#'9,14 & 32- "Stock Photo. This Is Not The One You Will Receive, But It Is As Good If Not Better".

These three listings offered by the same seller.

A # 9 with the above description.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Scott-9...AOSwMfhaiHSP

A # 14,
https://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Stamps-...AOSwrslainBr

A # 32,
https://www.ebay.com/itm/U-S-32-Use...AOSwIspainWa

Just wondering how often this is seen on older stamp listings?

*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

It really bugs me when people try to sell an item and place a "stock photo" on their ad. I always ignore those sellers,


Peter

I'm with Peter on this. It's a simple matter to scan the stamp itself and post it. It probably takes about the same amount of time that it takes to load a "stock photo," so why not just show what you have for sale?

I also pass these right by.

I reported all 3 listings as fraudulent listing practices. If I cannot see the stamp I am buying, then I do not buy it. Forgery.

The seller's practice is very difficult to understand, because it creates immediate distrust in any knowledgeable potential buyer.

Why post pics in the first place?

The #9 lot has been ended by seller.

As a point of comparison, isn't that how Mystic, and other mail-order retailers have sold stamps for years? I seem to recall seeing listings where you can order by scott # and condition, for a certain price, and you would get what you get.

I agree that ebay is different - not putting the right scan up seems silly, but I think this business practice has been around for a long time is my point.

There's no excuse for using a stock photo for a single stamp auction. I think it's outrageous when sellers don't post pics of front and back. If I find a single stamp on ebay that I'm interested in, but it only has a pic of the front, I always ask the seller to provide a picture of the reverse and ask about condition. It's a habit I got into after I bought a stamp based on the picture of the front only to discover that half the back had an enormous thin that was not disclosed in the description.

While it is not a generally accepted practice with collectibles, antiques, etc., there is nothing "fraudulent" about using stock imagery. It does not make the item being sold a forgery.

These are the types of unwarranted listing reports that make it perfectly obvious why ebay never acts on the vast majority of reports. The reporting tool ends up getting used for "I don't like the way this seller is listing his goods, so I'll report him!"

Glad you reported them as fraud. We are talking stamps here, not new in box retail items. Common sense.

Did anyone who posted above read the ebay Stamp Selling Guidelines? If not, note the following from the ebay web site:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies...rstamps.html




It would be nice if management of this site pinned the link somewhere easy to find.

I stand corrected. Report away...

When I started this thread' I had already bid on a #17 this seller offered. That stamp did not state "Stock photo". When I looked at other items I saw this as an issue. I read and verified that the three items spoken of have been removed. There is still another #17, 91, 95, 151, &152 of his 23 listings that still state "Stock photo".

Thanks to all for your interest and comments.

taxstamp, honestly when you mentioned this practice had a history, it did ring a bell. When you mentioned Mystic, I thought of cookie cutter stamps from the 1940's on. With a common stamp this type of offering could work.

I still have interest in the stamp that started this. I am an underbidder on this stamp. Should I run like the wind. I thought it would be interesting to see what would come in the mail, if I buy it.

Edit: I am an underbidder not the underbidder.