Australia in Depth Article #107
eBay - A useful resource and a place to beware!
By Simon Dunkerley © 19th February 2006
As published in Stamp News March 2006 and subsequent issues

Introduction

There is no doubt that the eBay market provides a wide field of opportunity for the astute buyer and seller, and at the same time, a wide field of traps for the unwary. As a long time professional philatelist who has done a modest amount of buying and selling on eBay, I am often bemused by the standard of some of the items on offer and the descriptions that they carry. An understanding of the principle of caveat emptor, or buyer beware is important for buyers in all markets, with eBay being no exception.

This paper is written with concerns for both the stamp trade and collectors in mind, and aims to educate both with regard to some of the pitfalls to avoid, and put forward some possible solutions and guidelines that I believe would make eBay a safer place for the unwary to buy. It is important to note at this point that the majority of stamp items offered on eBay do not present problems; however, there certainly are enough problematical items offered to make it a vital issue for readers to be aware of.

It should also be noted that problem areas extend far wider than just stamps. Banknotes, coins and sports memorabilia generally to name just a few categories each have problems of their own. In addition, a significant story in the January 29th 2006 edition of the New York Times examines the issue of allegedly fake jewellery being sold on eBay. Apparently Tiffany & Company, a very large and famous jewellery seller has sued eBay for ‘…facilitating the trade of counterfeit Tiffany items on the site.’ It is alleged that Tiffany purchased 200 items from seller(s) on eBay, and found ‘… that three out of four pieces were fakes’. The result of this case will be very important to both eBay and the wider community. It is true that eBay primarily set up a market place for people to buy and sell and that for them to police the authenticity or otherwise of so many items is extremely difficult. However, where their responsibility for what is actually sold on their site actually starts and finishes will be a crucial question in this case.

The discussion in this paper will cover many of the issues involved, including the pricing, authenticity, classification and condition of philatelic items. With the practical application of such issues in mind, different ways of responding to either ignorance or possible fraud on the part of the sellers involved will be covered and there will also be a section detailing specific advice for buyers on eBay. I am also very interested in learning about the experiences you have had on eBay, so please do not hesitate to forward your story. All prices quoted in this paper are in $AU unless otherwise indicated.

Pricing issues

It is important to recognise that often the prices realised on eBay, like so many other areas of the market place do not adequately or realistically reflect what might normally be regarded as the true value of particular items. For a variety of reasons, the prices on eBay are generally lower than in normal auctions, so eBay can be a useful source for the astute buyer; however, there certainly are exceptions to this. From my own experience, I know that on occasions, items sell for far more than their value in other markets, with this mainly applying to the more obscure or unusual items. Having said that, although not an expensive item, my ‘best’ result to date in this respect is $251 for a standard item the buyer could have ordered from one of my direct sale catalogues for $50! It is easy for buyers to get carried away at public auctions, and the same can apply to bidding on eBay.

As will be seen later, sometimes the descriptions, scans or photos provided by sellers are not clear enough for potential buyers to make a correct assessment of the item in question, possibly resulting in people bidding on false presumptions as to exactly what the item is, its authenticity or otherwise, and the condition of the item. Issues such as these will certainly affect the prices achieved. Of course, without actually seeing the item in the flesh, you are generally at a decided disadvantage unless you have a very good scan or you know that you can rely on the description provided by the seller being both detailed and accurate. Without such information, you may well be taking a risk when bidding in any auction.

In a perfect market, the price for a particular item will largely be a reflection of its authenticity and quality; however, I often see results on eBay that do not reflect this. Many on-line buyers are apparently more interested in factors such as the price and speed of delivery than they are in the authenticity or quality of an item, often resulting in a false perception of value. Just because something is described in a certain way, or looks cheap, does not mean that it is; in fact often it certainly is not the case. In making such misjudgments, potential buyers are clearly doing themselves a disservice. As a general rule, if it looks too good to be true, then most likely it is not true.

The result of all this is that sometimes good stamps sell for significantly less than bad ones that might appear to be the same or even better to the inexperienced buyer. It has been my observation that sometimes the better examples even fail to sell at a much lower price. It is a very imperfect market resulting in prices that really are all over the place. Sometimes certain sellers seem to have a strong following, which in some cases is justified by the quality of the items and the service they offer. Sadly, in other cases, the following is there whilst the quality is clearly lacking. This can be quite confusing to the uninitiated, and even to the initiated at times! The old adage that if you are going to compare price, then you must make sure that you are comparing apples with apples is alive and well!

As noted in the recent column titled Interpreting Catalogue Values it can be argued that something is only worth what someone paid for it on the day. This is true to some extent; however, it is also often misleading, as few if any markets are truly perfect. Refer to that paper for further information in this regard.

Another aspect to consider in the prices achieved on eBay is that the average selling cost on eBay including listing, final sale and payment fees would be approximately 5%, although that can vary depending on what selling options are chosen by the seller. In normal public philatelic auctions, the commission is typically around 30% and is typically split between the seller and the buyer, with each paying about 15%.

A need for more expertising of items on eBay

Regular readers of Stamp News might also remember my three part series titled Aspects of Philatelic Expertising. These were published in the October, November and December 2003 editions and also include sections that relate to this area. If you do not have them handy, slightly updated versions to those published are available here. In that series I highlighted the need for certificates on rare overprints amongst other items, and gave a specific list of items I believe should only ever be sold with a certificate from a recognised expertising body.

A money back guarantee from the seller for a specified period of time is also a feasible alternative to certificates in some instances, although generally it would not carry the same weight as a recognised certificate, and whether such a guarantee would effectively transfer with a change in ownership is worth considering. There is also no guarantee that the seller will still be around in years to come. It is my observation that very few of the Australian stamp items sold on eBay carry recognised certificates – far fewer than in other places where such items are generally sold, and that is a major concern.

In perfect mint unhinged condition the 1931 Kingsford Smith ‘OS’ overprints have a retail value of $750+ compared to only $5 for the normal stamps. With this kind of incentive for the unethical to fake the overprints, it is no surprise that there is a proliferation of fakes on the market, so a recognised certificate is always recommended for this set. Yet I regularly see sets that are almost certainly fakes sold for $600 or so to unwary buyers who might think that they have scored a bargain. In many cases this simply is not so.

A recognised certificate is a must for the 1931 Kingsford Smith ‘OS’ overprints in either mint or mint unhinged condition

The aims of selling certain items with suitable certificates are to give both buyers and sellers greater confidence in what is being sold, and to weed out fakes, forgeries and misdescriptions from all areas of the market over time, with eBay being no exception. In some ways, the eBay market is more vulnerable to such practices, whether intentional or not on the part of sellers, as many of the buyers and sellers are somewhat, if not relatively inexperienced in both the collecting and buying of stamps. The same is also apparently true of many of the sellers on eBay. This can sometimes mean that rare items are not identified for what they actually are and can result in a bargain for an astute buyer. However, the unfortunate reality more often is that where some doubt might exist on the seller’s part, items are generally rated as better than what they actually are, either unintentionally or perhaps even intentionally in some instances. It is certainly not a new thing that stamp collectors are generally over-optimistic about the categorisation and value of their stamps!

Feedback – not always an accurate guide as to the authenticity or quality of a seller’s items

The eBay feedback system, whereby buyers and sellers are able to leave positive, neutral or negative feedback with a brief comment on each transaction through eBay is a very transparent and useful resource to have at one’s fingertips. However, it is not perfect because a significant number of the buyers are uninformed and clearly know little about the authenticity or quality of what they are buying.

Even a cursory glance through feedback generally left shows that more often than not it relates more to factors such as the speed or non-delivery of the payment and shipping of the item and a nice comment about the item, rather than a learned comment on the true quality or otherwise. From many of the comments I have seen it is apparent that the buyers simply do not know whether the item they have purchased was correctly described or not. It is a reality that just because a seller has 100% positive feedback or close to it has little direct bearing on whether or not all of their items are accurately described. Sadly, it is sometimes a reflection on the lack of knowledge on the part of the buyers, who might not know this is the case until they come to sell their beloved stamp collection, perhaps many years down the track.

Advising sellers of items that are not correctly classified

There have been times when I have found an item on eBay to be misrepresented in some way, either unintentionally or perhaps even intentionally in some cases, and my first response has normally been to contact the seller in this regard. This is something I have always done with the utmost care and integrity and have been very careful to make sure that what I say is accurate and with unbiased intentions.

