What's new
  • Guest
    As per our long standing policy of not permitting medical advice on the forum - all threads concerning the Coronavirus will be locked.
    For more info on the coronavirus please see the link below:
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html

score! gold flare tip?

V

VR6ofpain

On my monitor this razor doesn't even look gold. It is dirty as hell too.
 
The real test is to compare the box of razors against BurmaShaver's photos. That said, I suspect he'd be hard pressed to replicate a "white balance error" as perfectly as was done with the sample he was bidding on...
I'm not sure what is being said here, but let me just say:

1. This is the same picture set I sent to the seller to explain the situation.

2. I said the seller NEVER claimed it was gold; that was MY assumption.

3. This is the same razor, right out of the box, positioned the same way--with no cleaning, alterations, etc.

4. I only posted it to show that digital lighting/pics are not 100% accurate and that it is the bidder's responsibility to confirm the details about an item.

5. These mistakes happen--and continue to happen--so use my mistake as an example.

'Nuff said!
 
I'm not sure what is being said here, but let me just say:

1. This is the same picture set I sent to the seller to explain the situation.

2. I said the seller NEVER claimed it was gold; that was MY assumption.

3. This is the same razor, right out of the box, positioned the same way--with no cleaning, alterations, etc.

4. I only posted it to show that digital lighting/pics are not 100% accurate and that it is the bidder's responsibility to confirm the details about an item.

5. These mistakes happen--and continue to happen--so use my mistake as an example.

'Nuff said!
"What is being said" is:

The way to test white balance is to check known white objects against the picture...hence, use the box of razors as a reference point rather than a razor that may or may not be tarnished.

Put more simply, if the razor box is accurate in color, but the razor is not, it's not a color balance issue.

My second point was that even if it is a photography error, it's not an easy one to make. Tons of modern cameras don't even have white balance settings and the ones that do don't have the settings easily accessible.

One needs to dig fairly deeply into one's camera options to manually manipulate the white balance...and it would take a bit of manipulation to walk away with a nice photo perfectly reproducing a razor more rare than the one actually being sold.

I was making the point that if you wanted to test what I'm suggesting, try to reproduce the original photo. If you can even do it, it won't be as simple as turning a dial on your camera or taking the shot under your bedroom reading lamp. It'll take a few tries and numerous tweaks to your settings.


All of these issues speak to me about the reality that the photos you all are bidding on are not accidental. So while the general tone of the thread seems to be one can't trust cameras, I am pointing out that it's more likely that one can't trust ebay sellers.

Now you can yell at me about how it was your fault or whatever, but the fact is that your assumptions were reasonable assumptions and the reason why we have consumer and advertisement laws in the US. The fact that ebay is very much a commercial venue rather than its original garage sale days means that consumers need to be aware that all the snake oil saleperson tactics of old are back in full throttle without the legal framework protecting against them.
 
All of these issues speak to me about the reality that the photos you all are bidding on are not accidental. So while the general tone of the thread seems to be one can't trust cameras, I am pointing out that it's more likely that one can't trust ebay sellers.

Now you can yell at me about how it was your fault or whatever, but the fact is that your assumptions were reasonable assumptions and the reason why we have consumer and advertisement laws in the US. The fact that ebay is very much a commercial venue rather than its original garage sale days means that consumers need to be aware that all the snake oil saleperson tactics of old are back in full throttle without the legal framework protecting against them.

I agree that the assumption that this is a gold razor is perfectly reasonable. What you say here is very well put indeed. I would like to learn that the razor turns out to be a gold one.

However, I find that I must disagree with the point that the seller must have purposely tweaked the camera to create a fake picture. If the camera is set to a daylight white balance, which is absolutely typical, and if the picture was taken under tungsten light, which is also very typical, the picture would turn out with a heavy yellow cast to it. Any picture taken without tweaking white balance and under a standard incandescent light bulb could very easily look exactly like the one posted on the 'bay.

