Caveat Emptor - Always Read The Fine Print.

The seller agreed to take the stamp back. He said:

"Sorry the stamp you ordered did not come up to your expectations"

Really? I wonder if I will be reimbursed for shipping it back. Will have to send it registered, so that I know he got it. And that will cost a little more. Live and learn.

RevHound, I respectfully disagree with several of your statements.

"I can understand why someone would want to use stock images. However, it still doesn't make it any less unethical"

What is unethical about trying to provide well priced common material with FULL DISCLOSURE. See an example below....

https://www.hipstamp.com/listing/bo...cv4/25496079

Photo marked. Description also includes disclosure. Items F-VF NH or better. Seems pretty robust to me.

"...high value stamp or low value modern material"

This is a ridiculous comment. The amount of time required to show front and back on a $1 item is the same as a $10k item. That is common economics and business sense. It is a free market and you can choose to do business with the sellers you feel comfortable with.

"Look at it this way, Bob...most people would not buy from a dealer if they knew they were dealing with stock images. People always assume that what they receive will always be worse then what is shown"

How did people do business with HE Harris in the past, or Mystic currently or off of printed lists from dealers like Karl Anderson? Isn't a stock photo equivalent to a catalog image?

Also I am curious about your thought process here vis a vis this purchase. Did you think that a very nice appearing $800 CV item was available for $15? So if the seller had been more transparent and you followed your own advice would you have bought this item thinking that you got a great bargain? So instead of getting a steal, you got taken advantage of. That somehow makes the use of stock images unethical? Really?

" And the stamp you send to the buyer should always be as good or better than the one shown. Don't show a gem and then send something with several faults."

Absolutely agree. This is the very nature of ethical behavior and building a good ongoing relationship between seller and buyer. Just seems to me that you are conflating unethical behavior(sending incorrectly described material with misleading stock photo policy) with smart business practice(managing business cost and providing well described common material at affordable prices).

Bob

An $800 item for $15. Bob hit the nail on the head.

Alas, $800 for $15 is NOT the issue here. The issue is that one catalog number was shown, and ANOTHER catalog number was sent. THAT is unethical. Even if they catalogued the exact same amount.

If you think that you are getting a sound $800 stamp for $15 then there is an issue above and beyond the bait and switch. No?

Rev - Your CAP LOCK is on sporadically. Keyboard issues?

I know of such items having been found on ebay before, not everyone who sells knows exactly what they have. I admit it does not happen often, but it does happen. And no, that is not a keyboard issue. I do it to make a specific point in a sentence.

Bart (revcollector) is right on the money. This has NOTHING (enjoy the caps, rogdcam) to do with an $800 item for $15 or the use of stock images. It is outright deceptive listing practices! What was actually being sold is not what was pictured. Period. EOD.

If a seller considers perf vs. imperf to be a minor difference on the same stamp, they shouldn't be selling revenue stamps.

This isn't a buyer satisfaction issue; it's either a clueless seller issue or a committing fraud issue.

The use of stock images and whether that is good selling practice is a different discussion.

Stock images of cheap stamps - I collect a particular airmail stamp that catalogs under a dollar. I saw one on ebay that had a slight printing flaw, and ordered it. Before I got it I found another with the same flaw, different seller - wow - an unreported constant variety! Neither stamp I got had the flaw - apparently both sellers used the same stock image. And didn't say so.

Amount spent made the stamps not worth returning, but I won't be buying from either seller again. That isn't even an ethics issue. I just can't trust finding anything of minor interest by looking at their auction illustrations, and I don't need more copies of the basic stamp.

Actually it is not EOD. There are two issues here. One is deceptive listing practices. The other is suspending logic to believe that you are paying for a used Yugo and will receive a new Bentley. Period. Full stop.

Will WD-40 fix sticky keys?

As I have said before, that does happen occasionally. Just because it has not happened to you does not mean that others have not enjoyed the occurrence.

"Amount spent made the stamps not worth returning, but I won't be buying from either seller again. That isn't even an ethics issue. I just can't trust finding anything of minor interest by looking at their auction illustrations, and I don't need more copies of the basic stamp."

Was the item described as having the flaw and that you would receive the stamp with the flaw similar to the one pictured(like a catalog image) or did you just assume that you would get what was pictured?

The devil as always is in the details.

Part of the problem with stock photos is that the seller invariably shows a photo of a particularly well-centered item. It would be more apropos for sellers to use either the worst, or at least a middle-of-the-road, representative of their inventory. This would serve to set buyer expectations at a more reasonable level.

I think there are valid cases to use stock photos. I have done stock photos for lots in which I have multiple copies of the same item, or sets. I just make sure that what is shown is the worst-centered, or worst-condition example, so that the customer will always get at least that example or better

Key is to make sure your description is clearly stating what the customer is getting, and that the photo is an example.

If you deceive, then you get what you deserve - complaints and lack of customer satisfaction (and little return business, if any).

I've read the arguments for use of stock photos, and for stamps, that just doesn't work for me.

Let's face it, every stamp is different. Although the vignette may be the same, there are too many variations.

Perhaps there's a color difference. Maybe the one shown is a more difficult shade to find, or maybe it's the most common.

The perfs may not be as crisp on the one being sent as on the one shown, or the other way around.

What about paper? Is there any toning, spotting, foxing or other individual characteristics which could be important?

How about fly speck varieties?

If you are selling light bulbs of the same type, fine. Use a stock photo. If you are selling stamps, take the thirty second to scan it and show that image on your listing.

I will not buy any stamp which has a stock photo shown. End of discussion for me. Show me what I'm paying for, please.

Here's a good little story to illustrate why you should always show the item being sold.

A few years ago, I was selling off some of the mountains of U.S. mint stamps I have on ebay. One listing was for a nicely centered plate block of the 1/2 cent Ethan Allen olive brown (Scott 551, if I remember right).

I listed it at .99 because it was very nicely centered and Mint NH. I thought I might get .99 for it.

It finally sold for 48.00 and change and there were several bidders fighting over it. I asked the winning bidder why he had wanted it so badly.

He explained there was a constant plate variety on one of the stamps. When I looked closer at it, he was absolutely right.

Now, if I had been using stock photos, I'd have been lucky to get $1.00 for this plate block. By taking the 30 seconds to scan the actual plate block and showing the stamp they buyer would receive, I made 48x that amount.

One of the arguments raised was that it takes too much time to do this. I can scan and center an image in about 30 seconds. Is that too much time to invest in your sale?