stock photo / used item / case in point

[monty1964]

Posted before about this. The item acutally sold though. 311993699008 No hole pictured in the stock photo, pictured elsewhere. How can this be OK??

[monty1964]

Item doesn't come up. Lands end blank teddy bear for 12.50

[rolenboy01]

I see photos that clearly show holes in the item.

[monty1964]

I see a stock photo that shows no holes. What does the item actually look like from the front?

[chocolatepoptart]

I fail to see the issue the flaw is clearly shown in the 3rd and 4th pics

[rolenboy01]

---

@monty1964 wrote:

I see a stock photo that shows no holes. What does the item actually look like from the front?

---

Not sure where you get the idea that is a stock photo? are you implying you have to be able to see the damage on the photo of the full item even if there is close up showing the damage if so why and how would someone even achieve as such from such a far away distance?

[nowthatsjustducky]

That first picture is not a stock photo.  It is highly unlikely a manufacturer would include a tape measure in their stock photos.

The only thing I see where the seller may have erred was in the condition description to ward off the "By exact words" nitpickers.  He should have said it was unused (instead of new) and is being sold as if new because of the hole where the monogram was.

[monty1964]

oops, should have pointed out that it is the seller's own "stock" photo. Has multiple auctions running with many different styles of stockings but always his own "stock" photos which are really not the exact item. If you use the zoom over the photo it does not show any damage.

[rolenboy01]

---

@monty1964 wrote:
oops, should have pointed out that it is the seller's own "stock" photo. Has multiple auctions running with many different styles of stockings but always his own "stock" photos which are really not the exact item. If you use the zoom over the photo it does not show any damage.

---

But he shows the damage in other photos so what do you care? if someone has a problem it's on him who cares what happens to him? do you really think someone is gonna be absolutely heartbroken that a piece of material has some show holes which he showed or what?

[a_c_green]

---

@rolenboy01 wrote:

---

@monty1964 wrote:

I see a stock photo that shows no holes. What does the item actually look like from the front?

---

Not sure where you get the idea that is a stock photo? are you implying you have to be able to see the damage on the photo of the full item even if there is close up showing the damage if so why and how would someone even achieve as such from such a far away distance?

---

It's not really a "stock" photo in the sense of it being provided by a manufacturer, but the seller is definitely reusing the first photo and apparently the back view as well. They have a new listing active right now that is using the same initial two photos (a needlepoint stocking with no name embroidered at the top). In the listing with the flaws, they added closeups of those flaws in later photos. 

It's kind of a dicey approach to reuse a stock overall shot like that, apparently on the theory that the sample flaws aren't visible at that distance anyway, but at least they have the closeup photos added in as well. It looks like they used some kind of a tripod mounting and a display jig in order to shoot a whole lot of different personalized stockings in one session, but then could not go back later for an overall shot of the flawed one, so they made do with the reused overall photo(s), and shot closeups separately.

[rolenboy01]

I suppose you could call it dicey but It's none of our business that's between this seller and the buyer we can only hope they get snad after snad and learn from their mistakes,