. Still though for a PSA 7 Robin Roberts, 9 bucks ain't a bad deal at all.

jmbkb4

<< <i>PS jmbkb4, isnt it also a waste of your time when your searching for 1993 Finest refractors, and they dont list the year in the title, and you have 300 listing from 1994-2005? Should we report and flame every single one of them for NOT including year in the title? yes, I know it';s not as harmful as not disclosing an O/C qualifier, but is it any less a waste of time? >>


I honestly don't have a clue what YOU'RE talking about.

nightcrawler

I personally think it's a nice card, I don't mind (OC) if there's at least some border all around.

I'd rather have that card the way it is, than one with damage and perfect centering, but that's just me

Also, the seller is offering the card at 45% off the SMR price, and I'm wondering how much value the card losses for being (OC) to that degree?

But I do think he should have the (OC) in the title, even if it's just for the convenience of those who don't like (OC) cards

WinPitcher

I'm confused, how is the seller 'offering the card' at 45% of SMR? he claims it is a 3000.00 dollar card and started the bidding at 499.99.

Starting a bid at 45% does not mean he is offering it at that level especially with all the bells and whistles he is using.

JMO of course.


I agree the card is sharp and prolly worth what he has started it at.

And that is why it has not generated more bids.



Book value is listed and qualifier is detailed in the description...

It is?

Steve

BigRedMachine

Steve, I'm not 100% certain, but I think the card had a 'Buy It Now' at 45% SMR, and after the bid, the BIN has disappeared.

I'm still under the opinion it is slightly deceptive, but the SMR is $3000 for a PSA 9. And since some psa 9 OC sell below (okay, 99 percent do), some sell above. Everyone wants the seller to go into full detail of qualifiers and give a market value, but that's the buyers job to do a little research.

No newbie is paying $3000 for a 69 mantle. A little research needs to be done. You can't hold everyone's hand at every turn. The seller's response may seem like double talk to some, but he is trying to maximize his profit, and he's not trying to sell a PSA 9 OC as a PSA 9 without a scan and honest description of the card.

Point is, maybe a little shady, but I've seen much, much worse. And if I was the seller, I'd be a little upset about a thread that calls me an A-hole right from the start.

shawn

DeutscherGeist

BigRedMachine,


I guess we agree that this ad is a bit shady and I have seen much much worse too.

If no newbie will be looking at this card, then why put the $3000 BV on the title? Listing name, company, year of issue and PSA grade is enough in the title as any collector will then know what it is and can bid accordingly. I know he is trying to maximize his profits, that is very apparent from what he writes. He is no Angel or Saint, but certainly not an outright crook. I still would not buy from him just because of the way he feels a need to decorate a title with BV and ignore the OC--wasting my time in the search. A PSA 9 Mantle is a hot commodity, so any bells and whistles is such a big turn off. That's just me.

williplett

The sell added some information about the book value vs. the market value on the auction. The guy is good with words. I don't blame a guy for trying to make a buck. But, I do believe that this auction is deceptive to a degree.

williplett

I noticed that the high bidder is a guy named Charless46890. I looked at what this guy has bought and feel that he is probably a well intentioned newbie. He has paid decent dough for Mantles in both PRO and SCD holders. He only has a feedback of 136. I have heard that SCD may have been legit at one time, but I don't know if the cards this guy has bought are from the era when they were legit. He even has bought a good deal of GEM cards, including a Jordan that he paid $1,295 for!! Ouch, what are the odds that the Jordan is counterfeit or trimmed?

I hate to see people duped.

fsjeter

Interesting, he has another PSA 9oc 1969 YL Mantle with a BIN of $1,650.00. I'm sorry but the guy is a flake IMO.

Scott

julen23

psa 7 eh?

Julen

julen23

psa 8 huh?


aye aye aye

Julen

fsjeter

<<keep watching and we shall see what the current market value of this card really is>>

Hmmmm. $504.99 for a card with a BV of $3,000.00. What a bargain!!!

I guess my snipe wasn't working!

