Boy am I pissed!!!!

xbaggypants

So I order this lot a couple of weeks ago: 1975 TOpps

and here is what I get today...



I know it's only $20 but should I file a complaint thru paypal and leave a neg?

RYan

mandeld

Well, the description does say you're not getting the cards in the photo. It's definitely not cool though. I would leave a neg and say "Make sure you read this guy's auctions very closely!"

vintagetoppsguy

Are you pissed because of the packaging or because you thought you were getting the graded cards?

JeremyDie1

Were you expecting them to be PSA graded? For 20 bucks Iam hoping you did not. I would of passed on that auction. How heck are you supposed to know the quality of the cards with no actual pics.

packCollector

you can leave a neg but I doubt you will have any luck with paypal. he never states the condition and he clearly states the pictures are not the cards you are going to receive.

just reading his style and the fact that he uses someone elses psa photo , I would have stayed away. good luck with what you decide

onlyanumber

did you set up a snipe, and if so when? The seller revised his item six hours after listing the cards.

vintagetoppsguy

While I think what he did is pretty chicken $hit, it was stated in the auction that those weren't the cards. It appears that you saw the auction within the last few seconds because you placed your bid when the auction only had 9 seconds left. You were probably in a hurry and didn't read everything. I do that myself sometimes and I've been burned.

cravetopps

the description does not say the cards are not graded, just that he used stock photos. I think you got screwed and I would hope you could get refund from paypal. I certainly would try if you can't get the buyer to refund since he is the one who falsely depicted the auction items.

bullrat

Do you consider the cards ver nice as described?

xbaggypants

<< <i>Do you consider the cards ver nice as described? >>



The cards are crap, VGEX at best, I placed a snipe as soon as I saw them on ebay which would have been within 24 hours of him listing them.

bullrat

Sounds to me item not as described

gumbyfan

1) The auction doesn't state anything about being PSA graded.
2) The seller lists the cards in "ver nice" condition.
3) The seller lists 22 cards - giving no PSA grades to any of them.
4) The seller clearly states that the images are stock photos and not the cards that would be received.
5) The seller lists his email address in case you have any questions.

Now...let's be reasonable. You made some pretty big assumptions. I'm not defending the seller, because the auction is shady at best, but you need to take a little of the responsibility here, too. Did you wonder what the other 18 cards were graded? Did you ask? ...or did you not ask in the hopes of not tipping him off that he hadn't mentioned the grades, thus enabling you to get the cards at a serious discount.

In the end, you got what you paid for. I'd take it as a $20 lesson....

cohocorp

wouldnt a reasonable person expect the "stock photos" to be of comparable condition. if he shows examples of nm-mt cards, even if they arent the exact cards as shown, then the condition should be equal. the seller took the time to use someone else's scans when he could have just as easily used his own. he is f***ing around. i would neg him and return not as described. someone else is going to have this problem with him. he could have used stock photos in psa 4 condition instead of psa 8.

chb

The seller is an a$$hole, but I don't see where you have a legit paypal complaint. Item not as pictured? I think he covered himself well in the listing -- good con men do.

NYYanks23

He has a previous neutral rating for poor packaging, you have that at the very least. I would be pissed too, his description was misleading.

gumbyfan

<< <i>wouldnt a reasonable person expect the "stock photos" to be of comparable condition. if he shows examples of nm-mt cards, even if they arent the exact cards as shown, then the condition should be equal. the seller took the time to use someone else's scans when he could have just as easily used his own. he is f***ing around. i would neg him and return not as described. someone else is going to have this problem with him. he could have used stock photos in psa 4 condition instead of psa 8. >>



As I stated, it's shady at best. My point (which wasn't as clear as I had hoped, apparently) is that the buyer needs to practice a bit of due diligence and ask the questions instead of placing a snipe and crossing their fingers. The description was worthless, the image was a stock photo and there were a ton of red flags there. Anyone who bids on that item should have known the chance they were taking. It's as simple as that...

