Gnat the Beggar wrote:So someone DID have the time to reduce the price, but not enough time to FIX THE LISTING!?

I'm sure these sorts of sales reductions are done automatically across whole categories. No one is reducing the price on individual items.

What I took from Aaron's response is that they're doing the best they can with the resources at their disposal, and don't plan on making any substantial changes based on the concerns/complaints aired here. Basically it's a, "Yes, we hear you, but we're not changing anything." Specifically:

1) Stock photos for high value items will continue to be used.

1a) These stock photos will not always depict the correct printing/version.

1b) NKG's classifications of various printings differ from the Acaeum's, and they don't plan on taking the time to update/correct them.

2) The grading concerns won't be addressed. The same person who has been in charge of OOP grading for a long while will continue to do it, and Aaron gave no indication that standards will be tightened up.

3) They will address individual complaints about the above by reacting after the sale.

My main beef has been with (2) and (3) above. Since I started buying occasionally in 2006, the attention to detail in grading has always been hit-or-miss. More than 1/3 of my orders have been what I considered significantly below par condition-wise based on my understanding of their grading scale (2). I've even received totally different items than advertised on a couple of occasions. When I have bothered to complain (not every time), a store credit has been issued without asking if that's what I wanted (which it wasn't, since I then need to use other funds to find the right item somewhere else...). I've only purchased something over $100 once, and I did ask for photos, was sent them promptly, and then purchased the item and it was as described/pictured.

It is what it is. Buy or don't buy based on that. There's no point in continuing the abusive rants. OOP sales are not their top priority in any case, and Aaron is just not willing to devote the time and effort to meeting the (what he implies are the unreasonable) expectations of (some) here. If it's not worth it to him, then it's just not.

Thanks for coming in and taking the time to respond, Aaron.



I think Invincible Overlord's suggestion above is the best.

1) Pictures - Set a certain amount (say over $100, or $200?) where items will have an actual picture.

Just about everyone doesn't get bent too much if they drop $20 on something and it isn't exactly what they were expecting, but when an item gets up above $100 or so, that's when most people start to get a bit nervous.



When you start talking about a $100+ for an OOP D&D/RPG item, you're generally talking about something that there is a reasonably limited audience for, and a discerning one at that. If you're interested in serving that audience, I think it behooves you take the time to get a real picture of them on ebay.



The majority of items on ebay do have specific pictures of the actual item, it seems to be only the "large" sellers that don't, because they don't have time. And by large, I mean number of listings, not size of staff.



If you don't have the time to do that for reasonably rare items, then it seems like you should reconsider selling those items on Ebay. It's not extraordinary service to ask for a picture of the actual expensive item, it's just service, and not something unreasonable to ask for.



List of people I see with stock photos in the Gaming sections: cougarrinnard, Troll and Toad, and Noble Knight games.



I've personally purchased a few items from your site, not ebay, so I know you're not amongst those other two, or wouldn't want to be, but that's the company this decision puts you in with.



Guido, Intelligator, and Badmike all place pictures of the actual item up with everything they post. You might rebut that you have too many posts to keep up with that practice, and my response would be, limit your postings then, or at least of the high profile items.



In short, the decision to not post real photos on Ebay places you in the same category as other less than respected businesses in your category. It's an impression you will always have to fight against, because the assumption will be against you, no matter how many good items you do sell.

Busman wrote:
Guido, Intelligator, and Badmike all place pictures of the actual item up with everything they post. You might rebut that you have too many posts to keep up with that practice, and my response would be, limit your postings then, or at least of the high profile items.

I would like to say I sometimes use stock photos when selling multiple items of the roughly the same condition, particularly when they are magazines or other cheap items. I wouldn't, however, use a stock photo for something over $100 or a rarity.

Mike B.

Badmike wrote:I would like to say I sometimes use stock photos when selling multiple items of the roughly the same condition, particularly when they are magazines or other cheap items. I wouldn't, however, use a stock photo for something over $100 or a rarity.

killjoy32 wrote:i would never buy or sell something with a stock photo of $100 or over, ever.

Guys this goes without saying ... of course you would supply photos for expensive items ... having dealt with both of you you are are in a different seller category all together.  That's aside from the fact you are both active members of this community.

mbassoc2003 wrote:So Aaron posted on here. Did he actually do anything? Or was it just a hollow T&T style BS PR exercise? There seem to be no end of listings at rediculous prices with misleading stock photos (a minor issue I suppose)

Ian, you and I both know that Aaron made it clear in his post what he will and won't do. While I don't agree with his approach it is his business and he is entitled to do as he pleases. So no nothing will change. No need to drag this out any further.  

