won a card, received a card, but its off-center/different

[DaveH]

its only an Aaron Sanchez refractor auto... but the picture in the auction was of a different card... a very nicely centered one. and the auction stated "Mint Condition"... though it did not say "you are bidding on the card pictured in the auction" ... it didn't say much of anything, except "Mint Condition"... and the seller has 100% feedback.

Is it worth it to complain? It's really not too bad, but it is a disappointment. it's ok from l-r, but top-to-bottom is pretty o/c.

 

[Lancemountain]

link to auction and scan of card received would help

 

[excel_B]

Perhaps he didn't have a scanner or too lazy to take a picture, so he used someone else's picture from Ebay and used it to sell your card. You should contact the seller and tell him about your situation...

 

[autocut]

A lot of people do that. It's to the point, if it is not in the description, you have to ask questions.

 

[f2tornado]

It is a load of crap. I'm confident most card sellers are aware centering affects price therefore showing a nicely centered card and shipping crap is nothing short of fraud. I was having so many problems I wrote a brief eBay guide on the topic. Hopefully eBay makes a rule requiring sellers using stock images to explicitly state such in the item description. Lazy sellers should note this anyway in order to limit potential buyer complaints/claims.

http://reviews.ebay.com/Beware-of-Stock-Images-and-Photos_W0QQugidZ10000000018894629

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

If I bid on a card, and see a photo with no mention that it's a stock photo...I assume I'm getting the card in the scan.

If I don't, and the card/condition isn't to my liking, I'll contact the seller. If the seller balks, I'll file an "Item not as described."

I have no problem with seller's using stock photos, just declare them as such.

 

[ebechols]

I agree with 100lb, it is not ethical to use a stock photo of a single with a simple mint description. The card is definitely not a mint card, so I would try to resolve the issue with the seller. If he balks file a dispute.

 

[Rickzcards]

A lot of people do that. It's to the point, if it is not in the description, you have to ask questions.

Really? If the seller doesn't state that the card pictured is a stock then it is more than reasonable to assume that you are bidding on the card in the picture. It's silly to think you have to question every scan/picture for every auction. What happened is either deceptive or a "bait & switch".

 

[Mudcatsfan]

I agree with 100lb, it is not ethical to use a stock photo of a single with a simple mint description. The card is definitely not a mint card, so I would try to resolve the issue with the seller. If he balks file a dispute.

1 hundred pound? Does that mean you only half-way agree with him???

 

[glewis22]

A lot of people do that. It's to the point, if it is not in the description, you have to ask questions.

Yeah and telling him its Mint when its off center is his fault too right?

 

[DaveH]

auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... MEWNX%3AIT

card i received:

 

[mredsox89]

A lot of people do that. It's to the point, if it is not in the description, you have to ask questions.

Completely disagree. If you don't plan on sending the exact card pictured just write that its a stock photo in the description or you set yourself up for a chargeback that you will lose if the buyer is unhappy. It takes all of 2 seconds to write stock photo or 2 mins to get an actual scan, and it's not like scanners are expensive anymore either.

 

[Lancemountain]

That is clearly a different card. If you are unhappy with the price you should win your case easily

 

[ThoseBackPages]

return it

 

[Halonut]

auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... MEWNX%3AIT

card i received:

side by side, the centering doesn't seem to be too far off. the quality of the graph is a little worse but not bad enough that it should be returned. i agree with what everyone has said regarding stock photos but all things considered, t doesn't seem as if the card you received is in horrible shape.

 

[hive17]

Call me crazy (and Dave, YOUR opinion is the only one that matters, not mine), but I don't know as the card in the auction isn't the same one. Could be my eyes playing tricks, but the auction card looks rather OC too.

But if you're sure it's not, then return it; it's your right as the buyer.

 

[Halonut]

Call me crazy (and Dave, YOUR opinion is the only one that matters, not mine), but I don't know as the card in the auction isn't the same one. Could be my eyes playing tricks, but the auction card looks rather OC too.

But if you're sure it's not, then return it; it's your right as the buyer.

the sigs are a little different but the centering is just as bad in the auction photo. it's the white background which is throwing it off.

 

[hive17]

Call me crazy (and Dave, YOUR opinion is the only one that matters, not mine), but I don't know as the card in the auction isn't the same one. Could be my eyes playing tricks, but the auction card looks rather OC too.

But if you're sure it's not, then return it; it's your right as the buyer.

the sigs are a little different but the centering is just as bad in the auction photo. it's the white background which is throwing it off.

Nevermind my point, the autos are TOTALLY different. Good catch. It's a completely different card.

 

[DaveH]

thanks for the feedback guys. again, i'm not upset or anything. just disappointed. but i don't think its worth it to file a chargeback or ship it back. if it was a higher-dollar card, then i would... but i don't want to spend $3 shipping it back when i only spent $10 in the first place.

I just hope this isn't a trend thats going to get more popular with sellers

 

[SamHell]

As a seller, is there any good reason for not listing the serial number of the card? The seller in this case didn't and I've been noticing more on ebay.