Scott

WinPitcher

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May-07-06 at 21:00:20 PDT, seller added the following information:

*Note that the $3,000.00 Book Value is an approximate amount listed for a 1969 Topps #500a Mickey Mantle YL PSA 9 Mint, and that actual value may differ due to current market conditions, supply and demand, or other special circumstance.

*Card listed in picture is the exact card that is up for bid. PSA #30713005.



Still no mention that it is a 9OC, guy is a pos.

Steve

BigRedMachine

What??

Description says psa 9 o/c

o/c!! that's off center

maybe the big clear scan can give it away too!

Come on. No one is fooled by this. And the final value proves it.

TZAHL

I think that including a BV was probably not a good idea. The seller DID list OC in the description and it was very visible in the pick. If you are selling something you aren't going to specifically mention it and bring the value down. I mean, if I am selling a NM card with one dinged corner I am going to mention the corner, but I am going to try to tell the good attributes of the card. I don't see what the big deal is. The guy is trying to sell something and make a profit. Nobody bid $3000 and nobody was going to because it was stated that the card was OC AND there was a great scan. The card went what a 7 would have gone for so nobody was 'tricked' because he wasn't tricking anyone.

Boopotts

<< <i>psa 8 huh?


aye aye aye

Julen >>




The funny thing about this one is that he's probably get MORE for the card if he mentioned is was BVG, since a lot of guys like to roll the dice and go for the bump with the old time white label Beckett slabs.

williplett

I have been communicating with the guy who bought the Mantle and whose relatively low feedback showed him buying expensive cards in GEM, PRO, and SCD holders.

He seems like a well meaning newbie who doesn't know the ins and outs of the graded card market. I have told him to come to the board and educate himself.

He sent me the following question about the Mantle:


Q: How can I get out of paying for this card now..I don't mind negative feedback but try to avoid it...


I've already told him that the rule of thumb is that a qualified card takes a two grade hit. The SMR on this card in a 7 is $285. What would you guys suggest he do? Take the neg? File with Square Trade?

DeutscherGeist

I guess the buyer did get duped and tricked after all. I knew this auction smelled bad. Now that the buyer knows what is up, he regrets buying it. This proves that this auction was deceptive. The buyer never would have bid on it had he known how much the OC drags down the value of a card. Poor newbie--this is how we keep losing them. They get turned off on the hobby real quick because there is too much to know in avoiding scams and tricks.

TZAHL

SO........

Who is going to start the only sports card related trading site with the hundreds of people to review every auction that gets posted and make sure that nobody is getting duped.

I feel bad for somebody who gets a raw deal, heck I'm sure we've all been there at one time or another, but the reason I'm not buying up a bunch of 50s-70s PSA cards to start my sets is I don't know a hell of alot about vintage graded cards. I would never spend over $20 on something I wasn't 100% confident I knew about. Either we (as collectors) need to come up with something better than what is out there, educate people before they buy, or just keep the status quo. I can't believe somebody would drop hundreds of $$ on something they don't know anything about.......

nightcrawler

There's plenty of real scam artists out there and I'm not sure this guy is one of them. Not for this auction description anyway. If you read the auction, everything is pretty simple and straight forward.

He could very well be an Rip Off, I don't know? But to expect him or anyone else to freely tell people "Please don't bid high on my card, it's not worth very much" is unfair, as is soliciting bidders about a scam artist, when there's no proof of a scam. Stating the BV is pretty common practice, doesn't mean the card is worth that much. And since when has it become the sellers responsibility to educate buyers as to every aspect of the world of graded cards? And if a buyer wants to throw thousands of bucks around without learning anything........oh well I can say that because I've taken my lumps on ebay

Don't get me wrong about soliciting bidders, I think it's a good thing when there's clearly a scam. Also, the reason I found Collectors Universe is because I was warned about a scam. In this case I would think that sending the bidder a link to this or another thread, and an invite to CU, would be more in order. That way the bidder can see all opinions posted.

One thing I have learned, is that when two bidders both want something bad enough, the ol BV is out the window, newbies or not.