Mayimbe

The person even takes CASH. Isn't that against eBay rules.

chb

Agreed, gumbyfan. I think your point was very clear the first time. I'm sorry the OP got screwed (too much of that on ebay) but there were enough red flags there for anyone to take pause (meaning run).

Happens to the best of us now & again...

SoonerCowboy

Another case of a seller being deceptive. I believe that the line about a stock photo should be the very first line in the auction. Also Ebay needs to ban the use of "stock" photos unless the photo is a true representation of what is being sold. It sucks that you have to go through a auction listing with a fine toothed comb to ensure that you're not going to be screwed if you win the auction. Also, $4.99 shipping for that kind of packaging. Some sellers have no pride nor respect for goods that someone has won.

mcolney1

Ultimately, the OP should not have bid based on the "fine print", but I would still give him a neutral feedback based on being deceptive. Bottom line, take the time to scan the cards you are selling, be honest in your descriptions and terms and you'll come out ahead. Just bad Karma and I will block this seller.

Carew29

Well you got suckered just like i did last month. Welcome to the club.


Don't Taze Me Bro!!!

rube26105

<The person even takes CASH. Isn't that against eBay rules>
starting in an auctin yes- they got me on that one once, you want to talk about issed i had to change 2,000 autions taking the word cask out of the one by one,at the smae tie ther postal rates went up,great month lol
randy

stevek

<<<<< You are bidding on an ver nice 22-card lot of vintage baseball cards from the vibrant 1975 topps set. We will start the bidding at a ridiculously low price of just 1 penny. Here is the complete listing of cards:

Maris/Groat # 198, Mike Marshall # 6, Frank Tanana #16, Fergie Jenkins # 60, Bill Madlock # 104, Mike Hargrove # 106, Dave Kingman # 156, Bert Campaneris # 170, Bake McBride # 174, Mel Stottlemyre # 183, Shantz/Sauer MVP # 190, Rosen/Campanella # 191, Bera/Campanella # 193, Jensen/Banks # 196, Fox/Banks #197, Maris/Robinson # 199, Yaz/Cepeda # 205, Burroughs/Garvey # 212, Johnny Grub # 298, Barry Foote # 229, Jim Kaat # 243, & Forster/Marshall (Leading Firemen) # 313.

Will accept the following methods of payment: PAYPAL, Cashiers Check / Personal Check, Money Orders, & CASH. (Item will not be shipped until payment is processed/confirmed).

Please bid with confidence...EXCELLENT EBAY RATING! If you have any questions, please drop a line to tjmcollectibles@hotmail.com

Thank you for looking & Good Luck With Your Bid! AND Please view our other listings as well!!!

The picture of cards are from stock photos. They are not the actual cards that the auction winner will receive. >>>>>

Sorry to say this but from all your experience on ebay, you should have known better and basically expected exactly what you received. But you took a shot and hoped for more but you didn't get "gradable" cards...you rolled the dice and lost...craps, line out.

yankeeno7

Real fine line here. It's ALMOST a bait and switch. He is leading the buyer to believe that his "stock" photos are actually graded cards. I would still try the paypal dispute route. What do you have to lose?

Another thought...if you are using a "stock photo" then arent you saying that you get basically the same as what the photo shows? ie: psa 8 graded cards?

stevek

<< <i>Real fine line here. It's ALMOST a bait and switch. He is leading the buyer to believe that his "stock" photos are actually graded cards. I would still try the paypal dispute route. What do you have to lose?

Another thought...if you are using a "stock photo" then arent you saying that you get basically the same as what the photo shows? ie: psa 8 graded cards? >>



<<< if you are using a "stock photo" then arent you saying that you get basically the same as what the photo shows? ie: psa 8 graded cards? >>>

That's a valid point, but if in doubt then this question should be asked of the seller before placing a bid. In my opinion, obviously from the sales price, a number of potential bidders asked this question and knew this information, and therefore didn't bid. Someone with
1500 feedback on ebay should know to do this - sorry again to say it.