Whilst the sample of incorrect items I have notified sellers about is not all that large, it is certainly indicative, and it has been interesting to observe the responses of the sellers involved. About one third are grateful and change the description or withdraw the item promptly. Most of the others either seem disinterested or apparently do not care at all, if their complete lack of response is any form of evidence to go by.

On one occasion last year a seller from the USA offered a mint KGV large multiple watermark 1d as the very rare deep red from the Cooke printing that I believed was not the correct shade. I emailed him, explaining my strong background in this area and the reasons for my opinion. Whilst even good scans are not generally reliable enough for a realistic classification of such shades, I was 99.9% confident it was not correct due to other printing characteristics evident in the scan, and emailed the seller twice about this, receiving no reply. Bearing in mind that this is a stamp that should only be sold with a suitably recognised certificate or at least on extension to obtain a certificate, it failed to sell on this occasion at what would be a bargain price had it been correct.

This stamp was reoffered at the same price shortly afterwards, and I thought I should bid on it just to make 100% sure and give me peace of mind that I hadn’t missed out on something I would rather have than not if it were genuine! So I bought it at $US640, or one bid over the reserve, having placed a bid of several times that figure on it and with one other bidder having bid at the reserve. Sure enough, it arrived in due course and was sent back to the seller for a refund the same day. As suspected, it was an off centre example of the common carmine-red shade from the Harrison printing, at best worth about $10 in that condition! The centring was very similar to all of the recorded deep red stamps and that was one factor that made me want to examine the stamp. This price compares to the most recent auction realisation of $9,171 including charges for a genuine example at the Baillie auction conducted by Sotheby’s in Melbourne in July 2005. It is worth noting that I did receive a full refund for the returned item and have not seen it reappear on eBay.

3rd Wmk die IIB - and not the rare die IIA!
Front image showing the Typical die IIB characteristics	Image of reverse showing the watermark centred high with no line below the ‘A’

The same seller has more recently offered a mint 3rd wmk 6d ultramarine kangaroo as the rare die IIA (substituted cliché) from the Cooke plate with a start price of $US695. The true market value for this item is about $4,500 if authentic, making the start price appear to be a bargain to the untrained collector. From the scan, it was very clearly evident that the stamp was the normal die IIB issue, printed from the Harrison plate, having a retail value of about $AU100 with the rather fluffy perforations as shown in the illustrations above.

Once again I emailed the seller to this effect, with no reply. This time there was no need to buy it and view the stamp in order to be certain of its status. Even in the modest scan offered, this stamp clearly shows the rounded corners of the outer frame and characteristic wear of a later printing from the die IIB plate, together with the broken shading line above ‘NCE’ of ‘PENCE’ evident in virtually every third watermark stamp from the Harrison plates. Just as importantly, there is clearly no break in the outer frame opposite Broome off the Western Australia coast line just below the level of the Kangaroo’s eye. In addition, from the scan it appears to be in a shade that only exists in stamps printed from the Harrison plate. The break in the outer frame above ‘ST’ of ‘AUSTRALIA’ is not visible; however, as that is often over-inked I have always believed that the absence of this break is not a very reliable guide in categorising this issue at the best of times.

It is also important to note that the relatively high position of the watermark with no watermark line across the base of the stamp in the scan of the reverse shows that this stamp is not from the base of the sheet, which it clearly must be if it is to be a die IIA stamp. With the watermark centred as high as it is, there should be a horizontal watermark line about half way between the bottom of the ‘A’ and the base of the stamp. The absence of this line proves that the stamp is not from the base of the sheet, and accordingly, cannot be the rare die IIA.

In all, that makes no less than seven reasons why this stamp has been misrepresented, with each one of them except for the frame above ‘ST’ in isolation being sufficient to prove the case! This stamp has been reoffered for sale on eBay by the seller on at least one further occasion since I emailed them, and thankfully, no one appears to have wasted their money. Unfortunately, the same result is not always true. This is not the first occasion I have seen a 6d kangaroo incorrectly offered as the rare die IIA on eBay, and I am sure it will not be the last! I do know of one such case where a buyer paid a significant price for a damaged example of the common version of this stamp.

Worth $US1.50 and yours for only $US650!