I also feel that the bidder pushed the buttons and bought the card, now he should pay for it.

Kurtman9

I do think the seller was less than above-board on the listing. However, you can't blame him for the newb not doing his homework on what the card was worth. JMO.

WinPitcher

The seller DID list OC in the description and it was very visible

The seller REVISED the listing adding the oc to it with one day or less to go in the auction. The only mention of this card being OC for 90% of the time was in the blurred pic.

I looked at the auction 10 times and only now do I see the REVISED description.



For him to be above board in my opinion the TITLE should have said 9OC and the description should have as well for the entire time the auction ran. not the last 13 hrs!


Steve

TZAHL

The description said OC the entire time....

bobwilley

Be careful in e-mail current bidders.
That is considered by eBay as Auction Interference, and is considered a much more serious offense than the Title not including Qualifiers

I know I have been guilty of not including everything in a title (there is only 55 characters) and sometimes you just run out of room, but things are clearly stated in the auction description and good pictures included. I know in some of the unusual Non-Sports stuff, there are certain things that are important to collectors that you might not even know. Or whether a card is a variation (yellow/white, different orientation Portrait or Bat). Of course I do not include the book value in my title either...

Infact, it can get you kicked off eBay (NARU).
They (eBay) take that one very serious (It affects their revenue. :-(

So in trying to do a good thing, you can get in more trouble than the real troublmaker.
Just be careful.

Stingray

<< <i>The description said OC the entire time.... >>




But not in the title.

cardfan07

Isn't it a little simplistic to say that the 2 pt deduction in registry values means that you should always pay 2 grades lower? I think that might be an ok rule of thumb, but it won't hold in every instance. Especially when talking about Mantle's.
I don't think telling the buyer that he should have only paid $285 for a 9OC card is an ethical thing to do. That's not helping a newbie out. Now he's going to not pay cause someone told him he overpaid by $220? How can you say that? Everyone knows that the SMR is just a guide. Most here lament at how out of touch it is sometimes. Until it's time to complain about the starting bids on a marginally deceptive auction.
All I'm saying is that there were 2 bidders who bid on the card. How far off could the market value really be?

BigRedMachine

<< <i>Isn't it a little simplistic to say that the 2 pt deduction in registry values means that you should always pay 2 grades lower? I think that might be an ok rule of thumb, but it won't hold in every instance. Especially when talking about Mantle's.
I don't think telling the buyer that he should have only paid $285 for a 9OC card is an ethical thing to do. That's not helping a newbie out. Now he's going to not pay cause someone told him he overpaid by $220? How can you say that? Everyone knows that the SMR is just a guide. Most here lament at how out of touch it is sometimes. Until it's time to complain about the starting bids on a marginally deceptive auction.
All I'm saying is that there were 2 bidders who bid on the card. How far off could the market value really be? >>



I completely agree with this as well. As someone stated earlier in the thread, there are some psa 9 oc cards that would sell for MORE than SMR. A 2 pt deduction is a VERY loose guideline. Beckett says OC drops only a half grade, and thus PSA 9 OC should sell between PSA 8 AND 9 prices. Again, only a loose guideline, and for example we give where it drops two points, there's another it doesn't. I would would think a mantle would be a case it doesn't, as opposed to a PSA 9 OC 1984 McGwire, for instance. Either way, who are we to say? Let the market dictate the price.

I'm starting to think those of us on each side of this argument simply aren't going to agree.

shawn

bsavage

<< <i>

<< <i>Isn't it a little simplistic to say that the 2 pt deduction in registry values means that you should always pay 2 grades lower? I think that might be an ok rule of thumb, but it won't hold in every instance. Especially when talking about Mantle's.
I don't think telling the buyer that he should have only paid $285 for a 9OC card is an ethical thing to do. That's not helping a newbie out. Now he's going to not pay cause someone told him he overpaid by $220? How can you say that? Everyone knows that the SMR is just a guide. Most here lament at how out of touch it is sometimes. Until it's time to complain about the starting bids on a marginally deceptive auction.
All I'm saying is that there were 2 bidders who bid on the card. How far off could the market value really be? >>



I completely agree with this as well. As someone stated earlier in the thread, there are some psa 9 oc cards that would sell for MORE than SMR. A 2 pt deduction is a VERY loose guideline. Beckett says OC drops only a half grade, and thus PSA 9 OC should sell between PSA 8 AND 9 prices. Again, only a loose guideline, and for example we give where it drops two points, there's another it doesn't. I would would think a mantle would be a case it doesn't, as opposed to a PSA 9 OC 1984 McGwire, for instance. Either way, who are we to say? Let the market dictate the price.

