Ebay Hats: Victories, Defeats, Gripes & Items of Interest

[Wyldkarma]

that would chap my you know what. I offered to keep the hat if he knocked 50 off. He said no, so back it went. I learned not to write reviews until the other person does so first, never know what goes through their heads. My seller paid return shipping and gave a full refund. Oh well, it's always a crap shoot on ebay.

 

[deadlyhandsome]

Seller cancelled the auction when I asked him to confirm that 7 3/4 size (the size was in the listing in three separate places so not a simple click in the wrong box). I don’t get mad, but how hard is it to tell the difference between 7 3/8 and 7 3/4?

And I’m bummed at missing out on a unique hat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steur]

Seller cancelled the auction when I asked him to confirm that 7 3/4 size (the size was in the listing in three separate places so not a simple click in the wrong box). I don’t get mad, but how hard is it to tell the difference between 7 3/8 and 7 3/4?

And I’m bummed at missing out on a unique hat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That hat is back up for auction, Brent. It's a 7 3/8 size.

 

[deadlyhandsome]

That hat is back up for auction, Brent. It's a 7 3/8 size.
View attachment 131727

Yeah, it’s clearly a 7 3/8 so I don’t know how he came up with 7 3/4.

 

[Frunobulax]

Yeah, it’s clearly a 7 3/8 so I don’t know how he came up with 7 3/4.

Some folks never get fractions.

 

[drmaxtejeda]

Some folks never get fractions.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

 

[Richard Morgan]

Just scored a Dalton hat box - woohoo!

Bob Hufford shared a link to an auction of boxes a few weeks ago, and one of them was a tall Dalton box. I inquired of the auction about shipping costs, but received no reply, so held off bidding. Lo and behold, I'm cruising the Bay in the wee hours this morning and saw the same box listed with a BIN of $20 w/ free shipping. I tossed out a $15 offer to chum the waters and by the time I got to work this morning, they had countered with $17.50. So I took it.

Hell, I woulda paid the $20!


Sent directly from my mind to yours.

Good score, I saw that and put it on my watch list but never got back to it. Glad you got it.

 

[Frunobulax]

Good score, I saw that and put it on my watch list but never got back to it. Glad you got it.

They've got another one up now. There were three tall brown boxes in the auction Bob clued me in on. Only one visibly said "Dalton" on it. Now a second is up for sale (with inserts) and I assume a third will be on it's heels. They're asking $25 for this one, but my guess is they'll take $20, maybe even lower. Plus hey, free shipping. That's $10 right there.

 

[jlee562]

This guy has some interesting dies which were apparently bought out from a former liner manufacturer?

I of course, don't have any practical need for this, less I start counterfeiting hats, but it's a cool piece of Stetson ephemera
https://www.ebay.com/itm/263890513902

 

[ScottF]

I really hate ebay. An ebay member started sending messages correcting my hat listings so I said 'Thanks' and updated my listings to a less-desirable description, thinking he was probably correct. I mentioned that I was unable to locate the needed information at the Fedora Lounge and he made a derogatory comment about this forum and sent me a link to another hat website where in the past I had seen my photos of my hats. You can imagine where the conversation went from there. I know, I know - I should just list my hats here. I tried that over the years and the transactions were much more pleasant, but much slower to complete. But I'll go back to it for the next round.

 

[splintercellsz]

I really hate ebay. An ebay member started sending messages correcting my hat listings so I said 'Thanks' and updated my listings to a less-desirable description, thinking he was probably correct. I mentioned that I was unable to locate the needed information at the Fedora Lounge and he made a derogatory comment about this forum and sent me a link to another hat website where in the past I had seen my photos of my hats. You can imagine where the conversation went from there. I know, I know - I should just list my hats here. I tried that over the years and the transactions were much more pleasant, but much slower to complete. But I'll go back to it for the next round.

those are always fun to deal with

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[ScottF]

Just to follow up on my last post. Many years ago I kept a spreadsheet and notes containing every bit of information I had learned (mostly here) regarding Stetson labels, sweatband stamps, size tags, sweatband design, etc., relating all to years made. I could date most Stetsons based on this information and I wanted to create a website. But first I came here and solicited opinions. Many believed that this information was proprietary and should not be taken elsewhere, yet at that time there was no desire to consolidate such information so that it could be readily accessible in a format that was thorough and contained only the necessary information (rather than duplication, comments, etc. that are common to forums like this). At the time folks were happy having the information ONLY in a discussion forum format. As a result I decided to abandon the project. Years later I have bought a few old Stetsons and surprise, surprise - I no longer have the information I need to date the hats memorized, and I can't find my spreadsheets. So I'm out of luck...but that's okay.

