The worst eBay seller I've ever encountered. Suffice it to say that he sold me an altered card and then attempted to keep my money when I returned the item I purchased from him. And that only begins to describe what you will experience should you choose to do business with him.
I was also interested in this card the first time around but backed off when I enlarged the scans. I have the highest respect for Michael's(and Brian's for that matter) insight and anyone considering bidding on this card should take his words seriously. Jim.
I got recently my first Negative feedback from this seller a couple of weeks ago.
It all started when I sent him an email asking why he was charging me $6 on top
of the $14 of S&H already advertised on the page. $20 is pretty expensive for
a $180 card. A month before I had this communication from another E-Bayer:
On Oct-08-07 at 19:27:51 PDT, seller added the following information:
Shipping and handling is $3.00. It is NOT $15.00. My apologies. I had entered an auction for a large item and had set the S&H price appropirately. I do NOT try to rip people off with crazy S&H costs. Now that someone has bid on the item I can't change the S&H value. If this does go through you can make a discount of $12.00 when you checkout.
The seller had made a mistake and he corrected it following my message.
NOW here what rocket9b had to say to me after I asked a similar question:
Very briefly ..
Insurance is required, not an option.
Payment was due within 24 hours of the auction ending.
I invite you to reread the auction terms re payment & shipping.
Please send your past due payment now.
Now what pissed me off is the fact Mr. Brock took over 48 hrs to reply to my message
which never answered my question and accused me of being late with my payment.
Living in Canada, I know for a fact he double charged me for insurance which I would have
paid but I needed a simple explanation. I won't detail here the rest of this discourteous communication but I ended up giving him a neutral feedback and he responded by giving me a negative.
Simply put, I would not need many of these experiences on E-Bay to suspend my buying
activities. It kind of remove a good part of the enjoyment of auctions.
Digging a little bit in the recent feedback received by him, I found:
great item but overcharge postage//pay $6.00 and real cost was $1.10 Buyer: teenclub ( 845) 23-Nov-07 13:19
Follow-up by teenclub (23-Nov-07 23:46):
This seller put me a negative feedback after that I leave a positive one !!!!!!!
Reply by rocket9b (24-Nov-07 23:56):
Complained about S/H fees only after bidding & winning the item. Very strange!
Vintage 1961-62 Esso NHL Hockey Schedule MINT (#320180723425) US $11.27 View Item
Wow!!! And I was about to do the same. Good thing I left a neutral feedback...
This buyer must really had his jaw falling off when he saw a negative feedback addressed to him.
Feedback From / Price Date/Time
S/H reduced by 50% for multiple items. Buyer still complains in FB comments. ?? Seller: rocket9b ( 1171) 03-Dec-07 21:09
Of course, this buyer had left, a few minutes before, a positive feedback with a similar comment on S&H fees:
Feedback From / Price Date/Time
NICE VINTAGE PIECE!!! FAST SHIPPER!!! A++++ EXPENSIVE SHIPPING $12.00 Buyer: clublevelcollectibles2002 ( 2173) 03-Dec-07 20:53
Reply by rocket9b (03-Dec-07 21:07):
I reduced S/H by 50% for multiple items. Seems some people just like to whine
The feedback system is good, but not perfect... You can give a positive but receive a negative even if the trade was done fairly well on both sides.
As someone who does about 75 -100 transactions on Ebay per year I can honestly say I have never run into someone who leaves a negative feedback after goods or monies have been received.
This is shocking to me!
This is unacceptable because a negative should only be given for an unsuccessful transaction.
Ebay needs to be contacted and these guys should have the negative removed.
I'm not disputing the guys a jerk ..... but the card has been graded by KSA (Krappy Sports Authentication).... do you honestly believe any seller in their right mind would list it as overgraded and possibly trimmed and creased ??
Also... on the recent negs, it appears the S/H was clearly posted as $8.00 and was reduced 50% for the 2nd item. Your only recourse as a buyer is to suck it up. One more neg. and he goes under 98% which is a clearly a red flag!!
