Anybody else think this is misleading????

PoppaJ · April 14, 2009 10:00AM

Search 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and look what pops up ... LINK

storm888 · April 14, 2009 10:05AM

Listed in category: Books > Catalogs > Auction

........

It's not how I would sell a catalog, but it's prolly only "misleading"
if the shopper is not paying any attention at all.

SoonerCowboy · April 14, 2009 10:33AM

Keyword spamming. A blatant Ebay violation.

digicat · April 14, 2009 10:41AM

It's a scumbag looking for someone who isn't paying attention.

stevek · April 14, 2009 11:27AM

Hard to believe ebay would allow this - it's really nothing more than an ad for the auction.

SDSportsFan · April 14, 2009 11:54AM

<< <i>It's a scumbag looking for someone who isn't paying attention. >>

I don't know about that exactly...the seller is actually Heritage Auctions. They've got multiple listings for the catalogs, all listed under different lots in their upcoming auction. Check out this one:

1963 Rose

I can't believe an upscale auction house would resort to these kinds of tactics

Steve

Mphilking · April 14, 2009 11:58AM

Not that it will do any good, but I PMed them and gave them a pleasant opinion of their title and use of pictures.

scashaggy · April 14, 2009 12:11PM

Here are a couple I came across today.

Ali 1

Ali 2

SidePocket · April 14, 2009 12:15PM

Desperation.

ElToroLoco · April 14, 2009 12:45PM

It's probably an eBay violation. I do believe they are all misleading. I suppose it's advertising for their current/future auction.

firedawg45 · April 15, 2009 4:14AM

3 bids on the rose already. yep i think they think they are bidding on that sweet rose.. very wrong..

Mphilking · April 17, 2009 12:03AM

Here's the response I rec'd from them about their auction being misleading.

Thank you for your comment, though I would argue that you are underestimating the intelligence of collectors if you feel that the multiple explanations, both in the title and body copy, that this auction is for a catalog, are insufficient. Though certainly no bidder missing these bold references will be required to pay.

WinPitcher · April 17, 2009 12:11AM

From what I understand only out dated catalogs can be sold. on ebay not current ones.

There is a thread over at 54 regarding this.

Someone there pulled up the policy.

Steve

WinPitcher · April 17, 2009 12:14AM

Catalog Sales

Listings of catalogs from which buyers may directly order are not permitted.

Old and collectible catalogs (from which you can no longer place an order) are permissible. However, the title or description may not contain extensive lists of specific items included in the catalog. Sellers wishing to list these catalogs should review the Additional Information section below and adhere to its policies.

Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:

Listing cancellation

Limits on account privileges

Account suspension

Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings

Loss of PowerSeller status

If we are going to abide by ebays TOS for free shipping etc then we should abide by them all.

Steve

theskypilot · April 17, 2009 12:51AM

ALSO HAS ONE RUNNING WITH A 1965 PSA 8 NAMATH

ITEM #270374505834

storm888 · April 17, 2009 12:57AM

While the original question was regarding "misleading," the
listings all appear to be EBAY TOS violations.

scoutsout47 · April 18, 2009 2:19AM

I just asked this seller if he had thought of what he might say to the winning bidder of this Rose card once he/she realizes that they just paid $200+ for a catalog. Pretty shady, and despite his earlier response that we're underestimating the intelligence of his bidders, a picture is worth a 1,000 words -- and he knows it!

Mphilking · April 18, 2009 2:31AM

I responded to his PM to me(above) Perhaps I was too harsh.
C'mon. I think the one underestimating intelligence is you. Why a picture of just the card and not the auction catalog page? I think I'll steer clear from your auctions on Ebay and on the web. We had a discussion about this on one of the collector's boards and I just thought I'd ask an opinion.

His response back.

Please understand that this will be our last response to this issue, because we simply cannot dedicate the time, in the last days of our auction, to restate our position on this matter again and again. Our first allegiance (after ensuring, of course, that every lot we sell is genuine and accurately described) is to our consignors, so we will not apologize for doing everything we can to promote their lots. It is more than just our job to do this, it is our responsibility. As to your question, it would seem that the answer is quite obvious, but I?ll answer it regardless: far more people will view the auctions this way. It?s as simple as that. We are not cheating anybody?we will not accept payment from anyone who somehow misses the many cues that he is bidding on an auction catalog. We are only providing our consignors with the best possible service that we can. That is all. I can assure you that there is not a single consignor for this auction that objects to this tactic. This will conclude our statements on this topic. Thank you.

SinibobCards · April 18, 2009 2:44AM

Pretty sad that they stoop so low.

-Mike

scoutsout47 · April 18, 2009 3:47AM

It's like having two auctions in one: "Concurrent bidding is now open for our consignment items and low-pop, PSA-graded auction catalogs." By the way, how many sellers -- particularly, those sellers who feel confident that they have performed ethically in the listing their items -- would allow the winning bidder the option to forgo payment BEFORE an item is even received? I know of one now

otwcards · April 18, 2009 4:06AM

While I don't condone violating eBay's TOS, IF Heritage refuses and/or returns payment for these "catalog" auctions (as I suspect they will), then there is little harm other than SPAMMING and violating the TOS. Regardless, these auctions point out the inherent stupidity and foolishness of many eBay users. Obviously, there is an inability to read and comprehend as well as a general malaise with regard to expending their disposable income. This says a lot more to me than the issue of whether Heritage is being ethical or not.

cardbender · April 18, 2009 8:54AM

Heritage=sleazy.

Anybody else think this is misleading????

Comments