Ebay Seller Re-Listing Item That Was Returned For Issues, Not Updating Description

In December I bought a US RW6 MNH duck stamp from ebay seller: sewall718

https://www.ebay.com/itm/175523382392

Received the item and it had gum disturbance, which looked like the stamp had sweated/glazed to a mount. There was also a gum/paper wrinkle on the reverse, which Duck stamps are notorious for.

Seller agreed to return, but went on a tirade about grading and how he described it correctly.

The return completed with a refund, but now the seller has re-listed the item with no mention about the gum disturbance and the stamp now has an "appraisal", which the seller has created themselves and even signed their own name to.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/175627529312

The way it is still described, someone is going to be disappointed again.

Sharing for awareness.

His description is very interesting. I am not sure what his vertical 94% means as the stamp is obviously centered toward the top. It might be graded as an 85 by PSE and their population report shows that 74 stamps have received a grade of 90 or higher. Approximately half of the Scott Rw6 NH have received a grade of 90 or higher.

His "appraisal" is an eGrade cert. It is useless except to fool the fools. Not much you can do about it - ebay is only concerned about counterfeits and forgeries or stamps from sanctioned countries and only marginally concerned about them.

Amended to: The cert is eGrade the "appraisal" is pure BS.

Seller accepted your return but disagreed with your reasoning for the return. He listed it again in the manner the seller thought was correct. If returns continue seller my rethink the description. If not then seller and eventual buyer were satisfied with the description. Having your return be accepted does not make your reason correct, it may be correct, but correct is in the eyes of the seller and eventual buyer.

The first time listed the seller include one certificate, the next time seller included a second certificate. Not to put too fine of a point on it, certificates, any certificate are just human opinions and as such are subject to debate. You, OP, debated and got a return. Now wtcrowe aired his observations, be they correct, wrong or in between, but those alone do not change either certificate the seller possesses.

Now based upon your observations OP, I would not bid on the item as currently listed expecting a NH copy. However, I would happily pay $30 for this item when the no gum catalog price is $60 and hinged is $115. Assuming hinged, this is a 26% of cat purchase verses your 21.5% of the NH price of $250..

I also notice the first sale began at $1; now the opening is $30, less than both you and the under-bidder's highest bids.

Maybe I should buy it again, soak off the gum and sign it... send for grading???

Come on, Parcelpostguy, this seller is engaging in the worst kind of hyperbole and IMO outright deception. Not sure why you're defending this practice.

"Graded Superb - Among finest ever"

Utter bovine excrement on both counts.

Has anyone even ever seen this type of cert before?
I looked up the address, there is a resident at 2 Montague by the name of Sewall Hodges. Anyone ever heard of him?

Google Sewall Hodges, and nothing comes up if you add philately to it.
What type of credentials does this guy even have to certify as an "expert"?

Just noticed that the seller's label is "Sewall718".
This alone should get this guy banned from ebay. He's issuing his own certs, and trying to pass it off as if the stamp had been expertized.....

The forum engine won't let me post the name of the software (due to past sins no doubt).

It has been around for a long time. At least since the time of the self-slabbing craze for coins.

John

I don't think there's anything to stop any individual or dealer providing his or her "appraisal" or "expertisation" - and we've seen them here before from others. The prospective purchaser can, of course, form a judgment on the value of the self-published certificate.

Absolutely correct.

When I originally purchased the item, the stamp appeared to be well centered, but I saw a slightly lower number with the same software the seller is using. Even though, if a stamp grades centering in the low to mid-90's with the software, it will almost always grade by PSE as a 95 or higher... withstanding any other issues with the stamp. Duck stamps are being scrutinized more now than in the past in regard to gum/paper wrinkles or creases and gum skips. For the seller to completely disregard the gum disturbance and wrinkle and assume that they know the actual grade is dishonest and a disservice to buyers. My opinion is that this stamp would be lucky to get a grade 80, but likely a 70 or 75.

Note the current auction has the Certification field populated with "Stamp Appraisal and Expertization", which, as far as I know, is completely bogus.

Caveat emptor. The seller, any seller, is entitled to his opinions

Hyperbole in sales is not illegal, or am I alone really saving the planet if I buy an electric car or replace all my gas appliances with electric? The bovine byproduct you mention is one of the items used to grease the wheels of commerce and politics.

So when a seller is blatantly wrong, it's just "their opinion"? Interesting philosophy.

Last year a seller shipped me an expensive MNH Russian set. He placed the stamps on a cardboard backed dealer card inside of a kraft envelope without any moisture barrier and when I opened the package the stamps were firmly adhered to the card backing. I mean super-glued. He gave me some grief but eventually I received a refund, and I shipped the stamps back. He relisted them as MNH. There is zero chance that they popped off the card. he had to have soaked them. Yuck

rogdcam,

Wow. Just wow...

Trying to regulate ethical behavior is like playing whack-a-mole. You may win the present session, but the next time you play, there will be plenty of moles left to whack...

John

That too is just an opinion.

By the way, "wrong" is now defined by who is doing the "wrong" activity, no long by the activity itself.

Edited to add a missing 'o' to correct the blatantly wrong misspelling of a word even if such a misspelling is no longer marked down in certain schools to stop reinforcing what ever it is they don't want reinforced.