Anthony's Llc Dismal PF Report Card = Follow Up To 10/23/17 Discussion

Of course I'm in :) Done.

You guys aren't getting it. Please allow a critique of the test.

The seller has offered and priced a stamp they represent to be a 4L1 as they have described it. They have offered no warrant or proof that it is the valuable item as listed in the catalog. They leave it to the viewer to accept or reject their description as given. Period.

You have offered a comparison between a similar item as sold by Siegel, and you have asserted that the two should be identical. However, your assertion, based on a comparison of pictures and not the actual specimens, is subject to expert verification which you have not offered. Moreover, and this is a critical point, because the PF and other agencies do not guarantee their opinions, if one were offered in court its claims would be subject to legal verification and testing. Unless you can show that there is no possibility the stamp in question could be an uncataloged variant of what you are using as your benchmark for authenticity, it's your opinion against theirs that the stamp offered is not authentic. You have asserted your case but have not legally proved it. Therefore, a disinterested third party, ebay, is constrained to allow the seller to state his belief, without guarantee, in the offering of his item for sale. Since the seller has offered no guarantee, it is up to the buyer to decide for himself by whatever criteria he deems appropriate. [Here let me add my opinion that feedback ratings and customer testimony are no substitute for real evidence.]

I am of the opinion that no responsible philatelist should attempt to purchase an item of such value without some sort of guarantee of authenticity, so that they may have recourse for a return and refund if more adequate testing proves the item to be derelict. Moreover, the fact that Siegel, and many reputable auction houses, allows items in their sales to be placed on extension so such testing may take place, even when evidence of previous certification is offered at sale, stands as evidence that guarantees of authenticity are not to be assumed in this trade. Any buyer who pays this much money for a stamp offered in this manner under the conditions given, who cannot state the reasons for his conviction, is ill advised to make said purchase. But the venue, ebay, is under no constraint to curtail the offer against the preferences of the seller. The "court of public opinion," has no legal standing to require such a thing.

Now, anyone who really wants to force the issue can take it to court in a lawsuit, but it will be on your nickel, and everything I have said here will be brought to bear. But be warned, if you persist in making the claim that the seller is doing something illegal, you could be sued. Some of yopu have loudly said the seller needs to be driven out of business. That statement is actionable, and so would any moves on your part to try to implement it. If this seller ever began to think that your efforts to drive him from his livelihood were actually a serious threat, you could easily find yourself in costly litigation.



The alternative to ALL of that is what I said earlier:
NO RESPONSIBLE PHILATELIST SHOULD ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE AN ITEM OF SUCH VALUE WITHOUT SOME SORT OF GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY

If you really want to make the hobby a safer place, then militate for an environment in which authenticity guarantees are good for the life of the issuer/seller.

Done!

You've got to be kidding me. Or we could just let ebay know that the seller is trying to fleece buyers. Why on earth would anyone pay a lawyer just to prove this seller is knowingly mis-describing material to make huge profits.

"Your Honor, this person is selling stamps on ebay that are not as he describes them"

*Judge*

"Get out of my courtroom"

I think I plated the 1c 8A as a #9 perfectly. The markings are there. And I could prove in court that the stamp is not as described. Bring it on.

essayk - I read your argument with great interest. In essence what you are saying is that because a group of us that agree that the item in question is spurious and are of like mind in pushing the "report item" button we are committing a legally actionable offense. That dog don't hunt. ebay put the button their for people to use based on their opinions. Anybody can use that function at any time based upon what they believe. ebay is the ultimate arbiter and whether or not anything is done in this case will speak volumes about their seriousness in addressing a buyers concern vs raking in fees from a large seller. Just my humble opinion.

I'm glad you stuck with your standard "straw man" opening; I know that what follows will be a deliberate distortion of what was said. This is no exception.
I said nothing about the "pushing" of a report button as an actionable offense. That is not where the trouble lies. It comes from your apparent inability to distinguish between assertion and demonstration. The fact that ten or a hundred or a thousand of you agree on an opinion, is not sufficient to make it a fact. In a dispute like this you are challenged to provide substantiating evidence for each assertion. That has been wanting.

Consider these remarks in the OP statement at the very beginning of this thread.




The first of these two statements is an assertion. To stand it must be established without doubt on the basis of facts in evidence. Probabilities are not facts of that kind, not even in quantum mechanics.

