It pays to read the entire description

morgansforever · September 21, 2006 10:01AM

Almost thought about bidding on this Buffalo set. It's not really misleading, but I'm sure someone will bid thinking it's the real deal.

ebaylink

beartracks42 · September 21, 2006 10:16AM

Pretty sleazy!

morgansforever · September 21, 2006 10:19AM

Hey Bear Tracks, it does state twice that it's a 2002 replica, but the title says 2001 Coin and Currency Set. Just thought I'd point out read before you bid.

123cents · September 21, 2006 10:20AM

<< Pretty sleazy!

>>

curly · September 21, 2006 10:25AM

What's "sleazy" about it? It looks like an honest description to me. I really don't see anything deceptive.

kranky · September 21, 2006 10:32AM

It's not right to say one thing in the title and disclaim it in the fine print. Under no reasonable definition is that a "2001 American Buffalo Coin and Currency Set", which it claims to be four times in the auction description. Once you've removed part of the original contents, it's no longer an American Buffalo Coin and Currency Set.

coinguy1 · September 21, 2006 10:37AM

<< What's "sleazy" about it? It looks like an honest description to me. I really don't see anything deceptive. >>

The listing title is incorrect/inaccurate/misleading, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the listing (as a whole) "sleazy".

A bidder (without being negligent?) might easily look at the title, think he knows what he's bidding on and neglect to read the copy. At a minimum, the title could have better reflected the precise nature of the item for sale.

coinman420 · September 21, 2006 10:39AM

amazing its getting bid on up to $51 right now. i just bought a set on ebay and submitted the buff and got back an MS68. i can`t see trying to hawk the mint packaging like that. i thought about putting it up "without the coin", the bill that comes with it is really nice. i`m just not into bills myself. i just can`t see substituting a different coin in the set

Gemineye · September 21, 2006 10:42AM

Seller states

<< Once again, this set DOES NOT include the original 2001 Buffalo Silver Round. It includes a 2002 Buffalo Silver Round Replica instead! >>

.......in the auction

kranky · September 21, 2006 10:43AM

<< i just can`t see substituting a different coin in the set

>>

A cynical person might say that it was done to fool people who look at the photo and think it's an original set.

Bochiman · September 21, 2006 10:50AM

<< 

<< i just can`t see substituting a different coin in the set

>>

A cynical person might say that it was done to fool people who look at the photo and think it's an original set. >>

But but but....it's a POWER SELLER

They can do no wrong!

Russ · September 21, 2006 10:57AM

This seller knows damned well that many bidders will be fooled in to thinking this is a legit set. That's why he has the bidder ID set to hidden, to keep people from warning them.

Russ, NCNE

Leiana · September 21, 2006 10:59AM

Well, it's a proofy 'copy' and these sets had UNC coins in them, so if you just look at the picture you can tell it's not the right coin.

Compound that with reading the description and I say the auction is okay. I wouldn't do anything like that, but the seller is not breaking any laws that I'm aware of.

-Amanda

EDITED TO ADD- The title is poorly worded.

Also, when you do a search for this particular coin and currency set, the seller has paid extra to stick it at the top!

RichieURich · September 21, 2006 12:35PM

<< This seller knows damned well that many bidders will be fooled in to thinking this is a legit set. That's why he has the bidder ID set to hidden, to keep people from warning them.

Russ, NCNE >>

I agree with Russ. I also believe it should be reported to eBay.

coinguy1 · September 21, 2006 12:38PM

<< 

<< This seller knows damned well that many bidders will be fooled in to thinking this is a legit set. That's why he has the bidder ID set to hidden, to keep people from warning them.

Russ, NCNE >>

I agree with Russ. I also believe it should be reported to eBay. >>

I believe he has been

but the more, the merrier.

Barndog · September 21, 2006 1:02PM

<< EDITED TO ADD- The title is poorly worded >>

I don't think the seller chose poorly -- he chose carefully in order to deceive.

Leiana · September 21, 2006 1:06PM

<< 

<< EDITED TO ADD- The title is poorly worded >>

I don't think the seller chose poorly -- he chose carefully in order to deceive. >>

Possibly, in fact probably, but we can't know that for sure.

-Amanda

19Lyds · September 21, 2006 2:53PM

Deceptive no, MISLEADING YES!!

BlindedByEgo · September 21, 2006 2:57PM

A case of cautious deception, with plausible deniability.

roadrunner · September 21, 2006 3:03PM

It's no less deceptive than what the meaning of "IS" is.

roadrunner

Bunker · September 21, 2006 3:37PM

It is up to $102.51...someone is going to be very disappointed

rec78 · September 21, 2006 4:18PM

I don't think the seller chose poorly -- he chose carefully in order to deceive. >>Possibly, in fact probably, but we can't know that for sure.
I disagree---

--The seller changed the coins-and set up the auction to decieve --Why else would he change the coins? Why would someone do this? To Make money on a deceptive auction..The seller knows exactly what he is doing.

A cynical person might say that it was done to fool people who look at the photo and think it's an original set.
Then call me a cynical person

coinguy1 · September 22, 2006 1:57PM

"This listing (140031099169) has been removed or is no longer available. Please make sure you entered the right item number. "

RichieURich · September 22, 2006 2:55PM

<< "This listing (140031099169) has been removed or is no longer available. Please make sure you entered the right item number. "

>>

Awesome! Good service to the coin buying community, Mark!

ziggy29 · September 23, 2006 1:23AM

<< Deceptive no, MISLEADING YES!! >>

What's the difference? Intent?

It pays to read the entire description

Comments

Leave a Comment