Buyer will not be happy?

muchuckwagon · Jun 8, 2010

What do you think, is this auction title misleading? Brantley refractors sell for under $5. Based on the $50+ winning bid, the buyer bid thinking it was a "Red" refractor rather than a red(emption). The image in the auction shows it is a regular refractor.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230479819577&ssPageName=STRK:MEDWX:IT

Vagrant · Jun 8, 2010

Yeah that's going to be either a neg or a "please return every dime", once the bidder finds out.

donrusscrusademan · Jun 8, 2010

not sure of the motives, but there is a period after red, and there were a lot of words in the title so maybe he was just trying to shorten it.

kdailey4315 · Jun 8, 2010

That does take up all of the characters allowed in an eBay title but I still call shenanigans. He could have shortened his title by 2 characters to get a REDEM. in there instead of RED.

Casebusters · Jun 8, 2010

what about the scan? At least it shows the redemption card

011873 · Jun 9, 2010

Seller did nothing wrong, just another loser moron bidder (if he complains) who doesnt read and understand.

Since when did "Red." stand for an abbreviation for the color?

Plus the scan shows the card and no where does it read red refractor.

Resident Bay Fan · Jun 9, 2010

011873 said:
Seller did nothing wrong, just another loser moron bidder (if he complains) who doesnt read and understand.

Since when did "Red." stand for an abbreviation for the color?

Plus the scan shows the card and no where does it read red refractor.

^^^ This.

zep33 · Jun 9, 2010

By the time Topps sends his redemption, He'll have no recourse anyway

bowmanchromeandorr · Jun 9, 2010

011873 said:
Seller did nothing wrong, just another loser moron bidder (if he complains) who doesnt read and understand.

Since when did "Red." stand for an abbreviation for the color?

Plus the scan shows the card and no where does it read red refractor.

100% correct. another case of buyer being illiterate and/or ignorant

Pine Tar · Jun 9, 2010

The seller is a member here and I have bought from him. I'm sure he will make this right
some how if needed.
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3359

sebpoo · Jun 9, 2010

011873 said:
Seller did nothing wrong, just another loser moron bidder (if he complains) who doesnt read and understand.

Since when did "Red." stand for an abbreviation for the color?

Plus the scan shows the card and no where does it read red refractor.

+1000

I said it over the weekend and i'll say it again: buyers just don't read.

hive17 · Jun 9, 2010

The title is confusing; not to me, but...

Where the seller fell short is that there is no further clarification in the description. That's what the description part of the auction listing is for. With eBay making the dumb-ass move to some stock photos, there is a bit more onus on the seller to describe the item fully. The title "COULD/might" be up for grabs as far as its quality and who knows if the period isn't a typo, or the wrong scan wasn't loaded (if you can say you've never seen or done that, throw stones). I don't know about you guys, but I search by title listing, NOT by what the picture looks like. There wasn't even a reference made for the buyers to "see scan" or "you'll get the card in the picture."

BUT, as a buyer, if i screwed the pooch on this, like I think the buyer did, I'd suck it up. It doesn't help the seller's arguement that at least 2 people made the same mistake.

Casebusters · Jun 9, 2010

Don't think he did it purposely because of this

7 day money back, buyer pays return shipping

Huffamaniac · Jun 9, 2010

that was my thought

zep33 said:
By the time Topps sends his redemption, He'll have no recourse anyway

Sly · Jun 9, 2010

This is exactly why sellers need to put information in the description. He could have easily noted "This is for the redemption card," but that is nowhere to be found in the description.

Buyers are stupid in not reading closely, and sellers are getting lazy in not leaving a card description...I blame both in this case.

pigskincardboard · Jun 9, 2010

Considering the scan aptly describes the item, I can understand him not wanting to type it out.

I don't think the seller tried to mislead the buyer at all and the losing bidder should have to eat his idiotic loss.

RL24 · Jun 9, 2010

I think it took a nice blend of foolishness to make this transaction what it is. The seller really shouldn't have put "red" in the title, and the buyer really should have looked more closely at the picture.

011873 said:
Since when did "Red." stand for an abbreviation for the color?

Since a really really long time ago. Whatch this: The wagon is red.

Just because there is a period at the end of something does not always make it an abbreviation.

I challenge anybody to find me ONE single auction on ebay where they put "RED" in the title when what they meant was "redemption." I looked and couldn't find one. Plenty of red hot rookie redemptions, but even though those sellers already put the word "red" in their title they felt the need to expand and put the word "redemption" in the title as well.

I'm not trying to say the seller was intentionally trying to deceive anybody, I'm just sayin'...

JoshHamilton · Jun 9, 2010

Paypal needs to stop catering to stupid people.

fengzhang · Jun 9, 2010

I don't have a problem with it. He literally used every character allowable in the title so it's not like he could've typed "redemp." He probably could've neglected to put "red." in the title at all but then he'd probably be blamed for not noting it's a redemption in the title. The fact remains: you have to read the description and look at the scan. It's very clear what you're getting.

asmth312 · Jun 9, 2010

I see a lot of auctions with "red" or "red." in the title for Chrome auto redemptions. To me its an obnoxious attempt to get more views and possibly bids, and a seller deserves whatever trouble comes his way as a result.

Could it be an innocent attempt to let the buyer know its a redemption and not an actual auto? Maybe in a small minority of instances. But the picture shows up in the search results and when the buyer clicks on the auction. It's obvious to anyone that it is a redemption. There's a lot more deception in using "red" in the title than not indicating the card is a redemption in the title- especially when you consider that most of the time when a player has redemptions in a set, ALL of the player's cards are redemptions, meaning the buyer isn't going to be expecting that the auction is for the actual card.

Should the buyer take five seconds and look at the scan to determine the auction is not for a red refractor auto? Absolutely. But the kind of buyer that doesn't, then files a PayPal claim is exactly the kind of buyer I would wish on a seller who engages in that practice.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Buyer will not be happy?

Is the auction misleading?

Yes, the seller intended to mislead the bidders.

Yes, it was an oversight by the seller.

No, the buyer should realize red=redemption.

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Similar threads

Log in