ebayer to stay away from
olb31
Posts: 3,778 ✭✭✭✭✭
grapplia_89.
i bought a 1975 set, he took a pic of the 9 star cards and he said he never said he was going to send those, they were just pics of the binder. but he never says this in the ad. please take a look if you get a chance. i paid 550. i'm really pist off!!!
Work hard and you will succeed!!
0
Comments
basic not as described issue, pics are part of the description. And how is it a set if it is no complete? just return it....
link?
He sent different cards than in the picture?
I see what you're talking about. That is a picture of the back of the binder. Not a picture of actual cards.
It's pretty obviously a pic of the binder. I don't know why you'd think a "nice starter set" of barely half the cars would have those 9 cards included but not mentioned in the listing.
They really need to crack down on listings that have "set" in the title and it's not even close to a complete set.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings
"Complete Your Set"
The listing I saw was titled "1975 Topps 57 Percent Of Set In Binder Ex-nm". Description clearly said "its 375 cards out of 660". I don't see any deception about the quantity. Or am I looking at the wrong listing?
Is OP talking about this pic!!! The OP should be really "pist" off at himself!
Ebay agreed with me that this auction borders on fraud. they said he should have never included the pic above if none of the cards were included.
I don’t trust you that eBay said “borders on fraud”. Sounds more like you actively avoided reading. Prove me wrong.
Why would I lie? I called them and they said they believe there is a chance he will do this again when I return it.
Just trying to warn the board. That's it.
Did you share the link to the actual listing? I just don’t believe an eBay rep would say that. It’s not been my experience that they’ve expressed their opinion regarding that. I want to be sure I’m looking at the correct listing though and you haven’t shared it.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/127247273787?_skw=1975+topps+set&itmmeta=01K4QGQJ3EWYM8K4Z5G6RWEZQW&hash=item1da0874f3b:g:fGMAAeSwhutofEEq&itmprp=enc:AQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1ecNLS/MMP7H/UAzT9A9N937E5cw0oo18tvlnb8DMk3PtToXTnDk9+R5XM0UBKVdpdbH8e4HDKkI7/ea0d18jc23pazxSHx+4Eu0XAjDALKV7PZ5X+3Wo22p69oY4+03UXCha7HdQL0fu+C1eQRTQmNXMU+0hg98mhc2BhLtoKOotZZzQtdHRkOauExAL4nEzBfxIUHCzwCguASm6dp8OBSYGay/ujcdn7wdPBQSAMh6hlxjVvKjeeOOpm02Cnd05Y=|tkp:Bk9SR_Sh3vClZg&pfm=1
Those custom pages for the front and back of the binder for a set are very commonly found. I can't imagine anyone believing those were actually cards and not simply photos of cards for the binder.
It is wrong to accuse this seller of fraud when the fault is the buyer's for not understanding what was pictured.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I do not believe the seller tried to scam anyone. In fact, I think he was trying to be transparent in showing 3 photos of the binder from 3 different angles. Followed by 15 pictures of the cards inside. Fraud?
That said, I hope you can work with eBay to resolve.
Even looking at only pictures, and neglecting to read the text of the listing, you can see that there are empty slots in the pages where cards should be. None of the pictures, except the first one showing the Aaron Highlights, show any of the cards depicted on the outside of the album. In no way should the seller be accused of fraud. If anything "excitement" got the best of our OP.
.
I think we know which eBay user to avoid lol.
Im going to ask if he glued these to the binder. Not sure how they stay like this.
I guess Excitement is brewing..
No one to blame but yourself for not simply reading the description and viewing the cards. I would have moved on after the first page. Using eBay to engage the seller and demand a refund is just a copout for not paying better attention.
IMHO good Advice to Sellers who want to avoid potential troubles is not to have depictions of cards in the auction photos that are not in the auction.
While not fraud it might be construed as misleading on platform that must cater to buyers.
I don’t sell cards or any other collectibles anywhere—haven’t since 2001.
Way back in 1999, I dipped my toe in as a seller on eBay for the first time. Put up a vintage video game. It was a pretty rare one, and in the listing I mentioned that, on the rarity scale, it was lower than a few other better-known rare cartridges and I mentioned the names of those. Buyer gets it, then writes me asking where the other games were! I then provided a free remedial reading lesson...
Back then, eBay was kind of the Wild West and I never heard another word about that sale. I’m sure today it whole be a different ballgame.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
That happened to me once.
I bought a set of cards and in the posting it had a display package in the lot and I really wanted the display package and did not care for the cards because I have about 10 sets of those cards. When I got the items I asked where is the display carton and they said it was only a picture and was not to be included. I was very upset and told them so. I sent the cards back to them and was refunded.
