Thoughts on this one?

[tbonesteak]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolex-40mm-...d/273083611999

[crowncollection]

Nothing stands out as fake but the seller has provided poor pics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GLADIATOR]

It will be genuine for sure.
What ever people think of Bob's Watches he knows the difference between genuine and fake
A

[Max16013]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

It will be genuine for sure.
What ever people think of Bob's Watches he knows the difference between genuine and fake
A

^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[promithius]

Is bob on here and can confirm the cert looks legit?

Nothing jumps out at me on the watch but as mentioned, crappy pics.

[tbonesteak]

Originally Posted by crowncollection

Nothing stands out as fake but the seller has provided poor pics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kinda my concern, plus low feedback.

Being in NYC where the seller is located, I can cut ebay out, meet him at RSC for authentication, pay the $150, and then make an offer.

He's at $18k OBO - I'd bet being a low feedback seller, he won't see an offer over $14-$15k, minus 3% + 10%, his net is around $13-$14k from those offers.

I'd also think he prob already took a trip to 47th St, where he was lowballed with offers of like $10k.

Debating if I want this, with no box/papers/warranty and what to offer for a F2F @ RSC.

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

It will be genuine for sure.
What ever people think of Bob's Watches he knows the difference between genuine and fake
A

. . . believe anything provided by a user with one transaction (a purchase, of unknown value) in the last year?

This is obviously a photo of a genuine watch, stolen by a hacker who will say anything to sell something he doesn't own.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by tbonesteak

He's at $18k OBO - I'd bet being a low feedback seller, he won't see an offer over $14-$15k, minus 3% + 10%, his net is around $13-$14k from those offers.

Keep in mind the FVF caps out at $750. After PayPal's cut (2.9%) and say $150 for shipping, the total fees on an $18k sale would be just above $1400.
So, the seller would net around $16.5k-ish on a full-price offer/sale. And at $18k, it's already the cheapest 116655 on eBay by +/- $2k.
So, getting a sub-$16k offer accepted might be wishful thinking, but you can give it a shot and see I suppose.

[eelpie]

Reported and removed.

It seems pretty clear that eBay agreed with my assessment of the auction.

Once again, people with $20,000 rose gold Rolexes do not suddenly reappear on the scene after making one purchase and having no sales in over a year.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by eelpie

Reported and removed.

It seems pretty clear that eBay agreed with my assessment of the auction.

Once again, people with $20,000 rose gold Rolexes do not suddenly reappear on the scene after making one purchase and having no sales in over a year.

Good catch if it was a hacked account. I reverse-searched the ad verbiage and pics and didn't get any hits.
So, while I agree that your assertion may be a red flag or even probable/likely, I would just be carful not to pigeon-hole every such listing as being a hacked account, automatically.
A seller's activity and/or frequency of listings by itself may be a clue, but it isn't a definitive metric. Personally, I have a decent amount of feedback on eBay and have gone years between listing items for sale there.
In the OP's case it would have been a FTF transaction, so the typical PayPal scam would have been identified fairly quickly.

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by freefly

Good catch if it was a hacked account. I reverse-searched the ad verbiage and pics and didn't get any hits.

So, while I agree that your assertion may be a red flag or even probable/likely, I would just be carful not to pigeon-hole every such listing as being a hacked account, automatically.

A seller's activity and/or frequency of listings by itself may be a clue, but it isn't a definitive metric. Personally, I have a decent amount of feedback on eBay and have gone years between listing items for sale there.

In the OP's case it would have been a FTF transaction, so the typical PayPal scam would have been identified fairly quickly.

The main tenet, the Cardinal Rule, the Prime Directive when using a nebulous medium like the internet is:

Buy the seller. Buy the seller. Buy the seller.

On eBay, reputation is reflected in feed-back:

What is the feed-back rating? How recent is the feed-back?

Is the feed-back for sales or purchases? Are the sales demonstrably similar to the item (watch) now being sold?

