First time seller-already scamming

theczar

forgot that O/C term in the title and nice hand in the photo

Jack Morris Rookie-OFF CENTERED

SoFLPhillyFan

<< <i>forgot that O/C term in the title and nice hand in the photo

Jack Morris Rookie-OFF CENTERED >>



A steal at any price given that Morris is psychic...or so I have heard.

Southerncards

I think you may be too quick to call him a scammer. While the OC is missing from the title, he does mention it clearly in the description. Could it be that the title didnt have any more characters available in it to include the OC?

Either way, it IS still a 9....albeit OC

If I sold a 2005 Ford on ebay and didnt say that it was a Escort in the title when you were thinking it was a Mustang, isnt my description of a 2005 Ford still accurate? Just not as descriptive as you'd like. Consider this also, if he said 9OC, you may pass by. By stating just 9, he gets you to look at the auction and decide for yourself if the OC issue is more than you'd like.

I call it creative marketing and a good strategy.

pandrews

<< <i>I think you may be too quick to call him a scammer. While the OC is missing from the title, he does mention it clearly in the description. Could it be that the title didnt have any more characters available in it to include the OC?

Either way, it IS still a 9....albeit OC

If I sold a 2005 Ford on ebay and didnt say that it was a Escort in the title when you were thinking it was a Mustang, isnt my description of a 2005 Ford still accurate? Just not as descriptive as you'd like. Consider this also, if he said 9OC, you may pass by. By stating just 9, he gets you to look at the auction and decide for yourself if the OC issue is more than you'd like.

I call it creative marketing and a good strategy. >>



this coming from the guy that reports PSA 1/1 pop auctions..

Southerncards

ah pandrews, how did I know you'd rear your ugly head once again?

for the record, I didnt report anyone's auctions. I could really care less how someone describes an auction that I have no interest in bidding on. In this thread, I merely chose to offer a different viewpoint.

Please get your facts straight before you malign someone with erroneous info.

nightcrawler

Here we go again

For me, qualifiers are pretty much a matter of opinion.

Edited to remove my smartass comment.

pandrews

<< <i>ah pandrews, how did I know you'd rear your ugly head once again? >>



because you know you have a really dumbass opinion to approve of "PSA 9" instead of "PSA 9OC".. and at the same time disapprove of "1/1 PSA" in someones title..

you defend the seller that doesnt include the qualifier in the title by saying "Could it be that the title didnt have any more characters available in it to include the OC?" but in past threads you've insisted someone use extra space in the title to put "POP 1"..

Southerncards

Your eloquence with words is really a treat.

The PSA 9 is accurate, it is a 9 and as he described further in the description, its a 9 OC. The "pop 1/1" you are so sadly fond of is a temporary condition. Thus, it should not be used to describe something that could be pop 1/2 by day's end.

I'd much rather use a grading company that has a grade which takes into account the centering without using a qualifier. Had this seller used a grading company that did that, we wouldn't be having this silly argument.

I'm sure that Some Great Company out there must use a system like that..........

Boopotts

<< <i>Your eloquence with words is really a treat.

The PSA 9 is accurate, it is a 9 and as he described further in the description, its a 9 OC. The "pop 1/1" you are so sadly fond of is a temporary condition. Thus, it should not be used to describe something that could be pop 1/2 by day's end.

I'd much rather use a grading company that has a grade which takes into account the centering without using a qualifier. Had this seller used a grading company that did that, we wouldn't be having this silly argument.

I'm sure that Some Great Company out there must use a system like that.......... >>



First, it may or may not be a temporary condition.

Second, it's true when you put up the auction. If you extend your logic then nobody should put 'book value' or 'SMR x' in their description, because hey-- this might change as well. Or something like 'The Newest Reggie Bush Autographed Card!' when describing the latest Press Pass or Sage Hit release should be inadmissable, since another release with Reggie's autograph could come out before the auction closes.

But this is simply splitting hairs. The fact is that auction descriptions should be measured not only on their accuracy but also on their utility- and, I would further submit, it's the utility of an auction description that's more important than its accuracy. Putting PSA 10 1/1 in an auction description is, above all else, USEFUL, since it gives the viewer an idea of the card's relative scarcity. Just as it's useful to put the cards number in the auction description, since some people may not know the name of the player but may want to know what the # is (if they're putting together a set). Or a general description of the card's condition, since some people may want a ballpark idea of what kind of shape a card is in without having to open the auction page.

Say someone puts up an auction that consists of 150 cards of a certain player. Would you rather have the auction description say 'huge lot of Elway cards', or just ' John Elway cards'. If you're rational you'd pick the former. True, the former may not be entirely accurate (it depends on how you interpret the term 'huge'), but you cannot dispute the accuracy of the second descrption, which is 100% correct so long as the auction contains 2 or more cards picturing John Elway. Nevertheless, the first description is more useful, even if it may not be more accurate. The same logic applies to the 1/1 example. Simply stating 'PSA 10' in the title is 100% accurate, while also listing the current population may or may not be. But most bidders would find the 1/1 addition to be useful, since they would at least know what the pop. of the card was at the time the auction went live (and any reasonable individual would agree that knowing what the pop. was 2 or 3 days ago is more useful than having no idea what the pop. has ever been at any time).