The second statement is an accusation in the form of a query. The use of the word "proactively" connotes intention, and the rest of that sentence makes the claim that ebay's action was complicit in perpetrating a deliberate fraud.

The reader is not given the content of the 19 statements ebay chose to delete, so we are not in a position to evaluate the action ebay took.
Might there have been some claims in them that required verification or went beyond the limits of what ebay allows in "negative feedback?" What was said and how it was said both matter in public statements of complaint.

stallzer asked,



That's quite a charge, but yes, why indeed? You don't want this in court. But if you threaten a man's livlihood and business badly enough, it could end up there by his action. Just saying. Keep your wits about you and only stand behind verifiable remarks. As for ebay, surely THEY don't want to have to defend themselves against a ton of petty disputes. They're going to observe the slander laws to keep themselves OUT of court.

Step away from your indignation long enough to get the BIG picture.
What do you think of the suggestion I gave earlier for how to approach the problem?

Personally, I wish someone would create a separate board for ebay complaints, ridiculous ebay listings, bad ebay sellers, and so forth. I know this is an exaggeration, but these days it sometimes seems like half or more of the new posts are about such topics, and they often devolve into rancor and arguments. My opinion is enough already.

It's possible that there is enough information in the philatelic literature to prove that there is only one type of this particular local, and also to prove who created the forgery. Or there might not be.

If a philatelic forgery can be identified in the literature, then half the battle is won. The other half is proving that the seller knew of this information and consciously chose to disregard it. That is harder to do. But if that is not done, then the most to expect by way of penalty is a reprimand to be more conscientious. So far there are no competence requirements set down, so you can complain that the seller is not competent to handle certain kinds of material, but in the absence of a standard there is no basis for shutting him down.

Essayk - It seems as if you are saying that we should all individually or as a group not report things that we see as being misrepresented at best and fraudulent at worst for fear of legal action. If I am wrong in that interpretation I apologize. For better or worse there is no need to offer a detailed dossier when alerting ebay of a potential issue. ebay must review the report and decide for themselves if it has merit. Items of all types are reported every day without a detailed compendium of backup to the claim. ebay is the arbiter and inaction is an option for sure. Case in point: I pointed out a stamp in another thread which Anthony's claims is a US 8A. The stamp does not appear to be an 8A but rather another lower value issue. What would you suggest be the appropriate course of action?

It is an assertion. If I purchase the stamp, have it reviewed by the PF and it comes back as a US 9 that is a demonstration of fact. Stating the obvious here but for some reason you went there in your above post. I am getting close to the point of just forgetting the entire thing, saying nothing, letting sellers go unchallenged by me and watch buyers continue to be fleeced. I do not think that serves the hobby well.

The Straw Man

Essayk,

You have validated my opinion as well as others on this board. ebay is a poor place to buy stamps as they do not have the legal power nor "the balls" to police or control what they are allowing to be sold. I guess it is no different than facebook or YouTube putting up the fight against Free Speech. Only recently has Facebook threaded into the muddled waters. YouTube recently took down videos from that guy who posted a suicide. I'll stick to auctions on SAN as I feel the auctioneers on their site are a higher quality (for now). If I have options, which I do in this case, I'll stick with the better one for now. ebay has proven time and again its sole purpose is for a buyer and seller to connect, not to police fraud or fakes or counterfeiting. Unless government regulators step in, we as the customer have no recourse as they are just too big to fail.

rg - I will stick with SAN as well and do my best to refrain from inserting myself into these ebay issues any longer. Buyer beware and all of that. I collect because I enjoy it. It makes me happy. ebay has quite the opposite effect.

Happy Collecting!

Value not withstanding, the American Express Company, New York City item pictured is listed as Forgery F1 in "The Identifier of Carriers, Locals, Fakes, Forgeries and Bogus Posts of the United States" by Larry Lyons in Volume I on page 31. If correctly identified in the listing, the value would be as determined in the marketplace assuming knowledgeable buyers and sellers.

Focus on ebay policy for a minute. A cap on the value of uncertified "raw currency" already exists in the Stamps, coins and paper money policy. A precedent for requiring a certificate exists. Why not apply it to stamps, with a price limit more in line with the APS StampStore limit?

This thread has taught me a lesson, but I'm not sure what it is...

Don