Just out of curiosity.
OP said he paid $550 for the eBay lot of 375 cards of 660.
What would the 9 cards on the cover sell for, roughly. Is it a should have known better price?
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
a decent 1975 set would sell for around $1,000-$1,200 for the whole set. so about half the set for $550 would be about correct.
i like Ron's comment.thats funny.
Late to the game, but I am seeing a buyer who didn't pay attention. I didn't verify, but thinking the pictures show every card included in the lot. 57% of the set was in the title and no specific players were mentioned besides both Aarons and a shot of cards that are just binder decoration. I am guilty of that quite a bit more than I like to admit when viewing small images on phones and trying to be fast to see more, but I take my lumps if it's my stupidity.
Funny thing is, over the years I've fooled myself into purchasing some items I may have been better off ignoring, but after having owned those same items for a few years or more, I was able to sell them at a slight profit, maybe better. I like accidental fringe benefits.
nice post. when I bought the item 16 people were watching and he had just listed the set that day. Do you think all 16 were anxious to pay $550 for 350 commons and 2 vg hank aaron's? Or were the 16 people interested in the page where the 9 sharp looking star cards were pictured?
Did I rush to buy without verifying the item correctly. YES, absolutely. Did the seller do anything wrong, ABSOLUTELY!. i won the case without even filing for a refund. The EBAY person told me they had marked the seller because they feared he would do the same thing again, once I returned the item.
So in this case it appears EBAY thinks I'm right and several of you say I am at fault. Very different results then we see form other people's posts that complain about EBAY screwing them, huh?
The seller showed 3, yes THREE different pictures of the notebook. You got lucky. eBay knuckleheads sided with you because you moaned about being misled when the reality was you didn’t pay proper attention to the information provided to you by the seller. Now the seller has been marked(?) because of YOUR scapegoating. You’ve damaged someone else’s reputation to save your own skin. Congrats.
Regardless of one party being right and one being wrong, it seems appropriate that you were able to return a purchase that you were not happy with.
I'm not sure about the "marking the seller" portion though. When you reference ebay "person", I believe almost every one of these cases is assessed through AI, and I'm not convinced that AI can discern the difference between the cards photo'd on the binder cover vs. actual cards. To better understand this point, think about the image captcha tests that are used in order to verify a human is logging into an account such as ebay or similar. There are subtle differences that humans can detect but AI cannot.
Here is an example of a message I received this week from ebay in response to reporting an item listing title and text did not match the item in the photo that was being sold
"Thanks again for reporting the listing(s) you found.
What happened:
We looked into your report and didn’t find the listing to be in violation of our policy. This determination was made using automation or artificial intelligence."
I relay this story here because I think similar to the determination with the 1975 Topps set, deferring to AI as opposed to a human being assigned to review the details leads to inaccurate understanding of photos.
The item I reported is ebay item no. 388000453150
https://www.ebay.com/itm/388000453150?_skw=388000453150&epid=24056514757&itmmeta=01K4ZA7D403STJSKFHBDP3HDEY&hash=item5a56a1121e:g:yc0AAOSw-rBnvpGQ&itmprp=enc:AQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1fQKxbJAUKaCz58rUTcRIAtv76NYELjl0yxVs7Dz91/Znsoe0G1HvJPw+ONM+URb6g+aqJ4KkemxkadxIRc4ZXsN5ErMK4ObAYxWtKw8Im8Q+I1ZA6F+CMmCcPOV3BcJ1KupeffDtGcgncYEkQor3g3iKdt+d7gcPXvyJqoifFbjvbqA8kSWJ3BzTi4b4uRQD0RKNrPX0pWis+MVVaVcliftngc0TdkzmwnVMn04ggY1vEWpCH2+0iq8KLIt/rV6ok=|tkp:Bk9SR4rSneqnZg
I was not even looking for this item, but it came up in my search results when I was looking for a different card from the same set. The listing title says PSA 10 Gem Mint and also says Team Night. The card pictured and for sale is low grade, raw, ungraded, and is the base set with card number, not Team Night with no number. The seller is zero feedback and did not respond to a note, so I reported it because I happened to have a spare couple of seconds. The point is not to raise a fuss about this particular item. I really don't care much that it is misrepresented and believe anyone looking for the right item would be able to tell the difference and not get scammed. But, the report does highlight a bigger problem and that is that there is clearly a trend towards less reliable accountability due to inept automation of tasks such as QA/QC review, and we are unfortunately less likely to be able to trust the results of determinations like these.