I am confused you are saying this KSA 9 graded card has been trimmed and has creases??
How do you know?
KSA is garbage.. I purchaed a Gretzky RC in the past as well as an Orr.. The Gretzky was a KSA 8 and it had wrinkles.. got a PSA 4 on crossover... The Orr came back as trimmed from PSA and SGC. My first and last purchases of cards in their holder.
Actually I was going to bid on one of his auctions recently. It was just an inexpensive item which sold for less than $10.
I can't believe that he left negative feedback after a buyer left him a positive. I guess he was upset that the guy had the nerve to say that his shipping costs were high.
In the future, people should use the star rating system to list his shipping charges as being excessive without having to list their name.
This is the problem with feedback. People are always worried about the other guy leaving a negative for something ridiculous, so many people won't leave feedback now. I can't count the number of transactions where I pay for an item promptly, but never receive feedback--even after I leave it for the seller. Many sellers say that they wait for the buyer to receive the item and leave positive feedback so that they know the buyer is satisfied, but many don't leave feedback even after positive feedback has been left.
The feedback system was a great idea 10 years ago, but people have found ways to ruin that too!
KSA's opinion is virtually worthless and this guy may very well be devoid of basic social skills, but I'm not sure if he should be taken to task for the Morenz auction. I, of course, appreciate sellers who provide an honest, warts-and-all assessment of their graded offerings, but I think there's a gray area surrounding a seller's ethical responsibilities when it comes to cards in third-party slabs.
i totally agree with steve. sellers should not have to explain the grade of a card any further if a third party has graded the card,not to take sides here with anyone as the proof is in the pooding that this Rocket9 seller is bad to deal with anyways for obvious other reasons.
bottom line is graded cards (any company) is a third party paid service so sellers do not have too explain the grade further (what do they pay these guys for ?).it is just like a raw card where a sellers opinion might not be someone elses opinion of what there grade standards are.we all have seen graded cards that we thought should be higher or lower in grade,although graded cards are more consistent a lot of people do disagree with what grade they get.look at all the people that re-submit there graded cards to the same company it was graded from in the first place.i learned all this just by studying all the posts on this forum.
i know it is impossible to do as some people live a far but to see a card in person before you buy it is probably the best way to go but heck you can even goof up doing that too.oh well just my 2 cents worth we live and learn.
p.s.-what the hell is KSA doing in the grading business anyways,someone should sue them!
"sellers should not have to explain the grade of a card any further if a third party has graded the card"
I would agree that there is some validity to your statement if the third party that is doing the grading has some sort of written guarantee that is financially backed. Absent this type of guarantee, a grading company's holder and flip has no more financially binding power than your opinion or mine, which is why a further description is vital in properly assessing a card's value.
Even in those cases where PSA or SGC has assigned a grade, there may still be a number of qualities, not apparent to the eBay buyer, that may make a card high-end, low-end, or over-graded. These qualities need to be disclosed by the seller insofar as his abilities allow it. And the extent to which this information is divulged is the degree to which the expertise of an eBay seller can be trusted.
"what the hell is KSA doing in the grading business anyways,someone should sue them!"
I don't think the #1 problem here is KSA, rather, it's the seller. He is quite aware of the defects and alterations and has refused to disclose them to prospective bidders. That's fraud no matter what company has graded the card.
Worse yet, some unsuspecting buyer is going to step squarely in rocket9b's eBay beartrap and have no recourse for a return/refund. I was fortunate; I used PayPal (which is no longer accepted in this auction) and the seller STILL tried to keep my money after I returned the card.
I agree that usually when you have a graded card, you don't need to add any more details unless specifically asked. But after having an issue with this card already, the seller should probably say something to let people know about the true condition of the card, since we all know that scans can be misleading.
By not accepting PayPal, he is guaranteeing that he won't be forced to give any more refunds this time. Personally, I don't like the fees that PayPal charges, but I do like the protection that I am offered as a buyer.
