|
Post by purrfin on Apr 25, 2023 12:31:33 GMT
I was notified by a wonderful customer that I had a stamp mis-ID'ed. So very early this morn I took it down to wake up a bit and then do some investigating. Yes, they were right, and it was my mistake. I own it! It is in the process of being corrected.
So I did more research and found another stamp that is mis-ID'ed. Okay, I look at the description and they said "No Faults", whoa, I see a crease and I see some staining. Are those two items not considered faults? It doesn't bother me much that it is mis-ID'ed, but the "No Faults" does.
This is listed on HipStamp with ID: 43415830.
What say you? Are those faults that should be listed in the description?
Thanks for your advise, Purrfin aka Luree
|
|
|
Post by Ted Talks Stamps on Apr 25, 2023 13:52:17 GMT
On the most basic level, any deviation from mint “postfrisch” is a fault; it’s just a matter of degrees. Yes, creases and stains are faults, which should be mentioned in a sales listing, even if you think they are obvious to see in the scan. 1. The fault may not be obvious to the buyer. They may have cataracts, color blindness, or other vision impairment. 2. Even if the customer can clearly see the faults, your mentioning them in the description reassures the customer that you, the seller, are aware of them, and you’re not not-mentioning them, hoping the customer won’t notice.
|
|
|
Post by Ted Talks Stamps on Apr 25, 2023 14:03:46 GMT
I looked at that guy’s listing. Yeah, I find this listing misleading and, probably, unethical. His wording is chosen to avoid his own responsibilty in describing the stamp and putting the onus on the customer to decide if it’s faulty or not.
He says “ ITEM IS 100%no fault *IF* not written or clearly seen on scan.”
This is just pure laziness, and he doesn’t want to own ip to his responsibilities as a seller to be honest and forthcoming, in his descriptions. If you buy it and then complain about the fault, he will simply say, it was clearly visible.
|
|
|
Post by purrfin on Apr 25, 2023 14:06:31 GMT
Fair enough with the failing eyesite of us older "kids". That is why I am more than delighted when a customer points out something I didn't see. Being naivety or just plain "oh dah" moment.
I will ask the seller the question and see what happens. They'll either hate me or thank me! lol, my world is still blue skies and rainbows!
|
|
|
Post by purrfin on Apr 25, 2023 14:13:55 GMT
Message is sent. Wonder how many eyerolls he is doing! lol
|
|
|
Post by khj on Apr 25, 2023 15:43:11 GMT
A big part of the problem is that the seller is taking camera pics of the stamp while still completely enclosed inside a non-flat collector card. I say non-flat in the sense that: -- the transparent covering of the dealer card is either wrinkled, or warped due to uneven bowing with the cardstock -- the pic is taken at an angle -- you can see the glare from the lighting What all the above means, is that it is very difficult to get an accurate idea of the real quality of the stamp, and difficult to decipher what is a fault and what is an artifact of the card/pic. For example, what appears to be a heavy crease across the middle, I would say is actually a heavy wrinkle (i.e., finger crease) in the clear foil covering the stamp. Enlarge the picture even more and you will see it. The crease actually runs beyond the left side of the stamp as a thin line, indicating it is on the foil rather than the stamp. The clear foil crease also extends to the right, but angles sharply down near the right edge of the stamp. These are typically causes by overly aggressive prying open of the clear foil from top, usually accompanied by "fat fingers" (not the texting kind, but physically non-slender fingertips). However, I would say there is definitely a large paper scrap at the very top of the stamp starting at the top frameline and running across the left corner. Also, either another scrap/crease/tear at the right side of the "50". Regarding the stains, the postmark ink is oil-based, so you see significant running/bleeding of the ink. This usually can be verified by a scan of the back of the stamp. But some of the teeth at the top/corners appear to show some foxing. The rest of the top half of the stamp, difficult to say if foxing or shadows, but probably foxing/staining. Either way, not taking the stamp out of the dealer card makes it too tedious to examine an unreliable picture. Quality stamps need a quality scan. I don't even waste my time with such a seller, unless the seller is already known to me as a reliable seller of correctly identified stamps with only trivial (or very minor) faults at most. Typically, such a seller, I would be willing to buy stamps sight unseen. In reality, I would say over 75% of my collection was purchased sight unseen.
|
|
|
Post by stampie83 on Apr 25, 2023 17:13:38 GMT
If I were sorting this stamp from a packet or anywhere else it would end it's journey in my file 13. I would not even consider giving this thing to a kid starting out. Not even as a space filler. (even though I have some just as bad in my collections)
Nasty piece of rubbish.
Have I made my opinion of this stamp clear?
|
|
|
Post by CatnapStamps on Apr 25, 2023 19:21:00 GMT
That seller has a lot of low-quality images. Is asking *only* $1575 for this *beauty* (Hip Item #51959510)
|
|
|
Post by khj on Apr 25, 2023 21:00:04 GMT
If I criticize, it is only fair that I also must give credit where credit is due.
I am compelled to point out that the seller did at least remove the stamp from the dealer card when taking the pic!
|
|
|
Post by purrfin on Apr 26, 2023 10:16:48 GMT
Yes, and he actually corrected the original stamp. Didn't correct the description, but that's okay.
|
|