I would hesitate to consider anything offered by a seller with feed-back of seven; if only one of the seller's seven transactions had been a sale, I'd immediately look elsewhere.

There is a trend among the user's of this board to fixate on the minutiae of the watches when a quick scan of a seller's past can be far more informative, especially when scammers and hackers specifically use correct, if stolen, photos and copy.

When a single-transaction seller reappears selling a rose gold Rolex Yachtmaster after a year away, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suppose something's not quite right . . .



And the watch has been relisted . . .

Rolex 40mm Everose 18k gold Yacht-master 116655

[GLADIATOR]

And Removed again

[tbonesteak]

FWIW, I tried listing an $18k Sky-Dweller on eBay and wasn’t allowed (I ended up moving it here and it was a flawless transaction) - I have 100% feedback, but only 15 of them, most expensive was as a buyer of a $5k watch. Point is, I’m legit, as this guy could be too.

I also searched for the same wording & pics verbatim on the Googs and got nothing back like the poster above.

Now, I’ve got to ask, why would someone buy something and then sell it a month later for a loss? Who knows, but if he is legit, and at this point prob frustrated after having his ad removed multiple times, and wants to move it - could be a good opportunity to pick something up I like at a good price.

If you zoomed in on the pics, the serial did match the papers he had. Obviously that means little, but nonetheless, small detail. Him being in NY, he prob already went to 47th St and they lowballed the life out of him. He might just accept a touch more than the lowballs he already received to be done with it.

This is why RSC being here is so :money: If he accepted an offer, all I need from them is the authentication and go-ahead that it hasn’t been reported stolen. Well well well worth $150, plus, would they give me documentation that it is real too, or just verbal?

Thinking of reaching out to the ebay user. This part of the forum is the ultimate good guys section, so if there are any cracks in my plan where I’d wind up scammed, please share your thoughts.

Only thing I can think of is sleight of hand or bait and switch.

[tbonesteak]

Thought I had the user name saved on my computer, I do not... Anyone know how I’d find the user?

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by tbonesteak

Thought I had the user name saved on my computer, I do not... Anyone know how I’d find the user?

Listed a third time:

Rolex 40mm Everose 18k gold Yacht-master 116655 Oysterflex band

I've gotten it removed twice, and now I'm asking the ID be suspended.

Originally Posted by tbonesteak

Only thing I can think of is sleight of hand or bait and switch.

If the guy agreed to meet you and he is, as I am convinced, a thief, he may not be above bringing his pals Smith & Wesson along, in the hope you're carrying cash.

Just because internet fraud is a non-violent crime, there's no guarantee he wouldn't brandish a weapon or try some rough stuff, assuming, of course, that he'd meet at all . . .


And removed a third time.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by eelpie

The main tenet, the Cardinal Rule, the Prime Directive when using a nebulous medium like the internet is:

Buy the seller. Buy the seller. Buy the seller.

Sure, I think we all get that here. However, ignoring that tenet carries varying degrees of risk, depending on what corner of the "nebulous medium" you find yourself in.
IOW, not "buying the seller" when purchasing a watch on a forum, and paying via bank wire carries a lot of risk. Not "buying the seller" when purchasing a watch on eBay, and paying via PayPal carries considerably less risk.

Originally Posted by eelpie

On eBay, reputation is reflected in feed-back:

[I]What is the feed-back rating? How recent is the feed-back?

Is the feed-back for sales or purchases? Are the sales demonstrably similar to the item (watch) now being sold?

True. However, just as before, those things can be useful clues but none are definitive metrics by themselves to have someone's listing pulled, IMO.
Also, feedback can be manipulated. We've seen that here before with habitual scammers and those selling counterfeit garbage while maintaining 100% feedback.

Originally Posted by eelpie

There is a trend among the user's of this board to fixate on the minutiae of the watches when a quick scan of a seller's past can be far more informative, especially when scammers and hackers specifically use correct, if stolen, photos and copy.

