1962 Topps Baseball Forum

I hadn't replied yet because I was afraid I was going to come off as too harsh on the buyer too.

First thing I did when I read the initial post was go to the ebay auction. I saw the word reprint twice. Just not in the title. I've been looking for the Stargell (John Herrnstein, Phillies) RC. I have seen a few listed at $4.99 or lower - no reprint in the title. But when I read the description, I saw "reprint" and I didn't put it in my watch list. Sorry, RTD87, I'm with VVV on this one - yes, the seller seems to have cards that are reprints made to look like they are vintage, but when the word "reprint" appears on the auction page twice, this falls on the buyer. Thanks VVV for speaking up.

     I did miss fine print on this purchase, but don't consider this a fully a buyer mistake.  The seller waited to the very last words on his description to say "...selling as reprint" as though he's unsure whether it is or not.  In 30 years of card collecting, this is the first time that I fell for something like this.  Take a look at my Ebay listings, and there'll be no mistake whether I'm selling originals or reprints.  The seller's title advertises this product as an original and his picture presents an original looking card.  A low-grade '62T#471 is worth $10-$20, so it was not unreasonable for a buyer to mistake this for original--I barely won out to 8 bidders, so apparently others were fooled as well.   

     Had I read deeper into the details, I would have caught the suggestive "hint" by the seller.  This is part of what I'm talking about by some sellers practicing "Buyer Beware" techniques.  Dealers in the '80s were known for this type of card selling practice as described in many Beckett Montlhy reader articles during the time period--especially when it came to ripping off kids.  

     Had I not discovered the item shortly before it's closing, I would have caught the suggestive statement, but should "buyer beware" selling practices be considered an acceptable?  Why would a seller not clearly indicate that he's selling fake except to try to trick a buyer into paying more for his item?  Is this direction we want our hobby to go?  The seller was intentionally vague and deceitful.  The card he was selling was not really even a reprint; it was a counterfeit (there's a difference).  The card was also artificially aged to look original.  

     I've completely nearly every Topps set since 1951 and have many vintage cards dating back to the 1920's.  I have reprint sets for most of the cards that I can't afford dating back to 1887.  If I can be fooled after 30 years of collecting, then I know newer collectors interested in vintage can be fooled too (there were 8 bidders on this item to the price of a PR, FR, or GD condition card).  At 38 years old, I still represent the future of this hobby (see my post, "who's going to buy the old man's cards").  58 year olds will be soon looking to sell their cards to people like me and 18 year olds will someday be my buyers if they're even still interested in vintage cards.  This kind of trickery in advertisement is unacceptable.  Go ahead and blame the buyer, but it's not good for the hobby.  If you're selling fakes, then BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about it.  Don't blame the buyer for not reading the fine print. 

I'm sorry. It's not fine print. It was virtually the entire description, not some line buried on page two of three pages of description. It was right there one click away. Couldn't miss it. Unless one didn't look at all. 

And it's not vague. "Selling as reprint" tells me it's a reprint, as in not original. If the person in possession of the card "isn't sure" it's original, why should you be? 

And it isn't "counterfeit." It's a reprint. A reprint made to look like an old original. Because some people might want to buy just that. Because they want to tell their friends they have a 1962 Mantle. So there's a market for what you bought. I'm not part of that market. Neither are you. Maybe the other bidders are. Maybe they weren't fooled at all, but were paying So much for a reprint becsuse it was made to look fake so well. He's selling a reprinted, beat up Mantle. He can do that. As long as his description doesn't say otherwise. 

Could he have explained in detail exactly what the card was? Sure. That would make him a good seller. He's not a good seller. He threw down a one line description. You didn't read it. Did he deceive you? No. The pictures are of the card you bought. He sold it as a reprint. Where's the deception? 

Buyer beware is completely acceptable when buying used goods, especially when you're told what you're buying. No, he cannot send you something different than described. But he didn't. So yes buyer be (a)ware of what you're buying before you hit "confirm." And if the description seems shady, stay far away. So leave negative feedback for this bad seller, but know that this was totally avoidable and not fraudulent. You got exactly what you paid for and what was advertised. I'm sorry. It sucks. 

Pretty clear it's a reprint to me, says it twice, unless it got revised after the fact. They should have it in the title, but doubt you'd win a case against them.

I've bought a couple cards before without reading everything, then when I got them, they weren't what I was expecting. After going back and looking, the flaws were listed. Just had to eat the cost, and learned my lesson.

I wouldn't buy from that seller anyways, too many negs, and their descriptions look a bit lazy. It sucks, sorry you didn't get what you expected. Ask for a return.

