1962 Topps Baseball Forum

All or most seem to agree that this is a bad seller. I was basing my comments purely on this transaction. I do actually check a seller's feedback and other items before buying, but that seems above and beyond the call of duty. I'm just having a hard time getting outraged under these circumstances. 

Bad ad? Poor information? Don't buy. It's not that hard. It's the ones who actually try to mislead that get me riled up. I figure there's enough in the world  (and on eBay) to get really mad at, why waste it on questionably bad listings that had the crucial information readily available?

One of the many problems with eBay is that the titles are very limiting. I frequently run out of space. Fortunately, the description section seems unlimited. Look, the seller is slimy and unprofessional -- he had plenty of room to write "reprint" up top. But the title of the listing is literally an advertisement, something to get you interested in buying. Then you investigate further to see if you really want to buy it. You read the description. And if you think "selling as reprint" is ambiguous, you don't buy. 

Or you'll have a collection full of 1998 "original" Ty Cobbs. 

Oh, and yes I'd be ok if someone handed me a $20 bill and told me it was a reprint. I mean, I wouldn't take the money, but I'd have only myself to blame if I did. Of course, I'm a guy who once got really cleverly street-scammed, realized it seconds later, and was so impressed with the elegant simplicity of the scam, I told him to keep my money. Because I shouldn't have fallen for it. 

I'm done now. Be careful out there. 

Big difference between the availability of '60s Topps and Tobacco cards.  Reasonable expectation should come into play.

Short and deceptive titles rarely run out of space on Ebay.

No doubt he's shady, using RP instead of the whole word reprint. There's plenty of room, he's clearly trying to dupe folks. On some he doesn't even have that, mostly the bigger names are missing it.

I have no problem with having a reprint of some cards, can't justify spending what a 1915 Babe Ruth, or an '84 Star Jordan go for, but they are clearly marked, and not artificially aged. Why else would someone do that?

Did you ask to do a return?

Only the original manufacturer can issue reprints. Since Topps never reprinted this card it is a counterfiet. File a complaint with ebay. And I'm pretty sure it is also mail fraud. I'd go after them. What do you have to lose? Maybe you can get one scumbag off of ebay.

Topps issued 1962 Mantle reprints in 1996. 

The seller is accepting my return request, which is of little concern; my primary concern is not only that he'll resell the counterfeit card to another unsuspecting buyer, but with the precedence he is setting for our hobby that I care to see sustained long term.  Do we have to pay a "middle man" to grade every vintage card we purchase? I have 1000's (complete 70's decade of Topps, majority of 60's, many 50's, etc.).

Reprints should be clearly indicated in the title (even though this one was really a fake or counterfeit and not a reprint).  It is some coincidence that all of this seller's fakes have been artificially aged to look like low grade originals.

It's easy to look at the the link I provided for the listing and other information about the seller to point out how foolish anyone would be to fall for this seller's tricks (hindsight is 20/20).  I've also pointed out counterfeit sellers before on these forums, never expecting to fall victim to one.  

I've heard that many car accidents occur near a person's own neighborhood when they least expect it.  Having completed 97.5% of the 1962 Topps set, I can typically tell the difference between an original and a fake, and have a good sense of the values of the 598 cards in this set.  A poor condition #471 typically sells for $15-$25 on ebay, so it shouldn't ring any alarms to see one being advertised in that price range.   

When you're bidding on lots of vintage auctions, while trying to list your own items for sale, as well as organize your own personal collection, things like this can happen if you are not carefull.  That doesn't necessarily make it your fault as a buyer.  I obviously missed the seller's hint.

Cadets at the U.S. Military Academy and other service academies are typically given a card upon entry containing "3 rules of thumb" for determining whether an action is considered honorable or not:

   -Does this action attempt to deceive anyone or allow anyone to be deceived?

   -Does this action gain, or allow the gain of a privilege or advantage that I would not otherwise be entitled?

   -Would I be satisfied by the outcome if I were on the receiving end of this action?     

I believe that the seller of the fake Mantle All-Star card violated all 3 rules of thumb and should be considered a dishonorable seller.  His practices are unethical, and near criminal as a seller of counterfeit cards valued over $1000.

I have reported this seller's active Babe Ruth listing.  I will report his Mantle listing while leaving his feedback (after my refund of course).  I'm afraid that Ebay may not completely understand this scenario however because the seller "checked the block" by including the word "reprint" somewhere in his listing.   

I certainly agree with the sad thing that these reprint sales have done to the hobby. I hate that I felt compelled to buy graded cards because I feared counterfeits. And I was somewhat appalled to discover that there are reprints that don't say it on the card, itself. And of course I care more about the rarer cards, so to get them graded is even more expensive. 

We can report people, but I doubt we can do much to ease our fears of winding up with something we didn't want. I only buy from sellers I carefully vet or from my local store because I'm not smart enough to tell if something is a reprint. And it sucks. I wish I could know that all cards had a date of publication on them. But that's not the practice. 

I'm glad you're getting a refund. 

Peace. 

Those are identified as reprints, this card is not.

Unfortunately, I must admit that I've been tricked again. This time, Wrights_tradingcards with a score of 39 on Ebay advertised a 1962 Topps #594 Rookie Parade card in beat up condition for $7.00 + 2.62 S&H for a total of $9.62.  With a book value of $50.00, I would typically expect to pay 5%-10% BV for a card in this condition, but for high-numbers in this set, 20% BV is more likely.  When I saw this beat up card being advertised with no indication of replica in the title and priced for its condition, I jumped on it.  Like I said previously, I buy a lot of cards on a lot of different sites, in addition to all the other busy stuff I do that causes me to not always read every single word in every single listing.  The description said it was from his grandpa's collection, so apparently, his grandpa is a fraudulent counterfeiter.  Sure, this seller listed in BOLD letters at the end of his description that he's selling the card as a reprint because it's not graded.  That's a bunch of B.S. if you ask me.  This seller is unscrupulous if you ask me.  

I discovered this card was a fake when I went to put it in my binder with the other "Rookie Parade" cards.  The card back was glossy, and some of the lettering seemed chipped away.  The red printing on the front, stating "Rookie Parade" looked fake.  I went back and looked at the listing and realized that I had been taken for the 2nd time in the same year.  Go ahead and blame me if you want, but sellers like this are criminal to me and deserved to be punched in the face.  The world can do without these type of card sellers.  It' bad for the hobby. 

Put Replica in your title--or better yet, fake or counterfeit.  Here's the bastard's listing: 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1962-topps-rookie-parade-594-/252542600508?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=L%252FYQLplKKjJVyIyo9BB1d1JaLOA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

I'm inclined to side with v3 on his stance regarding the transaction.  But one thing that really bothers me is that in the card specifics it says card manufacturer: Topps.  If its a reprint, that's deliberate misrepresentation.  It does say Reprint in the card specifics, so.....