Should it be Buyer Beware?
Tuesday April 25, 2006
| According to the poll a few weeks ago,
reproductions have infiltrated most of what we collect.
It's sad, but true.
Many feel that more should be done to police the collectibles field, but there is only so much that can be done by third parties. At some point buyers have to take responsibility for their actions. With facts and education on the web often just a few clicks away who (besides the dishonest sellers) should take responsibility? Obviously reproductions show up all over the Internet, as well as local shows/malls, but since they are very prevalent on eBay -- this week's question is:
|
Comments
I have purchased several jars through ebay and have had no problems with authenticity but I researched the jar with several sources. I think that ebay should establish and enforce a policy that repros must be classified as such. There’s nothing wrong with buying a fake as long as you know it. It is ultimately the buyers responsibility to research the product but sellers should also be accountable for listing an item as “real” and it isn’t.
I agree with you 100%!
It’s a shame that eBay is apparently more interested in collecting fees from sellers who knowingly sell fake McCoys than protecting the buyers who purchase the fakes.
A new enthusiastic collector is probably the one that is duped the easiest with fakes represented as genuine. A fake representing an original is clearly a violation of ebay’s policies. With all of the revenue they take in, if they are truly trying to “Minimize risks to sellers”, “Provide an enjoyable buying experience” & “Support the values of the eBay Community” you would think they would spend some of their revenue to pay professionals to at least research & identify the obvious misrepresentations of items in the highly collectible catagories; especially the ones that are reported often by collectors.