in the Personal Journal section of WSJ today - not too encouraging.
No - It is not too encouraging. eBay doesn't seem proactive and though they claim the majority of the transactions are satisfactory, they don't acknowledge that some people are duped or they knowingly buy fake items. I just did a search for a Chloe Paddington and out of 200+ bags, just a few may have been authentic. The fakes are very obvious and eBay allows it. They must make a large profit from the fake items.
For those who don't have access to WSJ here is an excerpt regarding a fake Paddington the WSJ purchased for their story:
"The red Chloé Paddington bag looked the most authentic -- when we first opened it, we couldn't find any flaws. When we took it to a Chloé boutique, the sales associates said they weren't permitted to authenticate bags, but let us compare our bag with the store's merchandise. The only difference we could find after close examination was the leather used to wrap the brass lock on the bag, which was noticeably thinner and smoother on ours than the rugged pebbled leather on the store's bag. Saks's Mr. Fink said he was impressed by the quality of both the bag and of the tags. "The leather seems fine, the tags look very official," he said. Though for the price, he said, it's unlikely to be authentic Chloé, he couldn't be sure."
The reporter should have posted pics on this board!
You'd sure think they would make an exception
and authenticate for a friggin' reporter
I don't blame them for not authenticating. They want people to buy from them, not eBay. Theres no money in it for them to authenticate. Why should they help ebay?
Here is a link to the text--someone pasted it into a thread on the ebay community board:
"It took three messages and a threat to notify eBay to finally get a response from the seller, in which he promised a refund and asked us to ship the bag to an address in New York. But days later, we found out that the address belonged to his next victim: another defrauded customer, who also paid the seller $40 for shipping charges."
OMG!! THAT IS PRICELESS. :blink:
I agree with this policy. But in this case, as it was a reporter whose mission was to discredit Ebay, I would have thought theu would make an exception.
That's all I meant - a One Time Authentication that wouldn't help Ebay, but the opposite - to help confirm the rampant fraud on Ebay
Wow... that's pretty ballsy of the seller too. Just send it to the next poor guy/gal! I wonder if they let that person know. How horrifying.
I agree with chicbags, Chloe could have made an exception to show that it was fraudulent.
Well, to me if I see a Chloe bag for sale at $300, I would question it, but I know a lot of consumers don't know as much as we do.
However, when the copies are getting so good that they are "impressed with the quality" it really makes me wonder what is going on? Could that really be true? I think ultimately there is likely to be a difference in the leather texture and feel.
I agree too, for a reporter they could have made an exception, would have made for a good story too.
I am always suprised that Vuitton authenticates, they get nothing out of it, so why do it?
I found it interesting that most of the story focused on the obvious fakes. What about all those (like the Chloe) that are really close? eBay is so "buyer beware."