Interesting way for a seller to leave negative feedback.

[WaxPax]

If the link that was posted is the correct auction, is it me or is that NOT an autographed card as stated in the title and description.....


Freddy Galvis Phillies 2009 Bowman Chrome Blue Refractor Auto RC 150 Graded 8 5 | eBay

 

[George_Calfas]

So title states the grade is 8.5.
The zoom function allows the words "NM-MT+" to be seen.
The description states GMA Grading Gem MT 10

Prior to bidding, the auction ending, or paying did at anytime you email the seller to seek clarification on the conflicting wording?

Seems to be an error in editing and possibly an artifact from a previous auction when the seller created the listing.....maybe from another?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I don't care about the wording in the auction. I care about the picture. The picture was doctored. I am not asking you, George, or anyone else, whether neutral or negative feedback is warranted. I have been on eBay for 15 years. I know what type of feedback is warranted in my opinion. It's my feedback, I'll leave what I want.

This is why people don't post helpful things on this board.

 

[James52411]

If the picture was edited (via photoshop; etc.), that's a deceitful listing.

 

[WaxPax]

Jeff, is the card Autographed?

I don't care about the wording in the auction. I care about the picture. The picture was doctored. I am not asking you, George, or anyone else, whether neutral or negative feedback is warranted. I have been on eBay for 15 years. I know what type of feedback is warranted in my opinion. It's my feedback, I'll leave what I want.

This is why people don't post helpful things on this board.

 

[George_Calfas]

I did not offer feedback advice, I simply asked about the wording and your actions since the picture and zoom function are working for this listing.
For an "Off Brand" grading company to grade a card 8.5 there should be an assumed defect, in fact an 8.5 from any grading company should signal an imperfection. I own plenty of PSA 8 and 8.5 refractors and many of those grades due to surface blemishes.

I look forward to your scan of the card.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Jeff, is the card Autographed?

Yes.

After I received it, I cracked it out of the case, and wrote in big, bold, sharpie, "BOB LOBLAW" across the front of it.

 

[alexs64]

I don't care about the wording in the auction. I care about the picture. The picture was doctored. I am not asking you, George, or anyone else, whether neutral or negative feedback is warranted. I have been on eBay for 15 years. I know what type of feedback is warranted in my opinion. It's my feedback, I'll leave what I want.

This is why people don't post helpful things on this board.

If you are going to leave what you want anyways, why post a thread about this thing. You went in on a XXXXty card and didn't like the outcome of your dealings. Moral of the story? How about don't buy XXXXty cards.

 

[WaxPax]

So you don't care that the title & description of the auction say the card is autographed... is that what I take from your reply

Yes.

After I received it, I cracked it out of the case, and wrote in big, bold, sharpie, "BOB LOBLAW" across the front of it.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

So you don't care that the title & description of the auction say the card is autographed... is that what I take from your reply

What you can take from my reply is that the card itself doesn't matter. What you can take is that people are ******** and will buy your items solely as an attempt to leave negative feedback.

 

[jcmint]

It wasn't in near mint condition either.

You seem to be missing the point. If the seller tries to "make it right" by fixing an intentional act, that doesn't make it right.

Let's say you go to a baseball card store and steal a box of Bowman Chrome. But right when you get out the door, the owner stops you. You say, okay, ya got me, here's the $70 for the box. Does that absolve you of all wrongdoing?

Furthermore, under contract law, I'm owed this card in "near mint-mint" shape. Not $9.99, but this card. As this is eBay and not the real world, I can't get specific performance, and there is not a large enough sample size to determine the true value of same.

In this situation, there was clearly intent to defraud with a lousy picture and inaccurate description. The seller offered me my money back. And I appreciate that, but that, like paying for the Bowman Chrome box, does not absolve the seller of all wrongdoing.

The seller's follow up actions by hitting my overpriced BIN/BO only confirms the fact that he's a scumbag.

An off brand 8.5 is gonna be certainly not to anyones liking. A surface dimple is not gonna knock a grade down to an 8 overall provided the rest of the card is clean. I have seen 9.5's with surface dimple. 2008 monteros come to mind for having dimples and grading out 9.5.

 

[WaxPax]

I wanted to point out to the others posting here, that not only is the grade of the card in question (8.5 vs Gem mint), but the seller also listed it as an autographed card, when clearly it is not.....

What you can take from my reply is that the card itself doesn't matter. What you can take is that people are ******** and will buy your items solely as an attempt to leave negative feedback.

 

[EmeraldRain]

Did I miss the post with the scan of the card in it's current condition?

Calling out a seller for being deceitful and not showing the evidence to prove why seems kind of deceitful in itself.

 

[markakis8]

How are you a mod again? You are so rude to people. Just because I think this situation is a joke, doesn't give you the right to call me names and be a general ****** to me when I have not attacked you in any way, shape or form. Just because I have an opinion on the subject? I'll tell you what, maybe Jeff shouldn't post this XXXX if he can't handle other people's responses and opinions.

You are the most confrontational person I've ever come across, definitely on this forum. You have to quote every post directed at you and give this long-winded harangue. I can be overly dramatic myself, but your posts have single-handedly made me work on that.

 

[markakis8]

Keep attacking me personally for no reason. It doesn't bother me. Again, how you are a mod here blows my mind.

Clearly.

 

[markakis8]

If the link that was posted is the correct auction, is it me or is that NOT an autographed card as stated in the title and description.....


Freddy Galvis Phillies 2009 Bowman Chrome Blue Refractor Auto RC 150 Graded 8 5 | eBay

That was the first thing I noticed too. Surprised it never came up.

 

[Erich]

Yes.

After I received it, I cracked it out of the case, and wrote in big, bold, sharpie, "BOB LOBLAW" across the front of it.

If you cracked out of the case how do we know that the card was not damaged after you broke the case. The scan the seller provided looks like nothing is wrong with the card.

 

[danimal]

What you can take from my reply is that the card itself doesn't matter. What you can take is that people are ******** and will buy your items solely as an attempt to leave negative feedback.

Is that a fact or merely your opinion? Do you have any proof the buyer/seller bought your card only to extort feedback or is that your opinion?

 

[sportscardtheory]

You are the most confrontational person I've ever come across, definitely on this forum. You have to quote every post directed at you and give this long-winded harangue. I can be overly dramatic myself, but your posts have single-handedly made me work on that.

You're welcome. Glad I could help.

 

[hive17]

Couple things

1. 33 posts were made and apparent opinions formed before ANYONE besides the OP got to see the auction in question. There was a lot of aggrandizing of people's own opinoins.

2. I looked at the auction, and I can't see where the card's picture was doctored. It may well have been, but until we see visual proof of a hidden defect, again, there's a lot of baseless claims and opinions being tossed about.

3. The seller's actions after he was informed he would be hit with a less-than-positive were scummy, but he was clearly never offered a chance to rectify the situation (again, this assumes that the photo fraud did actually occur, which hasn't been proven yet).