Is this for real?

[Rick Blaine]

Ok, I'll say it. Placing the hat on a vintage Stetson box was misleading, at best. The sentence about '...does not include the box' in no way changes this.
I don't understand why everyone is patting this guy on the back.

OK, I'll say it. What exactly is it about the very first line under: Description
that reads:
"Item Specifics - Item Condition
Condition: New: Without Tags" that eludes understanding?

 

[Joel Tunnah]

Rick, "new without tags" could mean anything. Vintage items in unused condition are called "new" all the time. "New old stock" is another common label.

 

[feltfan]

I have to agree with Joel all the way here.
It seems to me intentionally misleading to put
a new Stetson on a classic vintage Stetson box,
even if you say, "The antique Stetson
box is not included in this auction". When we
buy vintage hats on eBay, we often must use every
clue available to us to date a hat we cannot hold
in our hands. That box was an intentional misdirection.

Hats on eBay are more often than not misrepresented.
It is common to see a 1950s hat listed as "new without tags"
or "like new". The distinction between new (made very recently)
and "new condition" (made any time but undamaged) is not
clear to a lot of people. Indeed, in the listing in question it is stated,
"New: Without Tags", but one can see tags (if not the original
price tag, though that may be present too) in one of the pictures,
so it isn't accurate for this listing, either.

I believe a knowledgeable person listing a hat on eBay should
bend over backwards to represent it clearly. We know better.
I believe there was intent to deceive. I wouldn't touch another
hat listed by this seller.

 

[Dav3]

I'll just state again that I don't think anyone actually "bought" this hat, but concerning the auction and the use of the box: Anyone that doesn't realize that the hat isn't vintage from looking at it isn't going to recognize the box as being vintage, either. Using it as a prop in the auction could be considered deceiving, but only to people that don't know what to look for in vintage auctions, so the point is kind of moot.

 

[Rick Blaine]

I have to agree with Joel all the way here.
It seems to me intentionally misleading to put
a new Stetson on a classic vintage Stetson box,
even if you say, "The antique Stetson
box is not included in this auction". When we
buy vintage hats on eBay, we often must use every
clue available to us to date a hat we cannot hold
in our hands. That box was an intentional misdirection.

Hats on eBay are more often than not misrepresented.
It is common to see a 1950s hat listed as "new without tags"
or "like new". The distinction between new (made very recently)
and "new condition" (made any time but undamaged) is not
clear to a lot of people. Indeed, in the listing in question it is stated,
"New: Without Tags", but one can see tags (if not the original
price tag, though that may be present too) in one of the pictures,
so it isn't accurate for this listing, either.

I believe a knowledgeable person listing a hat on eBay should
bend over backwards to represent it clearly. We know better.
I believe there was intent to deceive. I wouldn't touch another
hat listed by this seller.

Sounds like >cheerfully retracted< to me.
Lack of basic literacy is hardly the sellers fault nor their problem. (Not that I think that to be the case in this instance.)

Ebay states: Condition guidelines

An item is considered "New" when it meets the following guidelines.

It is in the original condition from the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer.
It has not been refurbished or used for any purpose.
It has no known defects or damages.
... sounds right.
Forgive me, but product photography was my bread & butter for a number of years and the fact is that photography used for print advertising (which this is) may involve more complex compositions than a simple photo of the product in question. Staging and propping creates a particular mood, evoking desired emotions (or emotions of desire for the product) in the potential buyer.
Misleading advertising occurs when a representation related to a product or service is materially false or misleading (to knowingly provide information in a manner that prevents effective and accurate identification. ) in order to persuade the consumer to buy it.
And with the item clearly described as "new" (nothing vague or misleading there) it is manifestly obvious that there was no intent to deceive or mislead.

Here is a lovely photo of a pear from the Harry & David catolog

It was photographed on a piece of $500 Limoge china. Would it be reasonable for us to assume that the Limoge item will arrive with the fruit we ordered, or a silver spoon? Is it reasonable to assume that the pear is French because the plate is French?

Indeed, in the listing in question it is stated,
"New: Without Tags", but one can see tags (if not the original
price tag, though that may be present too) in one of the pictures,
so it isn't accurate for this listing, either.

So your beef, in this case, would be that the auction copy actually represents the item as LESS desirable than it actualy is? This is assuming of course that an item that is "New with tags" is more valuble & more desirable than one that is simply "New without tags".

 

[Joel Tunnah]

Fruit doesn't naturally come packaged in, or on, plates - fancy or otherwise. Knives don't come with mailorder steaks.

