Seller on eBay selling new dress as vintage

P

polypam

Registered Guest
I just came across the listings of a very successful trendy vintage clothing seller on eBay and recognized one of her dresses as from the Luella for Target collection (plaid bubble dress). But she has it listed as a vintage dress from the 80's (in the 80's category). I've heard this girl has a bad reputation (she shills, she turns modern skirts into "vintage pinafores" etc etc). It's really annoying quite frankly (especially to us buyers looking for authenticity) and I just wondered if this can be reported?
 
Is it this one?

As far as I can see, she isn't a VFG member so there's no recourse for us to take against her. I guess you could attempt to report her to eBay. It could be an honest mistake if the label is cut-out and perhaps she mis-dated it? Try emailing her?
 
Hmmm...maybe she should give this a little more thought. A 39.00 dress and she asking 129.00. Now that a challenge!
 
well she is certainly at keyword abuse.....a vintage 80's design, well duh....state the bleeding obvious!! good quality images....why does she fel the need to trade on the vintage words.....
 
***"note: we believed this dress to be a vintage 80s design, however, we have been told that this is a Luella design"

That wasn't there at first (and yes, it WAS in the vintage category), but I have a feeling she knew it all along and was just caught "red handed" (or should I say "plaid handed"?). For someone who is in the trendy clothing trade, she should have recognized it anyway even if there was no label (which I find hard to believe since Luella labels weren't the itchy kind)...it was in every "Luella for Target" ad last year (very photographed, a few celebs wore it too). She still should take "vintage" out of the title, though that's not against eBay rules because it's a wee bit confusing.

Glad she changed it, though, if only to not get in trouble.

***"Maybe she's cleaned out all her local "junk stores" and has no clue how to get more inventory?"

Ha! I know the reference and all I can say is what goes around comes around.
 
As a vintage seller (and one that was recently highlighted in an interview no less) they should know the difference between authentic vintage and a Target dress. I don't know what's worse, deliberatly misleading a customer or not knowing your product.

I'd like to think it was an honest mistake, though. And she notes it in the auction which is the right thing to do.
 
If it were really a Pucci, you would think she would take close-up images of the signature in the print to prove it.

Of course, since it isn't THERE, because it's not a Pucci, she didn't.

Actually, the print looks more Peter Max-ish, than Pucci-ish. Very pop-psychedelic, rather than abstract/arty sub-psychedelic.

Janine
 
I was thinking the same thing about the signature. Meh, there is one buyer who doesn't know the difference and thinks she got a steal or someone who just liked the outfit for what it was.

Still, the original owner, had it been real Pucci, most definitely wouldn't have cut the label out! That's like today someone buying a brand new Chloe or Balenciaga and taking out the label! Those items are and were status symbols, you pay all that money for the look AND label, then you're going to cut it out? No way;)
 
l agree, pucci !!!! 'ucking load of balucci! !!! its DOES look Peter max-ish... and with the use of funkadelic, funky, pop art keywords l'm sure bidders would have given her a higher price....

but as they say, word gets arund...and in the end you shoot yourself in the foot...

l'm not sure by her polite responses, whether she is trying too hard or trying it on..

l'd like to believe the former...but hey!!
 
Cute set for $50 on its own merit. Is it me or does that skirt have a freaking crinoline under it? The crinni abuse on eBay anymore astounds me......

Ang
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top