That's because "fixating on the "minutiae" of a watch can yield definitive, actionable information. Scanning a seller's feedback cannot. If a watch can be positively ID'd as counterfeit, then there is no question that the listing should be pulled.
Same goes for if you can positively ID stolen pics/verbiage. However, just because you "think" a seller's feedback isn't up to snuff doesn't really give you any factual data. It can be a helpful piece of the puzzle, but not actionable on it's own, IMO.
If I listed one of my watches tomorrow, you would probably report it, going by your "system".

Originally Posted by eelpie

When a single-transaction seller reappears selling a rose gold Rolex Yachtmaster after a year away, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suppose something's not quite right . . .

You said it there yourself...Without any definitive proof/evidence, all you have is supposition. YMMV I suppose...

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by freefly

. . . those things can be useful clues but none are definitive metrics by themselves to have someone's listing pulled, IMO.

So are you suggesting that auctions for eight desirable Rolexes, with photos from eight different sources, posted by a user who registered one hour before offering the watches, should be allowed to continue to fruition?

Also, feedback can be manipulated. We've seen that here before with habitual scammers and those selling counterfeit garbage while maintaining 100% feedback.

Yes and no. If you know how to interpret feed-back (old from new, sales from purchases), patterns form. There's nothing that can be done about sellers who set up shill purchases to pad their sales figures, but by and large, history has shown most scammers aren't that patient.

That's because "fixating on the "minutiae" of a watch can yield definitive, actionable information. Scanning a seller's feedback cannot. If a watch can be positively ID'd as counterfeit, then there is no question that the listing should be pulled.

The people who obsess about the formation of the 'four' rarely, if ever, look past the watch itself. Many / most convincing scams employ stolen photos and copy, and there-by receive a clean bill of health from those who don't look any further. Declaring a watch correct based on Bob's paperwork is only half the job (and the wrong half) when everything is genuine but the seller.

Same goes for if you can positively ID stolen pics/verbiage. However, just because you "think" a seller's feedback isn't up to snuff doesn't really give you any factual data. It can be a helpful piece of the puzzle, but not actionable on it's own, IMO.

Identifying copy and images can certainly be helpful, but some here won't proceed unless they can identify the source, even though there are hundreds of sites that could be sources, and probably tens of thousands of photos and postings nobody here has ever heard of.

If I listed one of my watches tomorrow, you would probably report it, going by your "system".

You said it there yourself...Without any definitive proof/evidence, all you have is supposition.

Deeming a watch genuine when there's no evidence the seller is genuine is no help at all . . .

And you have more than supposition. You have metrics, you have logic, you have critical thinking and you have reason, if you employ them.

Is it possible for someone to inherit a new model Sub from his grandfather? Certainly, but not with the frequency this old chestnut is used on eBay, and BLNRs haven't been left in safety deposit boxes for 20 years simply because the model isn't that old.

Is it possible someone registered an hour ago, and that they're immediately selling eight different Rolexes, with photos and descriptions that are decidedly different? Of course, but what is the likelihood of that happening? It's rare, if not nonexistent, and letting those auctions run their course would be irresponsible.

Is it possible someone like capecodcloths retired in October, but then he came back in January with 3600 auctions for optics, bicycles, audio equipment and a couple of dozen identical Rolexes? Sure anything is possible, but Ukrainian hackers seemed like a more reasonable explanation.

No system is infallible, but it's better for buyers if auctions posted by suspect sellers are scrutinized and removed rather than the alternative, which is letting the auctions end, and dealing with the after-math when the auctions turn out to be scams.

I believe eBay would prefer to kill a dubious auction rather than deal with the villain-chasing and reparations, and buyers would certainly prefer not being scammed and possibly having their money tied up for days, weeks or months.

[tbonesteak]

Originally Posted by eelpie

Listed a third time:

Rolex 40mm Everose 18k gold Yacht-master 116655 Oysterflex band

I've gotten it removed twice, and now I'm asking the ID be suspended.



