Got my St. Jo auction Playboy, and I need your advice...

[Snrbfshn]

Got the hat this morning, opened the box and said, "crap."

It is partly as the seller described - clearly never been worn - but I question his twice-said statement, "new condition." Here's the auction page:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8256076971&ssPageName=Action:MPS

Here's the hat. The color is less blue than in the auction photos. I've done nothing to it other than brush it.

You see in this photo part of the problem:

The date is imprinted on the front of the sweatband, which, interestingly, is so dark brown it looks black:

More of the problem:

The description says "Ther (cq) are a few minor insect/moth holes (one about 1/8 inch) but they do not distract from beauty of this hat."

I count 25 pits, 11 minor, 10 big enough to be a problem, three more almost all the way through (including the two on the crown), and the biggest one (3/16" wide) goes all the way through the brim.

I need your advice on several issues.

Was the hat misrepresented? He did add the moth holes info later, but did it accurately reflect the condition?

Do I demand my money back and return the hat? It may be a rare or singular example of a '35 Playboy, and I might not see another. Do I ask for partial return and keep the hat?

Are these holes repairable? I remember something back in the archives about sanding the hat, collecting the dustballs, mixing in some glue and pasting into the holes. Is this -- or any other action -- a viable solution, and can someone better experienced guide me?

And lastly, am I SOL?

 

[besdor]

Honestly , I don't think the hat is from 1935 . I dont remeber Stetson ever stamping the date of production onto the leather .
The pit marks are from age and bad storage . I'd return the hat .:cool2:

 

[photobyalan]

Snrbfshn,

Let me say I sympathize with you in your disappointment.

I will try to respond in as neutral a manner as I can.

Did the seller misrepresent the hat? Sort of. One person's "a few" is another person's 25. Also, the difference between 1/8" and 3/16" is small enough that one can pass for the other if it's eyeballed and not measured with a micrometer caliper. I would say that the description was pretty sugary without being outright false.

He added the moth bite info 6 days before the auction ended. This was plenty of time for you to email him for specific details on the damage before you made your winning bid with 15 seconds left in the auction. I'm assuming you didn't do this and just relied on the description.

Should you demand your money back and return the hat? I don't think you can demand anything, since it's somewhat a matter of opinion as to how bad the damage is. A non-hat person's idea of moth damage is different from a hat person's idea. You may find a 3/16" hole unacceptable, while a person who doesn't know hats thinks it's "minor".

As to the color, I saw there was a question about the color of the hat and the seller answered it, saying that the second photo had more accurate color. That color is more like the photos you posted.

What recourse do you have? You can ask the seller for a refund in exchange for returning the hat. You can also ask for a partial refund and keep the hat, which I should think you would stand a better chance of getting. If the seller refuses both of these, you could file a claim asking for a full or partial refund. Depending on how the seller responds, you might be able to get some money back, but I wouldn't count on it, based on my opinions above. But that shouldn't necessarily stop you from trying!

Repair? I can't answer that but I'm sure someone here can.

 

[ii-5-i]

Call him on it!

This seller deserves to be red flagged for grossly misrepresenting (new condition?!! come on!!) this hat. Even with his mild, to say the least, disclaimer.

From the first photo I thought the moth holes were vent holes. Even if you had paid 10 bucks for it the hat would still be fraudulently sold. The major problem with ebay is the gigantic "gray" area of human perception. Unfortunately, the transaction is usually weighted in the sellers' favor. I'm very sorry for your disappointing hat.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

return return return return return

Clearly those moth pits detract from the appearance of the hat.

Return it. Most sellers are alright about returns if they're clearly at fault - as in this case. The deep pits were clearly not described. Send the seller a nice email describing your problem and asking to return it. You'll probably have to lose the shipping price both ways. Better than losing $81.

I just did the same thing with a mismeasured suit. The seller was very understanding and has refunded my money.

bk

 

[scotrace]

Yes, but

The damage is worse than "do not detract." I'd be miserably disappointed and tempted to return it, especially as it wasn't all that cheap.

But when are you going to have a shot at another?

JamesPowers has had luck, I think, repairing this sort of damage with felt bits scraped from inside and glued into the holes, but... wow. Twenty five + holes repaired and it may just end up looking spotty. James is the guy to PM about it.

A thought: Send it to Art or Fedora and ask them to copy it.

 

[chilidawgguy]

I too sympathize. How did you pay for the hat? If you paid with a credit card, you may have some recourse other than negotiating with the seller. If it were me, because of the rarity of the hat, I would try to get a partial refund and keep the hat. If another one should show up in the future, you can always sell this one, with a more accurate description of course. Who knows? You might actually make a profit. Good Luck. Keep us appraised. By the way, the dictionary defines few as "a small number." 25 is more than a few.

 

[SHARPETOYS]

This puppy needs to go back.

Nice email to seller and send that puppy back. I'd rather loose a few bucks on shipping than the hat amount.

