We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Ebay seller jodeci78 rude...Exact Proof isn't always Exact as listed

I just wanted to relate a bad experience with an ebay seller that generally has good reviews here.

First, I didn't purchase the item, I'm not questioning the authenticity, but I was browsing and found an error in his/her listing.

I would recommend looking at the attached photo to see if my analysis of it not being the exact proof is correct...It seems pretty obvious to me.

Listing is here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/181528612013?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&a...

Titled: *NEW* Ian McKellen signed X-Men Days of Future Past Photo EXACT PROOF Magneto

I messaged him with:
I just wanted to point out that this isn't "exact" proof. Same picture, different signing/signature. The proof photos have it lower on the shoulder. The "panel" on the shoulder, from which the cape hangs down has the signature flowing into it on the proofs. On the actual item, the signature is on the next "panel" up, leaving the spot (on which the proof photos are signed) largely untouched. I can try to show you a picture. I actually flipped the proofs around and enlarged to compare. Thought I'd help.

Response:
It s exact proof. There was no backing so the photo being signed is not flat therefore affecting your perspective.

But thanks for your opinion.

My response:
Actually it isn't, Like I said, I flipped and blew up. You can easily see that it's different. Ink doesn't shift with perspective. But power to you. I could show you the collage, but it seems you don't want my help.

Then i sent the photo I used to examine signatures.

His response (I don't think he looked at the pictures to respond).
Why would I need your help? I was there, and took the picture as he signed the item.

A photograph is two dimensions. We live in three. Are you sure the pen is touching the item? Or has Sir Ian already lifted the pen from the photo?

Your sleuthing and unsolicited opinion is always appreciated.

I responded after:
You are quite aggressive, which I can understand. Please realize that I wasn't questioning authenticity or that it was a proof photo. I am just saying that it wasn't THE exact proof for the listing. Same picture. I simply assumed you switched up the listing with the same photo. Ink on paper is two dimensional (at least close enough). The proof photo already has a good portion of the signature written out in a different place than the listing.

Please, I was just trying to help. No need to attack my intelligence.

End

Please note I was never attacking the authenticity, just pointing out a mistake to which he didn't even check if he might have made a mistake. Anyway, here's a lesson for me. Never try to be helpful to sellers.

EDIT: He did respond after a few days with: "you're right. thanks!"

Tags: jodeci78

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Untitled-2.jpg, 611 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ricky D. on May 27, 2015 at 9:19pm

The attached is my disproving of the "EXACT" proof title of the listing.

Yellow marks are mine.

The responses were what I'd expect from a shady dealer, which shocked me. Didn't even take the time to check if what I was saying was true.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on May 28, 2015 at 2:12am

A lot of sellers don't like being told things and a lot of sellers seem to use the wrong photos, some by accident and a few to mislead.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock G III on May 28, 2015 at 5:50am

In the"proof" shot the autograph starts on the glove in the picture. the one for sale does not.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Viola on May 28, 2015 at 8:16am

In many cases a seller will post a picture taken at the time of the signing and say so, but not as exact proof . More like proof they were there and took a photo. I find that ok, but if they say a photo is exact proof when it is obviously not, I would have a problem with that. its still better than when I questioned a seller about an obvious Elvis 1956 pre-printed photo that was quite common. The seller told me it was a real signed photo. I even showed him one in an Elvis collectors book. He didnt budge. Sellers like that ruin Ebay.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricky D. on May 28, 2015 at 8:36am

Yeah, I was simply pointing out it wasn't EXACT but nope, ignored and it's still up with the "EXACT" in place.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricky D. on May 28, 2015 at 10:18am

From the proof photos it looks like he had two more of the same picture in his hand? So it's quite possible the "exact" proof was meant for one of those in another listing...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ on May 29, 2015 at 6:30am

I'm with you, Ricky. The word "exact" leaves no room for error. Thanks for sticking to your guns. I have done similar with eBay sellers about items where they will have the wrong description, and they've typically thanked me and fixed. In this case, I can't imagine why this seller wouldn't do the same.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricky D. on May 29, 2015 at 11:25am

Yeah, it was a far too defensive response, in my opinion. I won't bother again for the seller (not that he'll even respond). I've messaged Ebay sellers or site owners a few times. They are usually quite friendly.

We never know how many messages someone gets about authenticity or that are attacks. Doesn't excuse the response, but makes more sense that a seller responds this way after many attacks? However, I would at least look to see if the message had a legitimate concern...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Kasmar-AutographPros.com on May 29, 2015 at 8:58am

You're absolutely right. The photo is considered proof but far from Exact Proof. The seller got it wrong and proved ignorance by their replies. I didn't bother looking at more than one of their other listings but it appears this seller is a scam-artist because this looks like the same scenario: http://www.ebay.com/itm/St-Vincent-Annie-Clark-Signed-Actor-Vinyl-A...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricky D. on May 29, 2015 at 11:08am

That one's a bit more difficult, but I agree that it's not an exact proof, I wouldn't go so far as to say a scam artist, as he does have legitimate "exact" proofs.

Here's the proofs contrasted a bit and compared with actual item.