On other occasions, the item on offer is just a common everyday stamp worth a few cents or a dollar or so, and is offered at a start price of hundreds or even thousands of dollars with no description except ‘rare’. Late last year a US seller offered a used KGV CofA wmk ½d orange, worth a maximum of about $US1.50, with a start price of $US650! From the photograph which took up only a small portion of the image area I could see nothing special about this item. When I emailed the seller to ask if there was anything about this stamp that I had missed, and why it was starting at such a high price, the reply included words to the effect of ‘I don’t know much about stamps and was told by someone who knows it is rare, good luck with your bidding’. Infamous last words and luckily no philatelic bunny appears to have wasted their money on this item.

Asking price $US1,400 or best offer – real value zero!

More recently, I noted a used New South Wales 5d Diadem on offer by another US seller with a ‘Buy it now’ price of $US1,400. A ‘Buy it now’ price means that an item is not being sold by an auction as such, and that it is available for immediate sale to the first buyer who chooses to buy it. Item number 5656167462 was listed on 13th January 2006 being described as

‘Extremely Rare … I will offer this stamp ONE time only on eBay at a price of $US1,400, but I will entertain Best Offers… Please note that I do not know what it catalogues now, but I can tell you there are few of these stamps going around… Scott Catalogue number is A-11 and is Type #1851…’

Well, the design type is A-11; however, there is no number 1851 – that is probably a mistranscribed date. The implication is that it is number 26, the imperforate 1854 first issue of this stamp, which has a current retail value of $600 in very fine used condition. In the rather ordinary photo provided, it appears to be a poor example of the 1882-91 issue, worth $2 in good condition and of no commercial value discoloured as it appears to be and with the base cut straight. Need I say any more! Apparently several people including myself reported this listing, either to the seller or directly to eBay, and it was stopped early.

Examples of items not in the condition as described

Some specific examples of items that appear to have sold for well in excess of what could be justified by their lack of quality not matching the description given include the following items, with the official eBay item listing number given to reference them:

Kangaroo 1st watermark 5/- grey and yellow mint unhinged (item number 5621303353) sold for $1,551. In this eBay auction, the item description included a photograph as shown below and not a proper scan. I had earlier seen this stamp offered at a well known public philatelic auction in Sydney, where it was described as hinged, of which there was no doubt. I had crossed it off my list when I viewed it and was not interested in buying it at the $200 reserve due to problems with its condition. At $1,551 the eBay buyer has paid a considerable sum for a very average stamp at best. I believe that one of two things have happened in this instance. Firstly, the stamp might have been misrepresented either unintentionally or intentionally by the seller in the description it carried. Secondly, it might have been altered in some way, including the possibility of being regummed since it was last sold by public auction in Sydney. I would only be in a position to confirm the latter if I was given an opportunity to examine the stamp again.

1st Wmk 5/- offered as MUH	CofA Wmk £1 offered as MUH

Kangaroo CofA watermark £1 grey described as mint unhinged (item number 5635593314), sold for $610 not long after I saw this exact stamp sold at a public philatelic auction, also in Sydney. In that auction it was correctly described as regummed, and was a particularly poor job at that. Once again, I had crossed it off my list, not being interested at the reserve price due to poor condition. It sold at the public auction for a total price of $291 including the buyer’s premium. From the eBay seller’s scan above, it is quite clearly soiled with gum problems on the reverse also coming through to the front of the stamp. Having seen the stamp in question only a few weeks prior, I was particularly interested in following this one up before the eBay auction had closed, and specifically asked the seller if they would guarantee that the gum was in genuine original mint unhinged condition. The response that came back speaks for itself:

‘Hello, as a private collector, my husband bought this stamp in this condition. I am now selling part of the collection. My feelings are this, and as you would know, if you want a guarantee then you should buy from a respected dealer. Thanks …’

Having previously seen the stamp in the flesh, I know that the only thing in its favor was that it was well centred; almost everything else was sub-standard. This is a very rare stamp well centred in fine condition, and I would expect a very fine genuine mint unhinged well centred example to sell for in excess of $2,500 on today’s market. That is if you could ever find one, bearing in mind that it is more than five years since I have seen one offered for sale anywhere that would come even close to meeting that description. At $610, the buyer probably thinks he or she has scored a bargain; however, that clearly is not the case, as I believe the previous realisation of $291 was more than enough for this stamp!