I'm starting to think those of us on each side of this argument simply aren't going to agree.

shawn >>



I agree with everything that you have said, but my problem is that it seems like the seller is trying to be deceptive. He is trying to make it look like you are getting a PSA 9 NQ at first glance. You have to read the "fine print," to find out what you are really getting (which you should always do, anyway). He should have listed OC in the title. I do think the seller is wrong in saying that the BV is $3000. SMR implies that the prices list are for NQ. It leaves the BV of cards with qualifiers up to interpretation.

I guess, in short, my opinion is that the seller is a lawful thief.

envoy98

I don't know about anyone else, but all I could think of when I saw the thread title was Frank Caliendo doing his Al Pacino impersonation...

"Liar Liar...pants on fire...nanny nanny boo boo"

Anybody else ever seen that?

..but I digress.

Seller should have put OC in the title. Oh, and I got screwed on my 9OC's... I sold my 68 and 69's for $700 for the pair...I believe that was just over PSA 7 SMR at the time. Oh well, another in a long line of "oops' " for me...

cardfan07

If it were my auction, the OC would have been in the title. There are just so many topics in this thread-how the seller appears to be somewhat deceiving is one of them.
Final thought, I don't believe it's stated anywhere that the SMR equals set registry values. A 9OC equaling a 7 only holds for the values you get for entering 9OC as one of your set entries. We quickly equate it with 7 pricing. That's not right and should't be talked about as gospel. If it's a rule of thumb that we as individual buyers set for ourselves when purchasing cards, that's fine. But I'm going to guess that my guidelines for purchases don't match a lot of people's.

WinPitcher

The description said OC the entire time....

I was thinking about that earlier. A revised entry is added on once a bid is placed.

So the small lettered o/c was in fact there the whole time, however with all the bells and whistles the guy had I missed it. I only knew it was OC from the scan.

Sorry to jump to conclusions but the seller here is still a pos IMO.

The title was missing the OC and that had many people who otherwise would have passed on it looking. And therefore wasting time.

Bottom line? the seller had a nice card that would have sold itself had he not attempted to decieve people.

His other auctions with "not psa" in the title show that he is to be avoided

Steve

DeutscherGeist

Both sides are dug in deep and can never reach an agreement.

I think people have gotten too desensitized to scams, tricks, double talk, deception and creative adverstising that we do not realize the real nature behind this seller. He puts "not PSA" in his titles for other auctions. That is key word spamming--its hard to argue that its not. Also, while the seller is doing nothing illegal, he is playing up to the outer edges of deception/straight description. He does not list OC in the title, but lists the book value there. He wants to draw attention away from the fact it is OC without denying that it is. He strategically places the BV in the title in order to give people an impression that this is a gold mine or to hype up the product.

Sellers do not need to educate the public, all I ask is that they plainly list what they are selling in the title. They can give some more facts in the description.

This seller is being cunning. Nothing he is doing is illegal, but that still does not make it morally right. I would avoid this seller.

cardfan07

I would avoid all sellers like this. There are many that leave that OC or other qualifier out of the title. It wastes my time, but I would equate that to the seller trying to screw me over. No thanks. I can wait. There are other legit sellers who deliver what they sell and don't try to deceive.
I have been notifying eBay of keyword spammers lately. It bugs the crap out of me that someone can put Not PSA in the title or SGC 84 = PSA 7 or 8?? and not have that pulled! I know what they're selling...but if I search for something, I don't want to return that auction.