4003 Shadow on ebay, possible scam

ken_james · Post by **ken_james** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 6:55 pm

The photo of the shadow is mine, probably taken from Bjorns website, I asked him to remove the photo, and I wanted to alert the forum about it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4713&item=2544992695

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 3:56 am

Kevin: When it comes to scams, there appears to be no end to the imagination. Thanks for the alert.

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:07 am

Seems it's ended early... who'd a thunk it?

ken_james · Post by **ken_james** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:14 am

She emailed and offered apoligies, and used newer pics of the bass. Sorry, but I didn't want anybody getting burned.

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:22 am

It's helpful. You were just trying to cover our collective basses.

mortivan · Post by **mortivan** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:11 pm

You were just trying to cover our collective basses.

Uh-oh! Watch out for Pete's PUNctual response ...

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:25 pm

It has been relisted with the infringing picture removed:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4713&item=2545124730

What I don't understand is why in the first ad the seller didn't simply state, "I currently have no pictures of this bass to post, but here is a link to a picture of a nearly identical bass: ...", instead of stealing the picture and posting it as his/her own.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 7:37 pm

maybe because the new pictures are lousy, you can hardly see the bass, and pictures like that can hide a multitude of defects.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:14 am

Bob, you are probably right, the seller liked the quality of the stolen picture over that of his/her own pictures. However, I can attest to the fact that Jetglo is probably the hardest color to photograph well, based on my experience. I'm no pro photographer, but I think that the background used, the lighting (flash or ambient light), the exposure compensation, and the camera-to-guitar distance are all parameters in a convoluted relationship. So the seller's poor pictures don't surprise me.

A Fireglo 360/12 I took pictures of kept looking way to pink with my Olympus D-400Z, so other colors can pose problems, too.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:23 am

I just took a lot of pictures of mine and I'm not exactly the worlds best photographer, that's why I took a bunch, I took a lot of photos of my 72 4001FL JG we'll see how they come out. I used a regular camera, my digital is still in Peru.
By the way that bass sold for a good price, or is it back in? Was over $1100.00 if I remember correctly.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:23 am

good price for the seller I mean.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:23 am

It ended on July 19th with a high bid of $1,375.02; like you said, Bob, a good price for the seller!

Bob, did you take notes on the settings used for your pictures? I think that it's the only way to become proficient at taking consistently good-quality pictures of guitars. I need to do that myself because I do what you do, take lots and lots of pictures (although on my digital camera) in hopes of getting some good ones.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:46 pm

Well just good light seems to help me, I took these outside on the porch today, I have a junk digital in Lima, I need to get a good camera and learn the art of it, I never even owned one before last year.

paul_yan · Post by **paul_yan** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:41 pm

$1375.02 is still a nice deal if I were the buyer. I got my Shadow from Mike Parks for $1530.
According to an email from the seller, there was not even a scratch on the baby. She had been seldom played. And I believe her words.
Wish I were the auction winner haha!

Bob,
2 books are highly recommended:

1-Compact Cameras: How to get the best from your point and shoot camera. (John Garret, Ebury Press)

2-The Basic Book of Photography: The Classic Guide. (Tom Grimm and Michele Grimm, Plume)

The former is a 128-page book with lots of colour images and easy-to-understand text. The latter is a thick 568-page one with only B+W images that has been sort of a photography students' bible.

Both were published long before digital cameras became very popular but all the concepts work equally well for both analog and digital picture takers.

I don't own a digital camera yet and probably won't in a long time (would rather save the money for another RIC bass). All pictures of my babies were taken with an old all-manual '70s Nikon FM (predecessor of the 'ubiquitous FM2) that my late father (rest his soul) gave me. Waiting for the lab to develop and print is the hardest part for me.

Digital cameras are very good for woodshedding as you don't waste films in the process. Have fun "painting with lights"!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 8:00 pm

Thanks Paul, but I think the reason I'm not good with a camera is that I have no real interest in them, sad to say, so I guess I probably would not be able to get through even the 128 page book.
By the way, could you give me that Ampeg link again for the book? I almost bought one once on Ebay but didn't have a reserve and got it stolen in the last few seconds, I've learned though, if you really want something on Ebay put in a nice high reserve.