If the guy agreed to meet you and he is, as I am convinced, a thief, he may not be above bringing his pals Smith & Wesson along, in the hope you're carrying cash.

Just because internet fraud is a non-violent crime, there's no guarantee he wouldn't brandish a weapon or try some rough stuff, assuming, of course, that he'd meet at all . . .


And removed a third time.

I feel pretty safe on 5th Ave & 53rd St in Manhattan, especially considering I wouldn’t have cash. There are prob 5-6 armed good guys per block over there. Furthermore, if I could contact him and verify who he is, I can prob have a better idea if he is legit.

[newbee1]

These days a lot of Ebay IDs are hacked. I was trying to buy a DD on Ebay and placed my bid on one watch where seller had like 76 feedbacks but very low seller FBs. I didn't win the watch but then seller contacted me after couple of days claiming highest bidder backed out. I gave him a low ball offer and he accepted. Being blinded by the price, I gave him my email ID but something stopped me from making the payment. I posted my suspicion on this forum and after getting great advices from members I decided to back out. Today, ebay sent me a notification that particular ID was hacked and if I'm offered a deal, I should not pay.

Just wanted to share my experience before you proceed with this transaction.

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by tbonesteak

Furthermore, if I could contact him and verify who he is, I can prob have a better idea if he is legit.

You have his user ID, and the watch has not been relisted on eBay.

Please let us know what happens . . .

[tbonesteak]

Contacted the seller this morning, never heard back - asked if the watch was located in NYC & if he’d be willing to meet at RSC - with no response to that, I believe we have an answer to the legitimacy here.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by eelpie

I've gotten it removed twice, and now I'm asking the ID be suspended.

Based on what exactly? Your "gut" feeling about the seller's activity/feedback alone? It certainly isn't based on any factual evidence.

Did you confirm that the pics were stolen from another ad? No.
Did you confirm that the verbiage was stolen from another ad? No.
Was the price an obvious tell (listed way below market value)? No.
Any red-flags, besides his "inadequate" feedback? No.
Were there any other listing violations? No.

So, while you think you are doing the right thing, it's quite possible that you are seriously (and financially) impacting a legitimate seller (and eBay for that matter).

Originally Posted by eelpie

If the guy agreed to meet you and he is, as I am convinced, a thief, he may not be above bringing his pals Smith & Wesson along, in the hope you're carrying cash.

Just because internet fraud is a non-violent crime, there's no guarantee he wouldn't brandish a weapon or try some rough stuff, assuming, of course, that he'd meet at all . . .

Well that was quick...In just a few posts the seller has gone from hacking to aggravated assault and armed robbery!

1. Most eBay scams are PayPal scams, and the vast majority of those scammers do not reside in the US, let alone the city stated in the listing. A refusal to meet at the local RSC would be far more indicative of a scam than an agreement to meet there.
2. If you are too paranoid and/or can't figure out how to mitigate risk on a FTF deal, then you are probably better off staying at home in your hermetically-sealed bubble anyway.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by eelpie

Deeming a watch genuine when there's no evidence the seller is genuine is no help at all . . .

And incorrectly deeming a seller "hacked" without a shred of evidence is no help either (to the seller, potential buyers, or eBay). Going around trying to prove a negative, when you have no proof is not a good strategy, IMO.
If/when there is no hard/factual evidence other than feedback that doesn't meet your standards, you might try engaging the seller and/or requesting pics that prove possession before trying to get their account suspended.
Oh, and FYI: The majority of listings that get taken down here are for (verifiable) counterfeit watches. So yeah, I'd say that does prevent a fair number of people from getting scammed.

Originally Posted by eelpie

and BLNRs haven't been left in safety deposit boxes for 20 years simply because the model isn't that old.

See, now THERE is an example of actionable info.

Originally Posted by eelpie

Is it possible someone registered an hour ago, and that they're immediately selling eight different Rolexes, with photos and descriptions that are decidedly different? Of course, but what is the likelihood of that happening? It's rare, if not nonexistent, and letting those auctions run their course would be irresponsible.