In other words, the 1/1 is never harmful, since it's clear that this pop. number only applies to the moment at which the auction went live. But it could be useful to certain buyers. So what's not to like about it? You can argue that it clogs up the search results for people looking for cards that are NUMBERED 1/1, and that's a fair argument, but you cannot argue that it should not be there because 'it may or may not be accurate', since as we've seen utility generally trumps accuracy.

Southerncards

Boopotts,

While I don't agree with everything that you said, I do appreciate the intelligent manner in which you presented your argument. Its refreshing to see an intelligent response to my "really dumbass opinion". I guess like anything in life, we can agree to disagree

Thank you.

pandrews

<< <i>Boopotts,

While I don't agree with everything that you said, I do appreciate the intelligent manner in which you presented your argument. Its refreshing to see an intelligent response to my "really dumbass opinion". I guess like anything in life, we can agree to disagree

Thank you. >>



yet the words "dumbass opinion" were actually more appropriate for your post than anything else..

Southerncards

pandrews - was that really your best reply? If so, you need to lay off the kryptonite, its weakening your brain.


Now, can you please cease with the personal attacks and stop hijacking the man's thread? Some of us have serious responses and intelligent things to offer.

Axtell

How can you justify not sticking in an OC qualifier in the auction listing? The OC is an important detail, and the fact he uses a poor photo (where's the scan?) hoping someone doesn't notice is just the icing on the cake.

Also, I sincerely doubt that this is a new seller...the fact he uses '1978 78' to grab more searches tells me of a more sophisticated seller than one with no feedbacks would let on.

pandrews

<< <i>pandrews - was that really your best reply? If so, you need to lay off the kryptonite, its weakening your brain.
>>



well i could have also pointed out that your mention of SGC being a grading company that "takes into account the centering without using a qualifier" is even more laughable.. SGC? CENTERING? heh..

Boopotts

<< <i>How can you justify not sticking in an OC qualifier in the auction listing? The OC is an important detail, and the fact he uses a poor photo (where's the scan?) hoping someone doesn't notice is just the icing on the cake.

Also, I sincerely doubt that this is a new seller...the fact he uses '1978 78' to grab more searches tells me of a more sophisticated seller than one with no feedbacks would let on. >>




It should be obvious to everyone that while knowing the pop. of the card can only help, and in only the most absurd circumstances hurt, the buyer, not knowing if a qualifer exists can never help, and ONLY hurt, the buyer. Thus, not listing an affecting qualifier has a far more negative impact on the consumer than any remarks involving the population figure. Ask yourself this: Would you rather have Ebay full of auction descriptions that lists inaccurate population figures, or full of auctions that never list qualifiers?

Given this-- and I do believe it's a given-- I fail to see how anyone can argue that failing to list a qualifier in the description is somehow 'better', or less inconvenient, for the consumer than listing the pop. figure at the time the auction went live.

Axtell

<< <i>
I'm sure that Some Great Company out there must use a system like that.......... >>



And we've seen just how popular SGC's cards are in relation to PSA's....please tell, which company has 75%+ market share?

nightcrawler

The auction looks as if the seller and the high bidder accounts were set up at the same time, maybe the clock struck midnight when they were done.



<<Also, I sincerely doubt that this is a new seller...the fact he uses '1978 78' to grab more searches tells me of a more sophisticated seller than one with no feedbacks would let on. >>

I agree, although I'm not sure about sophisticated, unless they went to great lengths to look stupid

Southerncards

I never said that failing to list the qualifier in the title was "somehow 'better', or less inconvenient". I merely stated that in my view, the seller wasn't intentionally being deceptive. If he intentionally didnt list the OC, well you've got to hand it to him because he got enough people to look at his auction to now cause this debate. For him, this was a good strategy if this level of exposure was his goal. Its not the best strategy that I would use however but to each his own. I think that the more descriptive info available, the better. Had it been my auction, I would have listed it as a 9OC. The photo was horrible and I agree with that but again, we dont know the circumstances of his scanning abilities. Could be that the guy only has a camera phone. All I'm saying is that the guy wasnt being a scammer, he just wasnt being as descriptive as he could have.

fsjeter

<< <i>forgot that O/C term in the title and nice hand in the photo

Jack Morris Rookie-OFF CENTERED >>



I'd also hesitate to call him a first time seller. It's probably the case but you never know.

Scott

poppie

<< <i>was that really your best reply? If so, you need to lay off the kryptonite, its weakening your brain. >>

.......and in the end in, the love you take is eeeeeeeeequal to the love................

onlyanumber

<< <i>

<< <i>
I'm sure that Some Great Company out there must use a system like that.......... >>



And we've seen just how popular SGC's cards are in relation to PSA's....please tell, which company has 75%+ market share? >>



Hey--don't dog the SGC cards like that--they are very popular--

For crack and crossover submissions!