My old Chim on Ebay but it's not!

[scotty_d]

Was having a browse on E-bay and found this Chimaera

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1997-TVR-CHIMAERA-YELLOW-/30...


More to the point the 9th picture in is the one in my profile!


Was my old Chim as that was a pic my mate Kris http://www.topgearphotos.com did on my Photo shoot Cheeky git selling my car again only sold it 2 weeks ago.

And my car has the facelift back end unlike the car for sale.

Edited by scotty_d on Wednesday 8th December 03:08

[ralphy12345]

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

[.Mark]

Madness. They don't even look the same shade of yellow.

Anyone looking close enough will notice the different rear ends and not go near it shirley?

[SwanJack]

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Edited by SwanJack on Wednesday 8th December 10:00

[miniman]

SwanJack said:

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Perhaps you could ask him why he's using someone else's photos to advertise his car?

[Chassis 33]

SwanJack said:

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Edited by SwanJack on Wednesday 8th December 10:00

Genuine reason, namely he can't afford it???
No excuse for putting photos of the "wrong" car in an ad, piss poor effort.
Regards
Iain

[ralphy12345]

SwanJack said:

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Edited by SwanJack on Wednesday 8th December 10:00

Err, hang on a minute: the OP said he'd sold it two weeks ago, the advertiser says it has been his for over a year. Hence my 'presumably' with a question mark on it. So which version is correct?

R

[darkcat]

he says there where only 100x 400 HC's made?? is that true????

[SwanJack]

miniman said:

SwanJack said:

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Perhaps you could ask him why he's using someone else's photos to advertise his car?

I've asked him, the ninth photo is a stock photo obtained from www.topgearphotos.com that he used as his deskop photo when he was on the hunt for a yellow chim. He still had the file on his pc and used it in his ad. I don't expect he was anticipating the pistonhead ad Police to waste their time on such a serious matter....

Edited by SwanJack on Wednesday 8th December 10:35

[SwanJack]

Chassis 33 said:

SwanJack said:

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Edited by SwanJack on Wednesday 8th December 10:00

Genuine reason, namely he can't afford it???
No excuse for putting photos of the "wrong" car in an ad, piss poor effort.
Regards
Iain

Belive me, he can afford it

[Chassis 33]

SwanJack said:

Belive me, he can afford it

Don't worry, the PH spelling police will be here soon too
Regards
Iain

Edited by Chassis 33 on Wednesday 8th December 10:39

[SwanJack]

ralphy12345 said:

SwanJack said:

ralphy12345 said:

Pic aside, he claims "This wonderful car has had in excess of £6000 spent on it in just over a year during my ownership ,and totally genuine reason for sale." so presumably that's a porky too?

R

I know the car and the seller personally, he has spent that amount on it and he does have a genuine reason for sale. Why not ask him to see the receipts?
In short therefore, you're talking Bcks.

Edited by SwanJack on Wednesday 8th December 10:00

Err, hang on a minute: the OP said he'd sold it two weeks ago, the advertiser says it has been his for over a year. Hence my 'presumably' with a question mark on it. So which version is correct?

R

You make no reference to this point in the message to which I responded. In any event the OP's car was sold two weeks ago, which has been established as being a different one to the one being sold on e-bay, which has been owned for over a year by its seller. As mentioned, its just a stock photo used from a photographers gallery, readily available to all and sundry

[SwanJack]

Chassis 33 said:

SwanJack said:

Belive me, he can afford it

Don't worry, the PH spelling police will be here soon too
Regards
Iain

Edited by Chassis 33 on Wednesday 8th December 10:39

I wont feed the dogs this morning then

[V8 GRF]

SwanJack said:

the ninth photo is a stock photo obtained from www.topgearphotos.com that he used as his deskop photo when he was on the hunt for a yellow chim. He still had the file on his pc and used it in his ad. I don't expect he was anticipating the pistonhead ad Police to waste their time on such a serious matter....

The problem with using someone elses photo innocently or otherwise is likely to arouse suspicions because that's what ebay scammers do. As I'm sure you're aware they take info from other people's entries and use photos from similar adveerts to creat their own 'item' that they then attempt to sell.