 

[G MAN]

I would like a 50% refund or It would go back.
In my view it was misrepresented.

 

[Zemke Fan]

I hope the seller works with you...

but, I have to say that the word "moth" generally stops me cold. Not only is the damage usually more pronounced than what the seller lets on, but I sure as heckfire don't want any more of those little buggers wandering around my house.

 

[John in Covina]

All, or nothing at all....

I would say that you that you should consider contacting the seller and list your specifics as to the moth damage.

Tell them that you are disappointed because although the seller attempted to be accurate the actual condition in your opinion is beyond what you can accept and you wish to return the hat.

Also when returning be sure to insure it and get a signed proof of delivery so you have proof it got there.

I'd say, if the seller should offer to re-imburse a portion of the $ for you to keep it, you may consider it if it's a significant % of the price, but you should not suggest it in your communications.

There is a weird area when it comes to asking for an "adjustment" I feel it is better if it's an all or nothing propsition.

Although to facilitate you could say you'd absorb some or all of the shipping costs but think that they need to pay to insure it and for proof of delivery.

Sorry for the bad luck,

 

[Fedora]

I hate moths. The sizing tag tells me that this hat was made after the factory was shut down in Philly, and the name licensed out. To my knowledge, the way that Stetson noted sizing in the their hats was by 1/8, 1/4, etc. That is, a size 7 1/4 hat said 1/4 on the tag. I am fairly sure that they changed the sizing notation when the company changed hands. Fedora

 

[Fedorista]

Snrbfshn, sorry for your bad luck.

but

What do you think of the hatbox?

 

[D. Hats]

Seller has no obligation, buuuut.....

seller risks (if you haven't already done so...) a negative comment on their record on ebay.
Most reasonable people that either buy or sell on ebay go out of their way to be hospitable... even when they're truly disappointed just to avoid the negative feedback. (by any chance do they already have negative feedback for doing this before)?
If you returned that Playboy to the seller, and if they were to relist it on Ebay, and they have an UGLY remark from you, they're not going to even get what they originally paid for it.... assuming they aren't some former employee of the St Joseph factory that stuck it under their shirt one day when they were leaving work.
I'd really try to get the seller to meet you half way, meaning, you keep the lid, and they re-emburse you half your dough.:rage: :rage: :rage:

 

[Snrbfshn]

I'm sending it back...

Returning it for refund was not a problem for the seller. Art had told me repairs would be tough, and the patched holes would still show. Even though I might not find another hat like this, everytime I would have worn it, it would have bothered me.

Also, besdor's and Fedora's comments made me take a harder look at the hat. There is no reorder label, unlike every other vintage Stetson I own. The almost-black sweat doesn't look or feel like any other Stetson sweat I have; it strongly resembles the sweat in a '50s Stevens I've got. I wonder if the "1935" was really the name of a might-be-introduced model, and this was a prototype or sample?

So I'm out 20 bucks for the shipping both ways, with nothing to hold on to but the disappointment. Oh well, if you're interested in it, the seller may cut you a deal.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

This seller deserves to be red flagged for grossly misrepresenting (new condition?!! come on!!) this hat.

Unfortunately, "new condition" does not necessarily mean "mint condition." This is why it's better for sellers to use the phrase "dead stock" instead of the words "new" or "unworn", which are loaded with implications. A "dead stock" item of clothing could well have moth holes, dirt, or any other kind of damage. All that "dead stock" means is that the item was never used by anyone.

I think the seller was injudicious in his/her use of the words "new condition." However, it will be very difficult for you to prove that he/she was deliberately trying to mislead you.

 

[Snrbfshn]

I didn't feel that way...

Marc - I never felt there was any intention to mislead. Rather, the misinformation was from lack of familiarity. The seller readily admitted in his reply that I (and the other members here) knew far more than he about vintage hats. He does have overwhelmingly positive feedback, and his response to me indicates why.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Marc - I never felt there was any intention to mislead. Rather, the misinformation was from lack of familiarity.

Ok, now I understand. Thanks!
As a seller, I've accepted things back on rare occasions. As you have said, a seller's lack of knowledge can lead to dissatisfaction on the buyer's part. Nothing malicious, but it still merits solving.

:cheers1:

 

[scotrace]

Just looked at those photos again

There's no way you could put that infested lid on your noggin and wear it. It's shot. May as well have ink blobbed all over it. Those are holes!

 

[Prairie Shade]

Sorry

When I saw the hat listed I was afraid it was the one I saw at the auction. I zeroed in on the "Playboy" but when I picked it up and saw the condition, I passed. BUT, it did have a great hatbox. That much money, no way for a hatbox. Sounds like your only out shipping and thats probably the best you can hope for. Truthfully, I didnt see any vintage hats that were worth owning at the "BIG" auction. Just my two bits. It will be back on Ebay shortly I'm guessing. Might list it as a Texas Quail Hunting Hat. It sure looked like a veteran of winged critter shooting, or chewing.