Kangaroo small multiple watermark 10/- grey and pink offered as mint unhinged sold for $1,036 (item number 5630177973). This stamp was described as much better than it appeared in the scan, with regard to the centring, gum, freshness and perforations. As evidenced by the somewhat poor scans or unclear photographs as they were in this case, of the front and reverse of this stamp, I would have been more than happy to sell it for about $300. Once again, the buyer has paid a highly inflated price for a stamp that I believe has been significantly misrepresented by the seller.

The above three examples are a sample of such cases that I already have specific information to hand on, and I understand that further research is currently being done in identifying other misrepresented items of this nature.

An important point to consider here is that the actual price that someone pays for the stamp is a secondary concern. In any market the prices will normally fluctuate to some extent, and bidders are free to bid to whatever level they are comfortable with. The more important point is that bids are made with the correct information in mind, so that the stamp the winning bidder buys at least matches the description. If there are undescribed faults, alterations, misclassifications or other problems, then that clearly will not be the case.

It should also be recognised at this point that it is certainly true that some mint unhinged stamps are incorrectly described as hinged when offered in public auctions and even on eBay. Other mistakes in descriptions are also made from time to time, whereby the stamp is actually better than the seller recognises, however, that occurrence is actually rarer than often perceived in all markets.

Whether or not to advise bidders of items that are clearly not correct?

As a second approach regarding how to respond to the selling of suspect items, I have asked eBay via email on several occasions what their policy is on whether I can advise buyers that have already bid on an item about such matters, either before or after the conclusion of the auction. They have clearly indicated such communications should not be made, would not be welcome and could result in suspension or expulsion as a user of eBay.

It is true that such tactics in the wrong hands could be used to abuse the system, intimidate buyers and try to scare them off certain sellers without foundation and to one’s own advantage. However, in the right hands it would be a useful safety net for unsuspecting buyers who I am sure in the long run would genuinely appreciate such efforts very much.

What is being done about suspect items being offered on eBay?

A third approach, and one that appears to have been under-utilised in Australia at least, is to notify eBay directly of items that appear to be suspect or misrepresented, and have them investigate such allegations. On the one occasion last year that I did report such an item I did not know what processes were followed and the auction was allowed to continue through to the end. I understand that eBay have not accessed suitable philatelic experts in Australia to provide opinions on or investigate such matters, however, from recent discussions, I am hopeful that this might change in the future.

More specifically, I recently wrote to eBay Australia, sending them an early draft of this paper, with a covering letter and received a very prompt and positive reply. The results of this to date have been discussions over the telephone, by email, and a meeting with one of their senior ‘trust and safety specialists’. I believe that the lengthy discussion was very informative and positive and hope that this will prove to be a useful step in the process of making eBay Australia a safer place for buyers of Australian stamps. I have also had brief discussions with Michael Eastick, the newly elected National President of the Australasian Philatelic Dealers Association (APTA), who is positive about seeing what can be done to improve safety issues for buyers on eBay.

Some time ago I was surfing the web for information on expertising, fakes and forgeries, and discovered a site largely devoted to informing collectors of USA alterations, fakes, forgeries, misidentified stamps and other issues in buying stamps at www.sheryll.net This site is an excellent resource and I would recommend that everyone in the philatelic community spend some time exploring what it has to offer. Regardless of whether you have an interest in USA stamps or not, I believe that you will be very surprised and fascinated by what you see. The site documents about five hundred cases of stamps being purchased on eBay and then altered or repaired in some way to supposedly enhance their value. The before and after illustrations and other information provided for each case leave little room for doubt as to the changes that have been made to the stamp. It is made clear that these are the tip of the iceberg. Useful articles on this site include ‘eBay – the good, the bad and the downright ugly’. There are buying tips, resources relating to understanding the various frauds committed by some sellers and links to many related articles and websites.

Another closely linked site called Stamp Collectors Against Dodgy Sellers can be found at www.scads.org On this site there are many useful hints on a variety of buying and expertising issues. There is even a hall of shame highlighting sellers who have been specifically identified with regard to allegations of a variety of untoward practices. Even though they largely relate to USA stamps, I cannot recommend these sites highly enough as useful learning resources for everyone in the philatelic community.

The USA arm of eBay and the American Philatelic Society (APS) are doing considerable work together in these areas. In 2003 eBay formed a group called ‘Stamp Community Watch’ (SCW) comprising a group of eBay community members appointed by eBay. The SCW members are a selected group of philatelic experts including dealers and collectors, who review questionable auctions reported to eBay and pass those deemed to be misrepresented or fraudulent to the APS who then either have the listing corrected or the item removed from sale. One aim of this setup is to get rid of sellers who repeatedly try to buck the system by offering misrepresented items. The second is to educate sellers more generally in matters relating to making their listings comply with the code of conduct written by the APS and eBay. A number of repeat offenders have been barred from selling on eBay and quite a number of borderline sellers have been forced to mend their ways. The number of misdescribed US classics has also been reduced to a fraction of the previous number.

At this point of time the SCW reviewing of suspect items is mostly confined to USA stamps on the USA site; however, I would hope that their range of expertise might be expanded to include other countries in the years to come. There is no doubt that such a move would benefit the wider eBay community significantly.

The SCADS website includes articles and links to references explaining the formation and extent of this co-operation and how it works. This site also has a page with links explaining the mechanics of the reviewing of suspect items and the investigation process in some detail. As mentioned earlier, there is no such review process in Australia at this point of time; however, it is my hope that this will change in the near future.

In the meantime, I can only encourage Australian members of the eBay community to report suspect items to eBay, so that they will at least be more aware of some the problems that are occurring out there. On the eBay USA site, which I actually use more than the Australian site, this can be done via the ‘Report’ link at the bottom of the ‘Selling of Stamps’ page. It can also be done via the Stamps page standard reporting in the ‘Security Center’. The following link also works very easily, however, to access it you must be a member of eBay and be signed in: http://www.eBay.com/scw Reporting a suspect item in this way is a simple process, whereby you type this address in or click on the link, either of which will take you to a box where you type in the item number and a question or concern about the item. A suspect item can also be reported via the eBay Security Centre page, by going to ‘Problems with sellers’, highlighting ‘another problem’, then going to the ‘listing violation’ heading and following the prompts until you send an email with the item number and a brief description of your concern about the listing.

As I write this, eBay Australia have recently introduced a ‘Report this item’ link near the bottom of the listing page for each item. The process here is very simple, and enables users to report an item for a wide variety of listing violations. In addition, the eBay Security Centre page includes the same process to that outlined above on the US site. This can be done if you suspect an item is a forgery, a fake, has an undescribed repair, or if there appears to be a misrepresentation in the seller’s description of the item. Both of these eBay sites also have a section detailing a variety of listing violations and eBay community members have the right, and many would suggest even the responsibility to report such items so that they can be investigated by eBay, and acted on if deemed appropriate.

It is important to note that this should not become a mechanism to be abused without foundation. The aim of this is to help clean up the on-line market by doing the right thing and not attempting to abuse such resources or services for one’s own purposes. If someone did attempt to abuse the system in some way by making malicious or unfounded reports, then I would be most concerned if eBay failed in their duty to take disciplinary action against that person or business.

Advice for buyers of stamps on eBay

In this section I am grateful for being given permission to use some of the ideas presented in the article ‘Guidelines for buying stamps on eBay’, published on the SCADS website, with all direct quotes coming from their guidelines being shown below in italics. The SCADS article is excellent, and the list given below is certainly not an exhaustive indication of these. I have also added a number of ideas of my own that I believe buyers should be alert to.

External and other Issues

Although the main focuses of this paper have been the genuineness and quality or otherwise of items, and the ethics of real sellers on eBay, it would be remiss of me not to mention a second group of safety issues when it comes to participating as a buyer on eBay. These are external to the authenticity or quality of the item as they relate to other types of fraud and even the ownership of the item in question.

The most common problem is that of fake emails, commonly known as spoof purporting to originate from either eBay or PayPal in particular. The culprits are generally seeking sensitive account information in order to access funds via your credit card, bank account or PayPal account. In most cases these can be readily identified for what they are, however, some of the emails are quite convincing. They generally ask you to log on by clicking a link that takes you to a website where they can easily access the information you give to them. Such sites pretend to be the official eBay website, however, they are not!