Having said that you did point out a very interesting auction .... which as an owner of a covered Jade I couldn't resist commenting on.

mbassoc2003 wrote:
but these two are deliberate attempts to lie about what the seller is selling.

** eBay auction listing blocked.  Please enable cookies in your browser for this site and for eBay! **

While I don't agree with the statement that the seller is lying about the The Jade Hare auction it is one in particular where Aaron's argument around using stock images is flawed.  The cover photo in the auction listing is clearly intended to draw your attention and is NOT a stock image of the item.  And while the auction states it is for the coverless version it is not clear as the statement is buried in the text (pricing aside). Interestingly the words coverless were not used anywhere in either the auction title nor in the title of the auction text.

Where it becomes laughable is this line taken from the auction:

NKG wrote:
This product shows a picture of the cover for completeness.

Completeness?  Not sure what that means but it does clearly indicate a clear understanding by the seller that they know the product does not include the cover so why not grab the stock photo of the coverless version?  After all it is on the same Acaeum page as the cover photo. Wouldn't you grab the real stock image for completeness?

mbassoc2003 wrote:
Aaron,
Are you going to stop your staff doing this? Or is this acceptable business as far as you are concerned?

Ian, I do think you have had an impact as the auctions were taken down.

One of the keys to listings by this company is that if you want to protect yourself as a buyer you MUST take extra precautionary steps to avoid disappointment with your purchases on e-Bay.

1) you need to be VERY CAREFUL that what you see is what you will be buying
2) Be especially careful that you read EVERY Word all the way down in the description
3) Read the Title more than once... for the same reasons
4) if you are not sure... ask them to explain.
5) if the explanation provided by NKG does not clear it up... PASS!

That is more trouble than one usually has to go through for items that are (for the most part) overpriced and (according to the owner of the company) so common as to never need a picture of the exact item being offered in that listing as the (1000 ... ) words used in the listings should be more than enough for anyone to figure it out...

Sorry, but I am not buying into that hype.
Throughout this thread it has been made perfectly clear through this sellers own e-Bay listings what the troubles are in its e-Bay listing, and the owner of the company has posted here and was very clear in his intent to NOT change the companies listing policies much... if at all.

Some of the listings that are specifically pointed out here get pulled so it seems obvious that someone is watching this thread for now and responding to specific links provided by members of this forum.

What of those that are not specifically linked here?
And what happens when the Acaeum Forum watch gets pulled as being to costly?
This thread would quickly get bogged down if all of Noble Knight Games' questionable listings with  misleading titles and misleading (or vague) descriptions and wrongly posted "Stock Photos" were posted here.

Al, agree with most of what you are saying.

Some buyers though might be too eager to pull the trigger...

Yeah, buyer beware and all that...

Even so, does the seller have SOME responsibility to post correct data?



On the other side of the coin they also have listings like this one...

** eBay auction listing blocked.  Please enable cookies in your browser for this site and for eBay! **





Picture is the companies Logo, but the Title and in the description (At the top in fact) the words describe exactly what is being offered.

Are there 20 different folks posting e-Bay descriptions?



Surely it cannot be the same individual is posting vague descriptions that can easily be misunderstood and later post the descriptions above which is SO VERY carefully worded to exactly describe the item?

What I don't  understand is the chances an ebay seller takes with difficult or hidden descriptions. On Ebay, ALL the power is now with the buyer, who can for any reason state NSAD (Not Significantly As Described) and be refunded in full, the money pulled right out of the seller's paypal account.  In many cases, the seller may or may not even get the item back!  Why someone would take this chance with a $350+ item is beyond me, much less the negative feedback/DSR that would result. It's to the seller's advantage to completely and accurately describe all items for sale to avoid problems like this.

Mike B.

I lost my love for NKG years ago when I won an auction for the Rob Kuntz Plantmaster stuff that he has tons of.

After winning the auction (I think is was for $20.00 or so) he sent me an invoice with shipping for over $70.00.  I sent him a terse e-mail about the overcharge on shipping and his reply was something like "I didn't get what the item was worth so I charge more for shipping"...  I told him to go pound sand and his further response was that he would issue me $20.00 or so credit in his online store.  Once again I told him to go pound sand and left it at that.  I ended picking up those same mods at Gencon for around $5.00 per book.

Simply enough NKG is just an online reatailer now and most of there OOP stuff is pricey.  T&T, NKG, Cougie  all the same.