If I HAD gone forward with my project, I would have given credit for every bit of information possible, including any photographs, although I probably had enough of my own.

Now I go to the website that this ebayer recommended and sure enough, it's the one I remembered that had information from this forum as well as photographs of hats that I personally had taken, several of which were owned by me when I spotted them on the website. To me that's just wrong - all he had to do was ask me if he could use my photos and I would have said "sure". Credit would have been nice, but not even necessary (after asking for my permission). But that's the nature of the internet - there are at least two similar sites on vintage pool cues that are loaded with information taken from my billiard website, and a popular tobacco card website took most of the work I had done on the T206 set and incorporated it into their own website, without asking permission. We went round and round over that one, but in the end I simply quit collecting tobacco cards.

Thanks for letting me rant a little - now I won't have to do it again for another 5-10 years

 

[jlee562]

Just nabbed this 1922 Stetson no. 1 Quality, may or may not be a Park Ranger hat. A little dirty and a few moth tracks, but I mostly wanted it because it's also from Berkeley. Seller says ribbon is intact under the band, so it seems this may be a BOP style...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/323399931258

 

[splintercellsz]

Just nabbed this 1922 Stetson no. 1 Quality, may or may not be a Park Ranger hat. A little dirty and a few moth tracks, but I mostly wanted it because it's also from Berkeley. Seller says ribbon is intact under the band, so it seems this may be a BOP style...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/323399931258

I was eyeing it, beautiful example. you can see the original ribbon peeking thru in some photos. looks like a more tan variant then the one I used to own. Can't wait to see more photos!

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[BobHufford]

Just nabbed this 1922 Stetson no. 1 Quality, may or may not be a Park Ranger hat.

Well bought! Super nice...

 

[deadlyhandsome]

Just to follow up on my last post. Many years ago I kept a spreadsheet and notes containing every bit of information I had learned (mostly here) regarding Stetson labels, sweatband stamps, size tags, sweatband design, etc., relating all to years made. I could date most Stetsons based on this information and I wanted to create a website. But first I came here and solicited opinions. Many believed that this information was proprietary and should not be taken elsewhere, yet at that time there was no desire to consolidate such information so that it could be readily accessible in a format that was thorough and contained only the necessary information (rather than duplication, comments, etc. that are common to forums like this). At the time folks were happy having the information ONLY in a discussion forum format. As a result I decided to abandon the project. Years later I have bought a few old Stetsons and surprise, surprise - I no longer have the information I need to date the hats memorized, and I can't find my spreadsheets. So I'm out of luck...but that's okay.

If I HAD gone forward with my project, I would have given credit for every bit of information possible, including any photographs, although I probably had enough of my own.

Now I go to the website that this ebayer recommended and sure enough, it's the one I remembered that had information from this forum as well as photographs of hats that I personally had taken, several of which were owned by me when I spotted them on the website. To me that's just wrong - all he had to do was ask me if he could use my photos and I would have said "sure". Credit would have been nice, but not even necessary (after asking for my permission). But that's the nature of the internet - there are at least two similar sites on vintage pool cues that are loaded with information taken from my billiard website, and a popular tobacco card website took most of the work I had done on the T206 set and incorporated it into their own website, without asking permission. We went round and round over that one, but in the end I simply quit collecting tobacco cards.

Thanks for letting me rant a little - now I won't have to do it again for another 5-10 years

I wish you would have constructed that website with the dating information. Having a single source well presented reference would be very useful.

As for the photos, I kind of get wanting others to get your permission but once you put something out on in the internet it sort of belongs to the public. If you copyright images and another uses them for gain you have a point, but otherwise it’s just the nature of the internet. We take the good with the bad. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScottF]

I wish you would have constructed that website with the dating information. Having a single source well presented reference would be very useful.

As for the photos, I kind of get wanting others to get your permission but once you put something out on in the internet it sort of belongs to the public. If you copyright images and another uses them for gain you have a point, but otherwise it’s just the nature of the internet. We take the good with the bad. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish I would have as well - even if I had never made it public, I would have it now as a reference.

If you know where you got the photo, it's easy enough to ask permission - my web pages do NOT belong to the public. Asking permission is just common decency, even in today's world of anything goes. I'm sure I'm not the only person who asks permission before using other people's intellectual capital. But I understand - avoiding contacting your sources is just another aspect of the laziness that represents the internet and communication in general these days. Such laziness is why the internet is full of 'expert websites' that are loaded with errors, and self-published 'books' that no self-respecting publisher would touch.