I am always leary of auctions that do not accept PayPal unless I know the seller. This guy is obviously a crook!
Don, I would tend to also agree with Steve but there's a limit.
A seller might try to hide something with a very low resolution scan
and a lack of description. I got caught recently by a marked card slabbed
in a PSA 8 NQ. When you have the card in your hands, the mark is obvious.
It could also be seen on the scan, although - SIMILAR MARKS IN THE PAST WERE
ONLY SUPERFICIAL SCRATCHS ONTH PLASTIC HOLDER - but you had to be looking
for it. I got the surprise when I've received the card and bit the $50 bullet.
Positive feedbacks were mutually sent and the case was closed. But what if the card
was a $5000 Howie Morentz? This mark would have easly reduced its value by
a couple of thousands!!!
If E-Bay wants to retain its first place for trading high end cards, buyers
and sellers need to behave honestly. Wouldn't honesty include posting such
obvious anomalies when the item is put on sale instead of feeding the customer?
This might be where the line is drawn differently from one individual to another...
What I buyer should be doing, is to contact the seller for every scratch he sees on the scan
to make sure it's not on the card? I guess not, it would make the seller's experience pretty
time consuming, huh?
One thing for sure, a few bad experiences from players in this market could remove
a lot of shine of the activity.
Here is a 120k scan (low-res) of the card. The mark is seen, no need to mention its presence:
MW quote "These qualities need to be disclosed by the seller insofar as his abilities allow it. And the extent to which this information is divulged is the degree to which the expertise of an eBay seller can be trusted."
brian i agree with you to a certain extent that yes it would be a "bonus" if a seller would further describe the graded card but it is not necessary as a paid service was done to grade the card.
what is necessary is that a buyer asks as many questions as you can to insure you are getting what you pay for,i am shure when people buy a high dollar card from you and they are not there to inspect the card,they ask you if you can see anything more than what the grade calls.
when i said that KSA should be sued,i was not refering to your situation. as clearly ROCKET9B is in the wrong and you are right to show all of us what is going on. i just can not believe that they continue there business from day to day.
i once bought a KSA bobby orr rookie card that was graded a 6,imagine how i felt when i recieved the card and saw there was a heavy crease! i do not really collect many graded cards because of this. i just try my best dealing with trusted sellers buying mostly raw cards and a few graded cards.i think it is very easy to ask them if the card has a crease etc... and then buy the card.
bottom line for all collectors is ask the seller tons of questions,if you feel the seller is being bothered then do not deal with them,as most dealers are happy to answer your questions.also read the description real carefully before bidding.if something is confusing like shipping costs,ask the seller and then save your emails and ebay responses until you get the card,this way if it is not what the seller described then you have proof and you can bring it to a resolution in most cases with ebay. just another 2 cents worth.
This is an interesting topic, good points. Maybe I am oversimplifying it, but I am tending towards the seller on this one; I mean, if it's not obvious why a card was given a grade from the scan then by all means an additional description is, in my mind, a courteous thing to provide. I sold one of these not too long ago, the scan looked perfect but it was a PSA7 so I felt obliged to say why this was (some printer marks that my poor scan did not entirely reveal). But the whole point of grading is to get a third party opinion, that is what you are in effect selling. If KSA sucks then take that into consideration, know that their 6 is a PSA4 (most of us do I think). But I can't see taking a seller to task for not going into great detail on a card's condition when they have paid to have some "professional" do that for them already.
Guys. I think you are missing one important point here. We all know that ksa is are terrible graders but the fact remains that a seller is hiding behind a bogus company even after one of the most knowledgable people in the hobby informed him of the facts. He is blatantly trying to screw someone. KSA and almost every other like company has no accountability. They are putting nothing behind thier brand or ability to grade. SGC and PSA put thier money where thier mouth is. If I buy a card in an SGC or PSA holder and deem it fake or altered and the seller doesn't want to deal with me, I can take it to the company and be compensated. The card in question is not $50 where the buyer is hoping to cross it over. Look at the bidding, it's up there again and someone is going to get screwed. If KSA had one ounce of interest in protecting it's brand or building some sort of respect they would be buying this card as we speak. Jim.
I didn't mean "the seller" in the sense of this particular seller, who appears to be an idiot. Obviously, where a seller knows that a grading company, any grading company, has made a mistake like this then they should of course disclose it.
I think one of the most disappointing experiences in this hobby is for a collector to receive a card or piece of hockey nostalgia that is vastly inferior to what was advertised. Worse yet is when the collector has no recourse after receiving a reprint/counterfeit or an item that has significant material alterations.
THIS, in my opinion, is the most unattractive aspect of this otherwise enjoyable and engaging hobby. There is simply no excuse for ignorance. Even in those cases where a seller is genuinely unaware of a substandard product, a commensurate discount or refund MUST be offered to the buyer.
EBay seller rocket9b is the epitome of e-commerce gone wrong. He KNOWS that the item he is auctioning (the 1936-67 OPC Morenz) is worth no more than 10% of its "Near Mint" value and yet he obstinately refuses to disclose this to prospective bidders. That's fraud and I do not believe this to be an isolated example with this seller. Rocket9b should be removed from eBay and then prosecuted.
...when you said, "There is simply no excuse for ignorance." However, I think the words apply just as much to prospective bidders as to sellers. I'm not necessarily defending the seller, but I think it's a great reach to suggest he is committing fraud. I haven't pored over the language of this or his other listings, but I did not notice any patently untrue claims about the card. It is what he says it is: A Howie Morenz KSA 9 MT+ hockey card.
I'm probably one of the biggest pinko liberals in the hobby, but even I see no need for government intervention in cases where one is foolish enough to drop $2,000 on the basis of a KSA opinion. If you could prove that rocket9b had altered the card and that the grade was the result of his particularly cozy relationship with KSA, I might be willing to entertain your arguments, but as it is, I really don't even see justificiation for eBay to pull the plug on the listing.
Canadian Criminal Code
PART X: FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO CONTRACTS AND TRADE
380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Affecting public market
(2) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, with intent to defraud, affects the public market price of stocks, shares, merchandise or anything that is offered for sale to the public is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 380; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 54; 1994, c. 44, s. 25; 1997, c. 18, s. 26; 2004, c. 3, s. 2.
Even in cases where the monetary damage would be limited enough where the state (crown) would not normally prosecute, civil action can be taken.
In this particular case, a civil lawsuit could be filed on the basis of concealment where there was a fraudulent failure to reveal information which the seller knows and is aware that in good faith he should communicate to the buyer.
Generally speaking, civil lawsuits filed where there is a failure to disclose defects in goods sold are common. I don't think the difficulty here would be the availability of willing lawyers. Rather, it would be the cost associated with the attorney's fees, which may be greater than the monetary damages.
In any case, sellers such as this one should be suspended/booted from eBay, IMO.
The irony here is that if the card were raw there might be a case but I think the fact that it is in a holder would only benefit the seller (unless you could show that the case had been opened and resealed). But I agree that he should be booted, for what looks like many good reasons.
Before spending money on attorney's fees or paying for your transportation
to the court as a main witness in this affair, I would take a few minutes
to report this to E-Bay customer support.
Like I said earlier, my first move in these cases would be to bite the bullet
if the amount is lower than $100. Seeing what happened to other EBayer who
have made purchases from this seller, I took the time to report (3 weeks after
my transaction). Their response was courteous and prompt (48hrs). They won't
remove my negative feedback but I was already resigned to this.
From what I understand, this seller is suicidal (businesswise) and the best is
to turn the page and resume course.
If there's a sufficient number of people writing to Customer Support to raise
some red flags, maybe they will do something about it. For the time being, other
buyers will be trapped and it reminds us that there's a bit of jungle out there,
even on E-Bay!