But hats come in hat boxes. Until this listing, I've never seen an auction showing a hat sitting on a hatbox where the box wasn't included. Thus, there is an expectation from the marketplace that a hat and a hatbox shown together, are original to each other. This natural expectation is what the seller falsely played on.

The seller could have easily said "hat box is not from this hat, and is not included in this auction."

 

[Rick Blaine]

Fruit doesn't naturally come packaged in, or on, plates - fancy or otherwise. Knives don't come with mailorder steaks.

quite right, poor example on my part

...there is an expectation from the marketplace that a hat and a hatbox shown together, are original to each other....

I absolutely understand what you mean. However we have all seen ads for vintage (or retro) inspired items, lets say a man's wristwatch, where the product is propped or accessorised by genuine antique items, say a straight razor & strop, an old tied fly, a briar pipe, ticket stubs, postcards & passports, you get the idea. This is done in an effort to evoke memories or impressions or "the spirit" of an era. I find it difficult to see anything sinister in the use of the Antique Stetson box in this context for several reasons;

It was not described as vintage (just the opposite in fact) nor was it listed in the "vintage men's hats" category as this seller's other, vintage items were.

The copy quite explicitly stated "Antique Stetson hat box not included", further, the use of the word "antique" in that sentence implicitly delineates a difference between the box (antique) and the hat (contemporary). But I can talk about "implicit" & "expectations" 'til the cows come home but "New without tags" means new (i.e. not antique, not vintage, not old), just as "hatbox not included" means the hat box, well, is not included. If one's intent were to willfully deceive bidders into thinking this item was an antique, you'd make a mighty poor job of it by describing it, upfront, as "New" and failing to list it in the primary category for antique items of this sort.

 

[feltfan]

I can talk about "implicit" & "expectations" 'til the cows come home

Apparently. Looks like you've got a strong opinion here...
But if we can talk about it this long, the listing was not clear.
I don't think you can say of me "sour grapes".
I didn't buy the hat. But I do feel sorry for the newbie who did.

 

[Rick Blaine]

...if we can talk about it this long, the listing was not clear.

Dunno' felt', I found it quite clear. As an unmuddied lake, as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. What is unclear (to me anyway) is how exactly the inclusion of the antique box might prevent bidders from being able to accurately identify this as a contemporary item. A thirty second Google search can accomplish this, eh? At any rate this transaction is really the concern of only three entities, the buyer, the seller and the facilitator.

I don't think you can say of me "sour grapes".

Agreed & cheerfully retracted!

 

[Andykev]

Caveat emptor

Well, the seller of the modern Stetson did a good job, and got a great price. Maybe I will "stage" some of the hats I want to sell in a similar fashion.

Hope I can get the best price, hope some bidder gets "auction fever", and I rake in the cash.

It is not unlike real estate. Many folks don't loose a minutes sleep when they sell their home for $700K, when five years ago they got it for only $250K. And do you think when you buy that house, all the model home type of furnishings the seller rented to "stage" the home will be there?

No the auction showed all the trappings of a slick magazine ad. The hat was clearly no where worth what it went for. BUT if the seller is happy (and darn well should be for that rip off price) and the buyer is happy (hey, they got a hat they really really wanted obviously), then everyone wins.

Just because we all know better doesn't make this auction a fraud. Now if the buyer logs on to "The Fedora Lounge", they will get educated about what the hat is really worth.

We have all bought things for too much money when we were getting into a new hobby, or didn't know what the "experts" knew. Happens every day.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[Panamabob]

I'm taking notes....nah!

 

[Samsa]

I tend to think that an honest seller would specify the age of an item to the best of his ability - especially when the item is something like a fedora, where appreances can be deceiving and there is a sizable demographic who buys and wears vintage fedoras. Whenever I have sold hats on eBay I have done my best to make a well informed estimate as to the hat's age, based on the information I have gleaned here. I don't think that this particular seller was being dishonest - but he certainly did not describe the item as accurately as he could have.

 

[Dinerman]

Congrats, Rick.
I like your auctions.

I know that when I sell, it always pains me when its the wrong hats that go for the big bucks; when the mediocre to poor hats, no matter how accurately described, get driven up by a bidding war, or when fantastic hats don't go for much. It happens, and while a well written description and good pictures like yours go a long way towards making a big buck sale, the bidders are the ones who make the price go where it goes. While I aggree this price is kind of nuts for what the hat is, it's ultimately the bidders who made the price go where it did.