No offense intended as I'm certain I'm in the minority on this point.

 

[deadlyhandsome]

I wish I would have as well - even if I had never made it public, I would have it now as a reference.

If you know where you got the photo, it's easy enough to ask permission - my web pages do NOT belong to the public. Asking permission is just common decency, even in today's world of anything goes. I'm sure I'm not the only person who asks permission before using other people's intellectual capital. But I understand - avoiding contacting your sources is just another aspect of the laziness that represents the internet and communication in general these days. Such laziness is why the internet is full of 'expert websites' that are loaded with errors, and self-published 'books' that no self-respecting publisher would touch.

No offense intended as I'm certain I'm in the minority on this point.

I can see that you feel strongly about this and I certainly understand your points. All I’ll say is that most of what we put out into the internet is legally there for all to use. Without copyrights, we are, whether it’s what we intend or not, giving tacit permission for anyone to reuse what we have chosen to include on a public website. Add to that the “terms of use” waivers where most hosted websites “own” what you post and privacy as we used to know it is dead. The trade off is access to information like never before. I remember buying my children/family an encyclopedia set; now a quaint antiquity from a bygone age.

The internet is great, and it’s terrible. We all love and hate it and I’ve railed against what we’ve lost, the same as you.

 

[ScottF]

'Yes' we are giving permission to re-use, and 'no' we are not giving permission to publish the information as if it is your own, without giving credit. I really don't care about legality - I'm not suing anyone. But I do care about people who are members of my hobby publishing my work as if they created it themselves.

Condoning such behavior makes it mainstream. The results are predictable. Here is a good example: A friend of mine researched a Civil War cavalry unit that had almost nothing published about it on the internet. Once he had gathered enough information to make it useful to the tiny thimbleful of people who would have any interest in it, he 'published' it on the internet. A few people (maybe one or two) began adding the information that he worked hard to procure, to their own websites, leaving the impression to other historians that they had done the work themselves. His response: he took the website down and abandoned the project. He was much more upset than I have ever been.

I've mentioned my own personal situations involving a billiards page and a vintage baseball page. In both instances I abandoned my projects. I had been adding to them every few months, sometimes years. Now I don't do anything with them. If you want information on the topics that I spent years researching, you can go to the rip-off sites and find it. It will be poorly organized and poorly researched (since they filch from wherever google leads them). But that's what others in the hobby have 'earned' by condoning such behavior.

One more example, and this is actually the worst: I used to publish very esoteric baseball history articles in National print baseball journals. I sent my last effort (my best) to a journal for publication. It went by an editorial board and was rejected. I had stepped on the toes of two historians who were on the journal's board by writing about areas that they felt they owned (a weird thing that is not limited to baseball history unfortunately). Months later I saw bits of my research on their own personal websites - presented as if they had done the research themselves. Result: I no longer submit baseball history articles to ANY print publications unless I know everyone on the editorial review board.

Okay, rant over. Let the research filching continue.

 

[Redfokker]

'Yes' we are giving permission to re-use, and 'no' we are not giving permission to publish the information as if it is your own, without giving credit. I really don't care about legality - I'm not suing anyone. But I do care about people who are members of my hobby publishing my work as if they created it themselves.

Condoning such behavior makes it mainstream. The results are predictable. Here is a good example: A friend of mine researched a Civil War cavalry unit that had almost nothing published about it on the internet. Once he had gathered enough information to make it useful to the tiny thimbleful of people who would have any interest in it, he 'published' it on the internet. A few people (maybe one or two) began adding the information that he worked hard to procure, to their own websites, leaving the impression to other historians that they had done the work themselves. His response: he took the website down and abandoned the project. He was much more upset than I have ever been.

I've mentioned my own personal situations involving a billiards page and a vintage baseball page. In both instances I abandoned my projects. I had been adding to them every few months, sometimes years. Now I don't do anything with them. If you want information on the topics that I spent years researching, you can go to the rip-off sites and find it. It will be poorly organized and poorly researched (since they filch from wherever google leads them). But that's what others in the hobby have 'earned' by condoning such behavior.

One more example, and this is actually the worst: I used to publish very esoteric baseball history articles in National print baseball journals. I sent my last effort (my best) to a journal for publication. It went by an editorial board and was rejected. I had stepped on the toes of two historians who were on the journal's board by writing about areas that they felt they owned (a weird thing that is not limited to baseball history unfortunately). Months later I saw bits of my research on their own personal websites - presented as if they had done the research themselves. Result: I no longer submit baseball history articles to ANY print publications unless I know everyone on the editorial review board.

Okay, rant over. Let the research filching continue.