From : email@example.com>
Sent : February 13, 2007 8:32:15 PM
To : Dennis
Subject : Re: Question for item #330085732639 - 36-37OPC SER. D #121 HOWIE MORENZ KSA MT 9+6 LARGE PICS
| | | Inbox
I wasn't home yesterday and I had my son following the auctions and when he
couldn't get in touch with me near the end of the auction he went and
accepted it. I was expecting to get bids around $3,250. to $3,750. I wish
that I could cancel it and now I am hoping that the buyer changes his mind
I will let you know if the buyer doesn't pay for the card.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Question for item #330085732639 - 36-37OPC SER. D #121 HOWIE
MORENZ KSA MT 9+6 LARGE PICS
> Hi Bill,
> I was really surprised you sold it at that price. If I knew you would sell
> it so cheap, I would have made a better offer. Anyways, congrats in
> this beautiful card.
> >From: firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: Dennis
> >Subject: Re: Question for item #330085732639 - 36-37OPC SER. D #121 HOWIE
> >MORENZ KSA MT 9+6 LARGE PICS
> >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:05:50 -0800
> >this is the only card from that series. I have had this card for about 4
> >years and this is how I got it.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Dennis
> >To: email@example.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:10 PM
> >Subject: Re: Question for item #330085732639 - 36-37OPC SER. D #121 HOWIE
> >MORENZ KSA MT 9+6 LARGE PICS
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Do you have any of the 1930's OPC premium mail away games?
> > >
> > > Can I ask how you came across the Morenz card. I recall a couple of
> > > ago someone selling a 1936 OPC Morenz ASA Graded 10. Is this the same
> > >
> > > Thanks
As a neutral party here ...... i would have to side with the seller on this one. NO WAY a seller should have to regrade a graded card especially considering he has provided **large crystal clear** pic's of the front and back.
The card is trimmed Joe, You have to stand by your cards. Your word is all you have in this business and his business is done if more people hear about this. Everyone says no returns on graded cards, if his auction said it I would agree its not his fault. I would contact KSA and make them pay for all my fees since they made the mistake. And he has relisted the card KNOWING its been trimmed, that shows what kind of person he is. Just my neutral opinion.
I don't think a seller is under any obligation to say or describe anything if they don't want to. Unfortunately, the existence of the card in a plastic holder and the legitimacy that follows therefrom does allow him to sell it without doing that, which would probably not be the case if it were raw i.e. no one is going to buy a raw card for which no description is given. I mean, if the card were raw and the guy described it as MINT then you might have an argument but it's KSA who is the culprit here. Maybe KSA gives 9s to trimmed cards, who knows ? Apparently they do. They need to be sued, if you could prove that the holder had not been altered. So, in summary: KSA sued, rocket9b booed (and booted).
I think it is significant that both eBay and PayPal have language in place that is similar to Canadian and U.S. law, that is, if a seller is aware of a significant defect or material alteration and does not disclose it, the buyer has legal recourse to monetary compensation.
"Unfortunately, the existence of the card in a plastic holder and the legitimacy that follows... "
You can't be serious Al. Paying some guy at a show $20 to give you his opinion and put the card in a plastic holder gives you the right to go ahead and screw someone else too?? If you gave the poor sap the card knowing there was something wrong you are just a crook all around. No? I mean these guys invested in a grading company and hadn't handled anything older than 1991.
That's the whole problem with third rate grading companies. There are people that wrongly assume legitimacy where there is none. If the company does not stand behind thier product, then it is worthless isn't it?
<<That's the whole problem with third rate grading companies. There are people that wrongly assume legitimacy where there is none. If the company does not stand behind thier product, then it is worthless isn't it?>>
I agree, it's very sad. These grading companies are making tons of cash, meanwhile collectors are still getting screwed out of their hard earned dollars. Again, some grading companies are willing to compensate you. Now is this something KSA would do? Or would they simply tell you to send the card back for it to be reholdered? And what good would that do if they continue to make these same mistakes over and over?