My advice here is very simple. Firstly, only ever give out sensitive information via ‘My eBay’ on the official eBay website. As eBay advise, they will never seek sensitive information such as passwords or credit card numbers in an email. Secondly, forward the fake emails or even ones you suspect might be fake to spoof@ebay.com or spoof@paypal.com depending on the name on the apparent source or the subject title of the email. That way it can be investigated and hopefully dealt with severely by the authorities if deemed appropriate. You will receive two reply emails from eBay; the first almost straight away notifying receipt of your email; the second a report on the status of the email in question, as to whether it originated from eBay or not. In every case that I have submitted to date, it has been the latter.

eBay have also recently introduced a system of messages being received within the system on the official website, and if you are in doubt about the status of an email received to your nominated email address, you can check to see if it is in the message system before replying, or you can simply reply directly via the eBay message system if you feel safer that way.

Another issue I have encountered is that of fake ‘Second chance offers’. A second chance offer is where a bidder who failed to win an item in the auction is offered a duplicate that matches the description at their highest bid, or in instances where the sale of the original item falls through for some reason, the original item. I have received fake second chance offers on two of the more expensive items I missed out on as a bidder. In both cases they were quite convincing, and in the end the only way I knew they were fake was because the email addresses to reply to at the base were different from those of the original sellers, which I only knew because I had emailed them asking for some further information.

I also sold a very rare item for over $5,000 recently and the top two under-bidders both received fake second chance offers from people in other countries attempting to con them. Luckily they emailed me first asking if I actually had another example or if the winning bidder had reneged on the sale. They were saved from the embarrassment of losing big money. However, I unfortunately know for a fact that this is not always the outcome. I know of instances where unwary buyers have lost amounts of and up to $1,500 through paying for fake second chance offers by methods such as Western Union or MoneyGram. Not surprisingly, they did not receive the stamps, nor did they get their money back! Had they paid by credit card, they would have had a chance of getting their money back, although even that can be a difficult process if the customer has actually authorised the purchase.

There is also a problem in the unscrupulous ‘lifting’ or ‘borrowing’ of scans, a practice that can easily be done from almost any website, be it eBay, a commercial auction house, or that of a dealer or a collector. The seller then lists the item as if it were their own property, when in fact they have never been near it. If you carefully follow the advice above, then in most cases, there should be some warning signs. However, a skillful operator of this type of scheme could be quite convincing, even if only for a short time under one user account, so be on the alert! This is best reported as ‘fraud’ or ‘possible fraud’ via the methods outlined earlier.

These high value kangaroos were each on offer in two places at once by different sellers!

In mid January 2006 it came to my attention that a seller in the US had just listed two items on the US site that an Australian seller already had on offer (visible on both the Australian and US sites), with identical scans of the front and reverse of each. The US seller of user id ‘gt39t’ made the claim of not knowing much about the stamps and provided little in the way of any useful descriptions. Despite this, someone bid on the first of the apparently fraudulent listings shortly after it was listed.

After carefully checking these listings, my next step was to ask the US seller for a better scan of the reverse of one of the stamps, which I did not expect to receive as I had good reason to believe the stamps were not in the possession of that seller; naturally it did not come. I then reported both items to eBay with the item numbers of the original listings and other information to enable them to make comparisons. The fraudulent listings were withdrawn within about twenty-four hours. I also received a ‘communication partner warning’ from eBay – notifying me of the risk of fraud and ‘…to encourage you to ignore the email you received from this member...’, together with additional information on fraud protection. Although I didn’t actually receive an email back from the seller, despite lacking in certain areas, some of eBay’s anti-fraud system is clearly working well. It is also worth noting that the US seller had a net feedback score of 190 with a comparatively low rating of 95.2%; certainly a warning sign worth looking out for. The fact that someone would copy listings with the originals still on offer is extraordinary and shows what some people will do in efforts to defraud others. A major concern that I do not have the answer to at this point of time is why the US seller in this instance has been allowed to continue to trade on eBay.

The above example of a seller offering items he or she does not own was not the first of this kind that I came across, and just as I was completing this paper, another such scam, this time on the eBay Australia site was uncovered. In this instance, the seller’s listings, under the user name ‘aussie_franko’ provided some useful clues. Firstly, the seller’s feedback count was very low at only twenty-nine, and almost exclusively gained through buying cheap stamp items totaling less then $500, with no previous sales of stamp items recorded. More importantly, nearly half of the listings included errors in the watermark descriptions clearly visible to the trained eye by examining the illustrations (a mixture of scans and photographs that were not from the same source). The seller apparently knew very little about the stamps, and when asked for more information and a scan of the reverse side of two stamps admitted to little knowledge of stamps and gave unconvincing excuses as to why they could not be provided. Further research found evidence that the seller’s emailed responses were somewhat deceptive to say the least. Over the next few days it was confirmed that the seller was offering at least two and almost certainly more items that he did not have possession of, nor the right to sell. One of these items, a mint lightly hinged third watermark 6d ultramarine Kangaroo was sent to me by the rightful owner for examination during the time the eBay auction was still running.