(As an aside, in the old days, when one created pictures under tungsten light using daylight balanced film the lighting effect was known as "Old Master" light. One gets the same yellow cast with color film unless one uses a blue filter on the lens.)

If it turns out that the razor is nickel however, while the seller may not be guilty of faking a picture, the seller will have posted a deceptive picture and the buyer will have bought something on the basis of a misrepresentation.

Whether it was purposely done or inadvertent is to my mind irrelevant, and while I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was purposely or deliberately done, it will have been done and a refund owed.
 
Ontario,
Are you referring to the first picture?

My post was referring to Burmashaver's item:

and was predicated upon him comparing the blade packaging against one that he either owns or is certain has been correctly photographed.

My point of him testing it out himself was merely to satisfy his own possible curiosity of how simple (or not) it would be to reproduce the image the seller was using.

The underlying point, however, regardless of how one believes the seller came to obtain the selling image, is that the seller had to have known the image he was using was not representative of the item he was listing...which seems to me to support my conclusion that it was not simple error.
 
I'm not sure what I'm not explaining adequately enough, so more than likely this will be my last post on the subject...

Comparing the image to the left to the image on the right...and assuming the seller could compare the image to the item before posting it...

Is this more likely to be a case of innocent white balance settings, which could be easily corrected and the picture retaken

OR

Is this more likely the result of intentional camera setting manipulation, which is intended to lead potential buyers into thinking they are bidding on an item more rare than is actually being sold


If the latter, how many are willing to bet that if the item was actually gold toned, yet appeared nickel in the photo, that the seller wouldn't fiddle with the camera to ensure the gold tones were clear?
 
I don't care what the pictures look like. If a listing doesn't specifically state that the auction is for a gold razor, the fact that the bidder thought they were bidding on a gold razor based on a picture, is clearly not grounds for crying about misrepresentation. Having said that, kinggillette has auctioned enough razors that he/she should have proper photo technique figured out.
 
Ontario,
Are you referring to the first picture?

My post was referring to Burmashaver's item:

and was predicated upon him comparing the blade packaging against one that he either owns or is certain has been correctly photographed.

My point of him testing it out himself was merely to satisfy his own possible curiosity of how simple (or not) it would be to reproduce the image the seller was using.

The underlying point, however, regardless of how one believes the seller came to obtain the selling image, is that the seller had to have known the image he was using was not representative of the item he was listing...which seems to me to support my conclusion that it was not simple error.
Actually, I was referring to both the OP picture and this one.

I wouldn't go quite as far as to say that it's difficult to create a picture like this by mistake (I think it's really rather easy and too easy in fact, but that's a discussion for the Darkroom I suppose) but I agree completely and wholeheartedly with your last point:

regardless of how one believes the seller came to obtain the selling image, is that the seller had to have known the image he was using was not representative of the item he was listing​

Well said.

The seller owes a refund and an apology with respect to Burmashaver's razor. If the OP's razor turns out to be nickel, he too is owed his money back and an apology.
 
well, we did discuss at one time to spray paint a couple of slims with gold paint and try to ebay them, but that wouldnt be gentleman like...
 
Well said.

The seller owes a refund and an apology with respect to Burmashaver's razor. If the OP's razor turns out to be nickel, he too is owed his money back and an apology.
Neither of these razors were listed as being gold razors. :confused: And in the case of the OP, the razor doesn't even look like a gold razor. Wishful thinking on the part of the winning bidder doesn't constitute a breach of contract.
 
Neither of these razors were listed as being gold razors. :confused: And in the case of the OP, the razor doesn't even look like a gold razor. Wishful thinking on the part of the winning bidder doesn't constitute a breach of contract.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid. I see pictures of gold razors in both cases whereas you don't think that the OP's razor looks gold.

And while I don't want to be giving legal opinions, but it looks to me like a breach of contract: a razor is put up for sale, a gold coloured razor is pictured and a nickel one is delivered. To my mind that's a fundamental breach.
 