I would simply give the seller no feedback, or positive feedback with some comments expressed about what happened, and move on. In my opinion the seller didn't do anything wrong that couldn't have been clarified with a question from any potential buyer.

onlyanumber

I'm still convinced that baggy never saw the disclaimer. I can almost guarantee that baggy set his snipe before the seller revised the item and the disclaimer was added after the fact...baggy--what was your max bid set at anyway?

xbaggypants

<< <i>Another thought...if you are using a "stock photo" then arent you saying that you get basically the same as what the photo shows? ie: psa 8 graded cards? >>



That's exactly what I thought too. If the cards were raw in the picture, I would assume the cards I was getting were raw.

xbaggypants

<< <i>I'm still convinced that baggy never saw the disclaimer. I can almost guarantee that baggy set his snipe before the seller revised the item and the disclaimer was added after the fact...baggy--what was your max bid set at anyway? >>

>>


My max was $90, thankfully the auction didn't get that high.

larryallen73

I would throw the cards away, be happy your snipe for $90 didn't happen, and move on to the next auction!

DerekD

Stock photos should only show an equivalent item. They should not be a picture of something significantly different. His stock photos should have been of beat 75s, if anything.

Very deceptive, in my opinion. There are people that freak out if someone uses a stock photo of a PSA 10 and get a different PSA 10 of the same card.

mbothner

I would send the cards back to the seller and say that they are not as described. If there is any problem then file a dispute with paypal. You have nothing to lose and will probably win your dispute.

gumbyfan

I just found a picture of the seller:

gemint

This has to be a violation of eBay rules. They don't even allow you to use 'PSA' in an auction description if you're selling something like ungraded unopened packs. Well, at least they didn't used to allow it. Not sure now. But in this case, the seller is showing PSA graded cards and sending low grade ungraded cards. That's clear misrepresentation in my book. Sure the buyer should have seen the fine print, but it is clearly a deceptive listing.

I wouldn't pay and leave at least a neutral. Hopefully that will convince the dirtbag seller to cease the deceptive listing practice.

JeremyDie1

I agree that the seller is deceptive and misleading in this aucion. I do not see though how you would expect 22 graded cards at 20.50. If this was for one card, I can see how you thought maybe it would be graded by the sellers stock photo. Anyways if it sounds or looks to good to be true, then it is. I always ask questions, if I'am unsure or if it sounds too good.

cravetopps

<<<I do not see though how you would expect 22 graded cards at 20.50.>>>

The seller had no reserve so how would the buyer know what the winning bid was going to be? The fact that it was $20.50 has nothing to do with the mis-representation of the auction. If you put photos of graded cards in an auction, then the seller's items better be graded otherwise it's an "item not as described issue" IMO.

Most of us probably would have asked the seller to either send us images or perhaps ask if the cards were PSA holdered but the description simply states that the cards are not as pictured, NOT that they are not graded. Total BS.

JeremyDie1

I think you misunderstood me. He was expecting after the auction ended he was going to receive graded cards. I think? Read through the fine lines in his description and the seller never said graded. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what the seller is trying to do here. Plain and simple. Skip this auction is the obvious choice. The seller was trying to bait a buyer by putting stock photos and was hoping someone would bite by not reading the description correctly.

yankeeno7

Well, I dont think he expected to win the auction for 20 bucks. He or anyone else may think that it was just an auction that just slipped by everyone? I know I have won some like that...just lucky.

sagard

Ask for a refund and admit missing the point about the cards not being graded. State the cards were not the type of cards you collect and offer to pay his re-listing fees.

bullrat

gumbyfan -- now that's funny!!

brianwintersfan

<< <i>I just found a picture of the seller:

>>

Estil

I sure hope that seller didn't try to pull the insurance card on you.

Tabe

I definitely wouldn't just "accept" the $20 loss on this deal. Stock photos have to match the item being sold - if somebody used a stock photo of a red Chevy and you ended up with a black one, would you be pissed? YES. Same deal here.

Talk to the seller, then talk to Paypal - you're owed a refund.

Tabe

TNTonPMS

I'd be happy with the cards for 20 bucks myself . . .
I don't think ya did too badly .