Prestige Philately lot 323	eBay item 5666533802

Another of these items was a third watermark £1 Chestnut and blue Kangaroo with watermark inverted and in fine mint very lightly hinged condition. This was lot 323 in the upcoming auction of Prestige Philately to be held on 4th March 2006 as illustrated above; their catalogue having been published in early February 2006. The eBay seller had set the auction period from 12th to 22nd February 2006, and described the stamp as first watermark and mint unhinged! A third item was a mint 5/- first watermark Kangaroo that had recently sold on eBay to another user and was understood to still be in that person’s possession during the running of ‘aussie_franko’s’ auction of that stamp. On presentation of this and other evidence, all of the seller’s auctions were stopped early and he/she was deregistered as an eBay user – a stronger immediate action than that shown by their American eBay counterparts.

Other useful hints in regard to ‘external and other issues’ of this nature would firstly be to have different passwords for your eBay user account, PayPal, or any other such services that you might access. Secondly, it is wise to change your passwords from time to time. The eBay websites of each country each have sections with safety tips, and these should also form an important part of your reading on these topics.

Some of these scams are fairly convincing, whilst others are rather crude to say the least. What is also known is that as eBay tighten up and improve the security of their site, the unethical will also work on becoming more convincing, so you will require a disciplined approach in order to remain alert to possible problems such as these.

Final thoughts

As I have said before, it is vitally important to be prepared to put in the time to explore issues such as those raised in this paper, to read and to ask questions if you are uncertain of anything. In the long run, there is no substitute for a combination of undertaking careful research and seeking reliable advice, no matter where you buy your stamps from, and eBay is no exception.

Acknowledgements and further reading

APS ‘code of conduct’ for selling philatelic items on eBay
http://www.stamps.org/ebay/ebay_code.htm

Dunkerley, Simon Aspects of philatelic expertising (parts 1, 2 and 3)
http://www.simondunkerley.com/articles/sn78.html
http://www.simondunkerley.com/articles/sn79.html
http://www.simondunkerley.com/articles/sn80.html

Dunkerley, Simon Interpreting catalogue values
http://www.simondunkerley.com/articles/sn105.html

eBay Selling of Stamps
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-stamps.html

eBay takes action against fraud
http://scads.org/ebay/ebay_aps.htm

Frajola, Richard Fraud on eBay? A review of the stamp category
http://laplaza.org/~1covers/fraudonebay.htm

Hafner, Katie Seeing fakes, angry traders confront eBay The New York Times, January 29 2006

Hebert, Tessa Advice for eBay users
http://www.mindspring.com/~bookdealers/ripoff.html

Islington, Ashleigh eBay buying tips – I’m not getting burned again!
http://www.sheryll.net/Forgeries/Forgeries_article_Buying_tips.htm

SCADS (Stamp Collectors Against Dodgy Sellers) website
http://www.scads.org/index.htm

SCADS Guidelines for buying stamps on eBay
http://www.scads.org/ebay/bidtips.htm

SCADS Links page
http://www.scads.org/links/links.htm

Sheryll.net eBay – forgeries, fakes, dodgy sellers, scams: the tip of the iceberg
http://www.sheryll.net/Forgeries/Forgeries_article.htm

Whitford-Stark, Jim and Oswald, Sheryll eBay – the good, the bad and the downright ugly
http://www.sheryll.net/Forgeries/Ugly_Sellers/Forgeries_article_Ugly_Sellers.htm

In addition, I would personally like to thank Sheryll Ruecker and other SCADS members for their comments, corrections, suggestions and encouragement in writing this paper.

Simon Dunkerley Pty Ltd
P. O. Box 461 Blackburn Victoria 3130 AUSTRALIA
Tel: (61 3) 9878 1142   Mob: 0419 872 951

Email us at simon@simondunkerley.com