I am kinda on the fence here. If the photo was of the actual razor sold and if no claim was made then I don't see a huge transgression. If the razor looked gold, but was not described as such, you should ask the seller a question.

It is when one photo is shown and then a different razor is shipped that I get hopping mad!:mad:

Bought (or so I thought) a Fat Boy on the 'Bay and got shipped a slim once. Made the seller take it back. Seller claimed that it was the same so I referred to our wiki!:001_smile
 
guys... Get over it. This thread is so boring now.

You want to know how this story ends? After realizing it could a lighting issue but before paying I asked the seller. They told me it was silver. I told them their post was misleading and I wasn't going to pay, sorry. That was that. As for brief of contract, eBay can't do jack. They just give you all these hokey warnings to scare people to make the system work... like brainless sheep. And for what? An $8 SS... That's a goods price and it probably would have cleaned up like new. But you know what - I don't want another nickle SS and it is a matter of principle to me that I taught that incompitant seller to either have true color pictures or disclose the true color since their pictures were ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I was referring to both the OP picture and this one.

I wouldn't go quite as far as to say that it's difficult to create a picture like this by mistake (I think it's really rather easy and too easy in fact, but that's a discussion for the Darkroom I suppose) but I agree completely and wholeheartedly with your last point:

regardless of how one believes the seller came to obtain the selling image, is that the seller had to have known the image he was using was not representative of the item he was listing​

Well said.

The seller owes a refund and an apology with respect to Burmashaver's razor. If the OP's razor turns out to be nickel, he too is owed his money back and an apology.
That is the problem with Ebay sellers. They snap one picture, don't even look at the results and just post it on their auction. Sometime this works to the Sellers disadvantage. I scored a Gillette NEW which would be graded "Excellent" or "Near Mint" using the BST guidelines and I was the only bidder because the pictures were all fuzzy. Even when I asked the seller for a picture of the top-plate condition because the ad mentioned a scratch I still got back an out-of-focus shot. Digital "film" is cheap! One can keep snapping until they get the picture they need/want. I don't understand why folks are so haphazard about photos of their eBay items when excellent pictures can start bidding wars and net you top dollar. I guess because razors require work in macro that throws most people off. :confused: But BurmaShaver's example is extreme. Perhaps that seller is just using really bad lighting but there is no way that the Seller doesn't "notice" that her nickel-colored razors are coming out golden in the pictures. Even if it is an accident that the picture turns out that way it is negligent for the seller to post those pictures instead of taking new ones in better lighting.

When I post items for sale or a razor I've scored I'll probably take 20-50 pictures to post 5. I'm no photography genius so about 30-40% of them are out of focus or have other issues. But I keep trying until I get the shots because I know they make the difference. My pictures are definitely not the best I've seen. I could work on lighting and what-not but I try to get the shot. Which is more than I can say for many eBay sellers.
 
guys... Get over it. This thread is so boring now.

You want to know how this story ends? After realizing it could a lighting issue but before paying I asked the seller. They told me it was silver. I told them their post was misleading and I wasn't going to pay, sorry. That was that. As for brief of contract, eBay can't do jack. They just give you all these hokey warnings to scare people to make the system work... like brainless sheep. And for what? An $8 SS... That's a goods price and it probably would have cleaned up like new. But you know what - I don't want another nickle SS and it is a matter of principle to me that I taught that incompitant seller to either have true color pictures or disclose the true color since their pictures were ambiguous.
So you bought a disgustingly filthy razor for 8 dollars, on the slim hopes of duping some unsuspecting seller out of a rare razor, based upon pictures that show no hint of any evidence that anyone could reasonably assume were pictures of a gold razor? A razor that up until about a month ago not a lot of people on this forum even knew existed. Then, when you found out you just bought the actual razor that the seller was offering, which was just an ordinary silver SuperSpeed, as a "matter of principle" you told the seller to go screw himself because HE was "incompitant"?

Got it.
 
Top Bottom