Counterfeit: a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery

Fraudulent: obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception

Same seller had a different fake Mantle go for over $600

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-311-Mickey-Mantle-Authenticity-PSA-/161949549689

Even though PSA called this one "Questionable Authenticity" (their term for counterfeit, but a novice might not know this), he doesn't designate it as a reprint.  And he even suggests that a different grading service like Beckett might pass it. 

Some other past auctions of his say things along the line of "this card is from around 1911, but I'm selling it as a reprint because I haven't sent it to PSA"

Maybe some of you don't mind that cards like this are being put into circulation, either by fooling collectors, or by selling cheap to someone who wants to resell it without the "selling as a reprint" designation.  I call it dishonest though.

I was one of the first to reply by calling the seller a crook.  That bothered VVV enough that he wrote about it.  But before I called him a crook, I had actually looked at the guy's history a little bit.  My statement had less to do with the OP being fooled, and more to do with the fact that the seller looks shady.

Doesn't look to me like anyone IS NOT calling the guy shady (he definitely is), BUT in this case, responsibilty for the transaction splits both ways.  The OP admitted to not reading the description which also means he/she most likely did not look at their sale/feedback history.  A quick check of that, as stated by others, reveals the guy is up to no good.  The problem lies in that you can report him to eBay, but he is within their guidelines (unfortunately!).

I've been guilty of making the same mistake as a buyer.  I saw a good deal ending soon, made the bid without reading the description, and was disappointed when the card arrived.  That is on me as a buyer for not doing due dilligence and reading the description and inspecting the scans/photos.  Does it suck? Yes.  What can you do?  Try to get a refund would be my first response.  You can try reporting him to eBay, but who knows what good that will do.  eBay has become more and more hands-off when dealing with disputes these days.  I have found Paypal more helpful in these matters.  Might try contacting them?

As a seller, I am always astounded how often folks will make a purchase without reading the description.  I'm made aware of this when someone will write me and ask "Is this card NM or have any creases?" even though I clearly state the full condition of every card I sell in the description.  First thing I do?  I block this person and ignore their e-mail.  History has taught me that I'm better off waiting for another buyer.  On occasion they will write me asking why I blocked them from buying without any thought as to why.

Hope you can work it out...

Where are the guidelines you speak of?  All I can find is this, which is not specific to cards...

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/replica-counterfeit.html

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/authenticity-disclaimers.html

The rules must be different for cards, since everybody keeps saying this guy is ok.  I just can't find those rules.

If he says "reprint" any where in the title and/or description, he can list it.  

Doesn't matter if it's art, signatures, comic books, etc;  If he listed it without that it can be pulled.

Try listing a Monet painting without reprint or copy or whatever and it will get pulled if anyone is watching.  I remember watching a tv show, 60 minutes or 20/20, which showed folks at eBay that look for that type of listing and remove them.  Of course, a Monet is worth considerably more than a '52 Mantle, so it's a higher priority because of the amount involved.  On top of that, there are thousands (millions?) of listings to sort through.

And, no one is saying this guy is "okay".  He also has some PSA authentic Goudeys he's listed which makes it even worse cause a person that doesn't know better might think he is legit.  It is wrong, but he has figured out the loop-hole like other jerks who take advantage of the system eBay has in place.  You MUST read the listing completely and if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I don't think everyone here is "piling on" to blame the seller and not the buyer. It does say  reprint, and that's the red flag. I think they are just pointing out how unscrupulous it is to not put reprint in the title, and be staright out up front, but to let it float down into the description somewhere, so that hopefully it would be missed by potential buyers. Perhaps ebay should mandate the seller to indicate if it's a reprint or reproduction in the title.

Wow.  $600 for a fake Mantle.  This seller has a fake Babe Ruth going for over $200.  Blame the buyers everyone.  

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Goudey-144-Babe-Ruth-/162026799187?hash=item25b98cc053:g:R10AAOSwgApXAG0s

I guess if that seller was spending fake money, some of people on this site would be okay with that too according to some of the definitions I've read:

--This is fair game in the used market?

--The receiver of the counterfeit couldn't detect the fraudulent money?

--There's a market for this stuff don't you know?.

I also like how buyer honesty automatically leads to blame being pointed in that direction.  A fake selling at the same price as an original can become deceptive.  If the card wasn't purposely scratched and dirtied I wouldn't have missed it, but originals in the condition presented are worth under $20; so it's not a cheap Mantle, but an appropriately priced Mantle for an original.