I must have missed where the seller in the OP registered an hour before listing the YM. Or where he had 7 other Rolexes listed with differing photos/descriptions...

Yes, some scams are more obvious than others. While your vigilance regarding "hacked accounts" is warranted/appreciated, it's an issue that is largely predicated on the use of stolen pics (and often ad verbiage). Most scammers don’t have the items they list in their possession.
So, if/when a scammer just pops up and immediately lists 8 different high-dollar Rolexes, you should able to track at least one of the stolen pics down without too much effort.
I’ve done so here (and when reporting to eBay) countless times, typically with direct links to the stolen pics/ads.

Does that mean that all suspect listings with pics that can't be found elsewhere are automatically legitimate? Of course not.

Anyway, I have contacted the seller as well, and will report back if/when I hear anything.

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by freefly

I must have missed where the seller in the OP registered an hour before listing the YM. Or where he had 7 other Rolexes listed with differing photos/descriptions...

I'm sorry but I don't recall making those claims. I did, however, refer to user ID scotgilchris9, who listed 8 Rolex auctions a month or two ago, only to find seven of the eight auctions were scams . . . with stolen photos and copy inconsistent from one to the next. You know, the types of scams where people bid $47,500 on seven watches the seller didn't own?

As for people registering in the morning and posting auctions for Rolexes later that day, it happens every day on eBay, but most people are savvy enough to stay away from zero feed-back users until the auctions on these new accounts can be deleted.

You say PayPal scams are the worst problem on eBay (with no apparent data to back up that claim), but it seems pretty clear to most people, including myself, that identity theft is at epidemic proportions among the general populace, and that the internet version, account hacking, is rampant on eBay.

And I would ask you, would you offer $14,000 or $15,000 or $16,000 to a seller on eBay who had a feed-back rating of 7, and a sales history of 1, more than a year since, based on a couple of photos of a watch and a photo of papers from Bob's?

You seem to be stridently against an intuitive leap when it comes to low feed-back / few sales transactions / incongruous offerings, so I wonder if you would submit an offer of thousands of dollars based on the activities of jwebman305.

I personally feel life is too short and there are too many watches available to deal with a seller who has no tangible history.

[freefly]

Well, that was quick:

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by freefly

Well, that was quick:

Which proves precisely nothing.

What did you expect him to say, "I can't meet you 'cause I'm a criminal"? It's funny, though, that he didn't get back to our original poster, who showed an actual interest in buying the watch . . .


By the way, the "seller" is a liar, because I exchanged e-mails with him earlier in the day, and he knows exactly why the three (not two) auctions have been removed.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by eelpie

I'm sorry but I don't recall making those claims. I did, however, refer to user ID scotgilchris9, who listed 8 Rolex auctions a month or two ago, only to find seven of the eight auctions were scams . . . with stolen photos and copy inconsistent from one to the next. You know, the types of scams where people bid $47,500 on seven watches the seller didn't own?

Again, some are more obvious than others. My point was that this particular listing exhibited none of those traits.

Originally Posted by eelpie

You say PayPal scams are the worst problem on eBay (with no apparent data to back up that claim), but it seems pretty clear to most people, including myself, that identity theft is at epidemic proportions among the general populace, and that the internet version, account hacking, is rampant on eBay.

Right, and ID theft and account hacking on eBay (specifically to list bogus auctions) typically also involve a PayPal scam component. Hackers aren't just cracking peoples' passwords and listing auctions for the fun of it.

Originally Posted by eelpie

And I would ask you, would you offer $14,000 or $15,000 or $16,000 to a seller on eBay who had a feed-back rating of 7, and a sales history of 1, more than a year since, based on a couple of photos of a watch and a photo of papers from Bob's?

You seem to be stridently against an intuitive leap when it comes to low feed-back / few sales transactions / incongruous offerings, so I wonder if you would submit an offer of thousands of dollars based on the activities of jwebman305.