It may well be that your friend has done this innocently but in doing so has justifiably created some suspicion in the OP's mind. Personally I'm happy that the 'PH police' pick up on this sort of thing as they have spotted scams in the past that have been reported to ebay and removed before some poor sod is ripped of to the tune of several thousand quid.

Edited by V8 GRF on Wednesday 8th December 17:17

[ralphy12345]

SwanJack said:

You make no reference to this point in the message to which I responded. In any event the OP's car was sold two weeks ago, which has been established as being a different one to the one being sold on e-bay, which has been owned for over a year by its seller. As mentioned, its just a stock photo used from a photographers gallery, readily available to all and sundry

Look fella, the OP said "Cheeky git selling my car again only sold it 2 weeks ago." so that didn't clearly 'establish it as being a different one'.
The photo was irrelevant, the point is that there may have been an issue over the truth of the advert, hence my use of 'presumably' - as well as a question mark.

And FWIW I doubt the photo is without copyright, so it's not readily available to all and sundry unless 'they' have permission to use it.

R

[SwanJack]

ralphy12345 said:

SwanJack said:

You make no reference to this point in the message to which I responded. In any event the OP's car was sold two weeks ago, which has been established as being a different one to the one being sold on e-bay, which has been owned for over a year by its seller. As mentioned, its just a stock photo used from a photographers gallery, readily available to all and sundry

Look fella, the OP said "Cheeky git selling my car again only sold it 2 weeks ago." so that didn't clearly 'establish it as being a different one'.
The photo was irrelevant, the point is that there may have been an issue over the truth of the advert, hence my use of 'presumably' - as well as a question mark.

And FWIW I doubt the photo is without copyright, so it's not readily available to all and sundry unless 'they' have permission to use it.

R

So the OP saying "And my car has the facelift back end unlike the car for sale" doesn't lead you to believe that there are two cars involved. The photos show different cars, so of course we can establish difference.
How can the photo be irrelevant, it's at the heart of the ad's truthfulness.
Whilst I'm not up on copyright law, the stock photo carries no copyright notice and the website carries no reproduction warning. No doubt you will correct me.
Please drop the "Look Fella" opening, it carries an air of aggression and/or familiarity, I welcome neither.

[BliarOut]

Stock photos would put me right off

[ralphy12345]

SwanJack said:

So the OP saying "And my car has the facelift back end unlike the car for sale" doesn't lead you to believe that there are two cars involved. The photos show different cars, so of course we can establish difference.
You are quite right that there are two different cars involved, hence the confusion and the question on my part.

How can the photo be irrelevant, it's at the heart of the ad's truthfulness.
In my post, I asked the question with the preface "Pic aside,"

Whilst I'm not up on copyright law, the stock photo carries no copyright notice and the website carries no reproduction warning. No doubt you will correct me.
I do know a fair bit about copyright law as it happens but have no intention of correcting anyone! (Copyrighted or not, eBay are quite clear in their rules: No Unauthorised Linking to Photos. You cannot link to somebody else's picture (so it appears in your listing) without the owner's permission).

Please drop the "Look Fella" opening, it carries an air of aggression and/or familiarity, I welcome neither.
Fair comment and I withdraw it. (I don't welcome "you're talking bks" comments, btw).

So, we've managed to put each other's back up, which is a shame because a) I came on here to learn about my new acquisition and enjoy talking to other like-minded owners and b) it was over a genuine misunderstanding. But that's the risk when you're communicating by keyboard: I doubt it would have happened had we been talking verbally to each other.

R

PS I wish your friend well with his sale: it looks a very nice example of the marque.

[scotty_d]

This has went abit mental the chap selling is genuine just found it funny that he used my picture , but as said he had it as a back ground on his computer so good luck in his sale it is the best colour combination after all.

[.Mark]

scotty_d said:

This has went abit mental the chap selling is genuine just found it funny that he used my picture , but as said he had it as a back ground on his computer so good luck in his sale it is the best colour combination after blue.

EFA