Jim, you need to do a full quote - what I meant was that the fact that it is in a holder allows him to sell it without making any description whatsoever; I doubt whether he would have gotten any significant amount out of it, if anything at all, if he had put it up in raw condition with no description, right ? Ye are all missing my point very nicely. He can sell this thing without making ANY representations as to it's condition BECAUSE it's in a holder. I'm not saying I agree with it or with any of his other practices. And yes, I would (unfortunately) agree that getting some guy to give his opinion for $20 or whatever does in fact, give this guy the "right" to screw someone else. If by "right" you mean the right to do this without fear of legal recourse by the bidder. Of course he's a crook, I just don't see how you could do anything about it. Even if he admitted that he knew that the card was trimmed, how is this going to affect anything ? He is selling a KSA9 card; not a MINT card. He is not saying "this card had not been trimmed". And where is the "significant defect or material alteration" ? KSA obviously gives 9s to trimmed cards. Your only action is against them, not this idiot.
And yes, I would certainly agree that putting your faith in the opinions of others to the tune of 1000s of dollars that you wouldn't otherwise spend, is pretty ridiculous. Here's a good example why.
"I think it is significant that both eBay and PayPal have language in place that is similar to Canadian and U.S. law, that is, if a seller is aware of a significant defect or material alteration and does not disclose it, the buyer has legal recourse to monetary compensation."
legal recourse to monetary compensation ?? ya right but GOOD LUCK !!!!!!!!
the fact that he was made aware of the significant defect .... is something like a verbal agreement, it's a "HE SAID SHE SAID" type of scenerio. Looks like a dead end argument to me.
you have a better shot of going after KSA imo .......
I think this guy is totally losing it. He cancelled the bids on the Morenz and started it over. He also has listed a 36 Joliat for atleast the 3rd time even though it appears to have sold a couple of days ago. He made all of his auctions private and is just shilling the crap out of them. Jim.
MW... "I can think of very few legitimate reasons for sellers using this auction format."
personally, when it comes to sportscards .... i can't think of any reasons !!! I think ebay needs to update their policy here. I can understand the need for private auctions but only for a handful of listed categories ..... and sportscards isn't one of them!!!
One of the legitimate examples I was thinking of was when REA auctioned the PSA 8 T206 Wagner on eBay some years ago. It was a private auction format to protect the identities of not only the online bidders but of those who were bidding either in person or by proxy on the live auction floor. For security purposes and because of the scrutiny paid to the auction by eBay, I can understand why it was private.
In cases such as this one, however, I completely agree with you. The clandestine auctioning of lower-ticket items or ungraded cards in a private auction format on eBay is frequently an occasion of deception and nefarious sales tactics.
Sellers like him is destroying alot of EBay goodwill.
The feedback system is about to change, probably because of
situations created by rogue sellers. I'm totally against
changing the present feedback system, but here is another case
similar to the one I've been victim of. The buyer, "naturalkinds"
left positive feedback to rocket9b, but probably asked him via
e-mail why he got the $38 package via regular mail instead of
Xpresspost. (the buyer paid $20 S&H for the service imposed by
the seller). The answer was simply a negative feedback left
to this clean buyer.
I wonder why EBay is letting this seller go by with this and
decides to change an otherwise efficient feedback system??
I'm probably in the minority of eBayers, but I like the change to the feedback policy. The existing system is anything but efficient and has allowed sellers like this guy to maintain artificially high FB percentages. No doubt that under the new system there will be some loose cannons who leave decent sellers neutrals and negs without first trying to resolve an issue. However, I suspect that number will be much lower than the number of rightfully disgruntled buyers who can now leave warranted neutrals or negs without fear of reprisal from sellers who play feedback games. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but this change could compel sellers to improve the overall quality of their service and could provide potential bidders with a more accurate view of a seller's integrity.