If I could arrange a FTF deal with the seller, as the OP intended, and/or be covered via PayPal's buyer protection? Sure.
Naturally, I'd do a good bit of due-diligence prior, but low/no feedback would not be an automatic disqualifier for me. Something to we mindful of, and given weight to? Absolutely. YMMV...

You seem to be stridently hyper-vigilant and focused on "hackers" to the point that it may be clouding your judgment (i.e. when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail).

Originally Posted by eelpie

I personally feel life is too short and there are too many watches available to deal with a seller who has no tangible history.

Totally your call. Just not your place to decide that for others, IMO. The fact is that you are probably correct most of the time, and many of these scam listings are pretty obvious.

All I am saying is maybe just pump the brakes a little when something isn't plainly obvious, instead of immediately dropping the hammer.

[eelpie]

Originally Posted by freefly

All I am saying is maybe just pump the brakes a little when something isn't plainly obvious, instead of immediately dropping the hammer.

Since eBay is not based on the American system of jurisprudence, there's no obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when filing reports, but having said that, I feel quite confident I've not gotten any valid auctions removed.

In my reports to eBay on these sorts of auctions, I always include, "Absent dated photos proving possession, this auction must be considered a scam / fraud, posted on a compromised or dormant account".

You can ask the sellers on these sorts of auctions for dated photos, or proof of life, and they never comply.

eBay would be well within their purview not to act on these reports, but since they can see all of an account's details, they seem to agree with me on a regular basis.

At the end of the day it's better to risk deleting a single moody auction and be wrong than to let similarly moody auctions run to their ends, and run the risk of bidders getting screwed.

Face it, if a seller hasn't had any activity in a year or more, eBay has very little to lose in the way of income by quashing questionable auctions.

[tbonesteak]

All I can speak is from a personal perspective - you can get through the weeds and find good deals if you’re willing to do your due diligence.

$18k isn’t a silly price for the 116655, some sellers have let them go for less here. If the seller would take a best offer of $16k, that’s in the ballpark of $14,500 net. I would’ve offered $14k, which would’ve been a score, but realistic if the seller needed to move it. By meeting him at RSC, I would’ve been able to verify authenticity and that it’s not on their stolen list, basically checking my two most important boxes, and then walking away with a great deal.

With all that being said, I would never do a deal like this if I couldn’t pay RSC $150 to verify this stuff in person, so I’d never randomly make an offer. It’s all moot though, bc for a seller who has relisted 3x, if he was legit, I would’ve had a response in minutes, it’s been 8 or so hours with nothing, so I know this is BS. “Watch” (which prob doesn’t exist) certainly isn’t located in NYC, nor is the seller, or he would’ve engaged in a negotiation with me quickly - I was upfront and to the point about RSC being a must. Having a 305 in the user name, I suspect a dormant account from someone in Miami that was hacked.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by eelpie

Since eBay is not based on the American system of jurisprudence, there's no obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when filing reports, but having said that, I feel quite confident I've not gotten any valid auctions removed.

In my reports to eBay on these sorts of auctions, I always include, "Absent dated photos proving possession, this auction must be considered a scam / fraud, posted on a compromised or dormant account".

You can ask the sellers on these sorts of auctions for dated photos, or proof of life, and they never comply.

eBay would be well within their purview not to act on these reports, but since they can see all of an account's details, they seem to agree with me on a regular basis.

At the end of the day it's better to risk deleting a single moody auction and be wrong than to let similarly moody auctions run to their ends, and run the risk of bidders getting screwed.

Face it, if a seller hasn't had any activity in a year or more, eBay has very little to lose in the way of income by quashing questionable auctions.

This has been an interesting read.

At the end of the day it’s better that nobody gets screwed, including the innocent seller caught in a witch hunt. Frankly, your willingness to slander an innocent seller occasionally as collateral damage in your crusade “for the greater good” is appalling.