Any one know where the Fake Ebay item thread has gone? have some items to post.

If they can do it for Nike and Snap-On ….. !

Those are proprietary items from companies with legally protected brand names. They’d be mad if they didn’t check Ebay and ask for deletions, corrections etc. because their business would suffer. As I keep saying caveat emptor.

I don’t think it is eBay that check; it will be Nike and Snap-On that check, and then inform eBay (probably).

There are about 248,000 Nike but only 6,669 Snap-On items listed on eBay UK at the moment…

…there are about 414,000 items listed in ‘militaria’ alone, and over 7,000,000 listed in ‘collectables’!

Nike and Snap-On are multimillion pound organisations with a reputation to protect; they can probably tell if the product listed is not genuine, and, more importantly, they have the resources to check. How is this going to be possible for the faked ‘history’ of an aviation artefacts? And who would be responsible?

“Control Column from Guy Gibson’s Dambuster Lancaster, only £250, genuine bargain!!!”

Says who? And who could say not? AVRO? BAE Systems? Dunlop? Guy Gibson? It may even be genuine!

If they can do it for Nike and Snap-On ….. !

But in all seriousness how can Ebay actually impose a validity check on every item that is offered for sale. To do so would cause such a massive cost burden that Ebay would go out of business and the millions of people who use it for buying and selling happily would be deprived of readily accessible international sources for items they can’t get locally or can sell at the best price through an auction. It isn’t perfect but the while I agree that in a perfect world all vendors would be honest the truth is they aren’t and therefore it is up to the would be purchaser to take some responsibility – after all it’s their money.

Exactly. Very concisely put.

Actually, eBay are pretty hot on those kinds of issue…..or at least Nike probably are…

…I once had a listing removed for suggesting that I thought a 10mm ‘Facom’ socket was as good quality as a 10mm ‘Snap-On’ socket; and I gather it was ‘Snap-On’ who had the problem with my listing!

I didn’t try to misrepresent the sockets (a batch of ten) in any way whatsoever, they have FACOM stamped into their very fabric, but my mentioning of ‘Snap-On’ in a listing that wasn’t for a ‘Snap-On’ product was clearly enough to have that listing removed by eBay.

I wonder what eBay would do if it received a complaint from Nike that fake Nike trainers are being offered for sale on its website?

Aside from ebay the advice on the link is applicable to all sales,
https://www.lofty.com/pages/what-is-provenance-and-why-is-it-important

Malcolm, you haven’t understood the point that I was making. Maybe you don’t want to. It has nothing to do with Key Publishing and the publishing of defamatory information. It concerns eBay and the steps that it could or should take to avoid – or, at least, minimise – the risk of items being offered for sale that are, not infrequently, intentionally misdescribed. But I won’t labour the point for it seems that to do so would be, metaphorically speaking, to waste my breath on you.

With all respect AA please read what Creaking Door said in post 60. There are safeguards above and beyond what one’s own ignorance or vendor trickery may cause if you pay using Paypal etc. That’s all I use – no cash, cheques etc. If an item is purchased and it is found to be deliberately misdescribed which has led to it being purchased then that process will sort it out. On one occasion I had recourse to that and was fully satisfied with a refund. Again I come back to the simple principle of caveat emptor which places some burden on the purchaser to make sure in their own best interests that they are not being tricked. If in doubt don’t buy – that is all that is needed.

But in all seriousness how can Ebay actually impose a validity check on every item that is offered for sale. To do so would cause such a massive cost burden that Ebay would go out of business and the millions of people who use it for buying and selling happily would be deprived of readily accessible international sources for items they can’t get locally or can sell at the best price through an auction. It isn’t perfect but the while I agree that in a perfect world all vendors would be honest the truth is they aren’t and therefore it is up to the would be purchaser to take some responsibility – after all it’s their money.

Interestingly, I’ve just found this…..and, no, that isn’t me (I haven’t even read it yet):

http://www.ebay.com/gds/Collecting-Aircraft-Crash-Relics-and-Items-/10000000001915725/g.html

Reasonable advice…..but, of course, it does then link to items the writer has for sale (none, currently)!

For a £10 item why bother? For a £100 item, or a £1000 item…

…rather you than me! 🙂

Plus, as I said, there are 870,000 items in ‘militaria’ on eBay alone; do we buy all the ‘fakes’?

One way to work within the eBay system is to buy the offending object then provide negative feedback. This negative feedback cannot be screened by the seller.

There are ‘guides’ on eBay…..have you ever read any?

Anybody with an eBay account can write one, about anything (within reason), but they aren’t very well publicised on eBay and will probably soon disappear. However, because they’re not edited many of these guides are an absolute joke…

…especially the ones written by eBay!

There is also a ‘forum’ on eBay where people can discuss stuff…..never used it myself.

No, not blanket – only if ten or whatever people with known ebay accounts have made the effort to report it.

If you are knowingly lied to, and it’s your choice to buy anyway because it’s cheap, that’s entirely your choice. If a warning has appeared because enough punters have spotted the fake and been moved to report it (not that that would really happen for a branded battery) and you still buy it it is still your choice!

So a blanket disclaimer then? On pretty-much everything eBay sells…

…I once bought a ‘genuine’ Blackberry battery on eBay, for £20 including postage; actual Blackberry ones are about £180 but there is absolutely no way I’m going to spend £180 on any Blackberry battery on eBay!

I knew it was fake but I only needed it to work for one day to empty and delete the memory on an old Blackberry (which I had intended to sell, but didn’t in the end); if I was unscrupulous I could have got my money back via PayPal but I didn’t as I knew what I was getting myself into.

The fact that the seller still had about 95% positive feedback worried me slightly as the battery only lasted a few days and wouldn’t accept any charge after that…

…so we’re all the other people who bought these batteries happy with them?

Yes, but the fact that people felt the need to remind the punter of the bleedin obvious at this point is the needed ‘heads up’ at that moment on that item, without libellous accusation. That was my thinking.

‘History of item easy to fake and not proven / impossible to prove in this instance’

Sorry, but isn’t that bleedin’ obvious on every listing of that nature?

Something democratic, like ten people have complained about the same issue with the same item, then it gets flagged up as an ‘advisory’, simply stating that 10 people have voiced concerns, and thus ‘buyer beware’? And have the issue in question present as an option on the drop downs -this will make the process automatic. Something like ‘History of item easy to fake and not proven / impossible to prove in this instance’, so nothing too accusatory at any stage?

More a sort of ‘heads up’ reminder from the herd to any newbies just what sellers are capable of, and that this item is the sort of item an unscrupulous seller would do this kind of thing with. Nice and wishy-washy to deter ambulance chasers.

Did you see my post? I basically agree with what you’re saying…

…but the problem is not why should eBay do this…..the problem is how could eBay do this?

Malcolm, you haven’t understood the point that I was making. Maybe you don’t want to. It has nothing to do with Key Publishing and the publishing of defamatory information. It concerns eBay and the steps that it could or should take to avoid – or, at least, minimise – the risk of items being offered for sale that are, not infrequently, intentionally misdescribed. But I won’t labour the point for it seems that to do so would be, metaphorically speaking, to waste my breath on you.

We’ll be millionaires 😉