 | | Re: Interesting interpretation of "new in box" —Frank Filz
|
| | | (...) Hm, I wonder if it's worth raising a stink with eBay. Both of these are clearly misrepresentations. New in Box should not have a picture of a set in a plastic baggie and no sign of the box. Mint should clearly not be a set which is missing (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Interesting interpretation of "new in box" —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | I got a note from the first seller, he THOUGHT he had the box and told me he was going to modify the listing to clarify. I think he's jake. The second seller I did not send mail to so cannot comment on. While we can have good fun here we do need to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Interesting interpretation of "new in box" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | In both cases I think ignorance is the problem, rather than deceitfulness. (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Interesting interpretation of "new in box" —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | I haven't corresponded with the second seller but the first one, based on his note, really did believe he had the box, turned his place upside down for it, and failed to find it, finding only the destroyed remains. See his listing, which has been (...) (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | |
