Here is the latest laughable ebay advert from 'danapplemacman'
It is for an "1978-Apple-II-Computer-Integer-BASIC-Steve-Jobs-and-Wozniak-Collector-Quality-"
http://www.ebay.com/itm/120860101174
So everyone study the text and all the photos, both in the advert and in the body of the text, and see how many school boy errors make this NOT A GENUINE 1978 machine...
I have spotted at least 9 errors:
[1] - Photo of 6502 processor shows it as a MOS with date code 2881 - 28th week 1981 - not 1978
[2] - Photo showing the lid "velcro studs" on the main body, fixed in place by rivets - not 1978
[3] - Photo showing inside of lid "velcro studs" fixed by rivets - not 1978
[4] - Same photo showing inside of lid with RFI strip which contacts the RFI strip on the main body of RFI model - NOT 1978
[5] - photo showing motherboard - RAM selector chips soldered in place - not socketed
[6] - photo showing ROM chips & chips around - have date codes of 1980/81/82
[7] - photo showing motherboard & power supply - between the bottom tabs of slots 3 & 4 has the word "Rev" - likely rev 3 or 4
[8] - Text says "REVISION 1" motherboard - indicated by the single video pin - NOT TRUE could be REV 1/2/3/4
[9] - Text says "so a still all original non-modified original Apple II...." - Untrue chip date codes don't hold up
The seller has bought several INTEGER ROM cards recently and is not selling two ROM cards, one with Integer ROMS and the other with Applesoft ROMS, so it is more likely the ROM chips in the motherboard are not original.
Does anyone think that EBAY should remove this advert as there are so many mistruths held here as the "whole system" is mis-represented as 1978?
Can anyone sport more errors?
Actually the date code 7845 on the motherboard seems very "freshly" written for a 30+ year old computer.
It seems reasonable, based on the evidence to report this listing as Fraud... Although the Board might have been Swapped Out for an upgrade.. The Serial Number on the Case is quite low..
and now he is selling the beloved 1978 6502... date code 7812
http://www.ebay.com/itm/120860460059
Do we really need to have a new thread every time someone puts up something on eBay for a stupid price?
Doc,
I don't believe so. I think the one I started is enough.
Steven
IntegerRom,
By any stretch of the imagination, did you contact Dan (the seller) and tell him of your descrepancies?
He is usually pretty good with his descriptions on whatever he sells. I myself have bought sveral items from him over the last ten years and have never been unhappy.
He may just thank you for informing him of what you found.
Just an idea.
Steven
First, he admits some chips were replaced. Second, I don't know what you're talking about with the 6502 processor. Date codes are typically yyww (year, week), and this one (upside down in the picture) says 7812S. I'm not sure what the 'S' signifies, but o/w it's the 12th week of 78, which makes sense based on the dates stamped on the motherboard and keyboard PCB, which are clearly 1978.
What chips are not soldered? Everything I see is socketed.
Dan's listing has undergone 15 revisions since IntegerROM's original post. The note about not all the chips being original was added on the 15th. Originally, the auction showed the 1981 processor. This was changed to a photo of the 1978 processor on the 14th. Dan says that he had the two processors "switched out for testing and forgot to put back the original one when I photographed the system". In fact, so thorough was his forgetfulness, that after swapping the processors for testing, he managed to list the 1978 processor on eBay as a "[t]ested good original Synertec 6502 Microprocessor" that he had "kept [] as a working spare for a long time".
I believe IntegerROM will be returning to further clarify his concerns.
That's because it's now a different closeup pic of the 6502. If you look at the other pics of the motherboard you'll see a different processor in the socket. I looked at the pics earlier but didn't read the text. If he's said all along that some chips have been replaced then not having all original chips isn't a factor.
Wayne
Okay, now I think it is time to post some more information re this sale, which will follow over several posts.
Firstly though I want to answer some of the comments above:
Dr Webster - Under normal circumstances I would have posted under the already running "this is laughable!" thread, I started a new thread purely so that comments related to this particular ebay ad were not mixed in with other responses in that thread. In future unless I think special merit should be given to these overpriced auctions that we all laugh at then I will post under there.
Steven (gmscten) - Indeed I did stretch my imagination and contact the seller directly after I posted here but as you will see the seller didn't take too kindly to the information. Now I have absolutely no doubt that you and perhaps others have had happy experiences with the seller in the past and will probably do so in the future. I cannot and will not make comment on that. My purpose here is neither to berate or denigrate the seller in any way and I do not want his thread to degenrate into a witch hunt.
I will purley present the facts without exageration and let the readers make up their mind on the motives behind the ads and in particular this one which can be described as nothing more than a sham!
In contrast, given your own experiences with the seller and having checked back several pages of the seller's feedback the majority of the selling values of his auctions have been relatively low - less then $500. Then up pops this ad (not the first I may add) with a several thousand $ starting price, in it's first revision, which is full of exageration and misleading lies. Now humand nature changes when big bucks are concerned and as the expression goes when money talks people go to different lengths. I am not suggesting that is what has happened here, you make up your own mind.
Before detailing more, I should say that the seller has been in touch with Tom, the Applefritter site owner, regarding the initial post above. Subsequently, I have had extensive email exchanges with Tom in the last few days and he has had the opportunity to view the evidence himself and the ebay email exchange between the seller and myself. In fact he has posted above himself.
I will not be posting quotes from any of the email exchanges either with Tom or the Ebay seller, unless either gives express permission.
I would also ask the seller, if he is still reading this thread, to make a post to confirm or deny any of the information posted and if evidence allows - defend the ad and the original information.
To PR_6 - By the time you looked at both ebay listings I quoted above the seller had changed the contents.
In fact the Apple II auction has now undergone 19 revisions - changes to description/subtitle/add pics/delete pics/private auction/changes to buy it now price/duration - in fact the auction has gone form a 10 dayer now to finish in just 6 hours time! - Ask yourself why all the revisions? why the changes in duration? IF it is a 'genuine' (a word used alot in the original ad) auction for a 'genuine' 1978 piece of kit for 5 grand the you would want as many people to bid as possible and have it up for as long as possible?? There are no bids on it now - so it may go unsold.
As I say Steven, I did indeed ask a few questions of the seller, like the processor date code and the other auction. As Tom has stated above, the reply I got was that he hadn't swapped it back after testing. Which he quickly did and took/posted now photos to both ads, unfortunatley he forgot to change the descrption of the processor ad and left the "synertec" description - this has now been corrected. As has has been spotted already the "new" processor picture in the Apple II ad does not match the other photos showing the processor.
Anyway after several Ebay exchanges where I started to ask questions to the discrepancies in the posted pics and ad text the seller started, unexpectedly to get rather irate in his responses, not as you say Steven "He may just thank you for informing him of what you found." Rather than thanking me for pointing out the errors and giving a reasonable explanation the seller tried to explain these away as a 30 year old computer would not be expected to have all the original parts and these might have been swapped out over time when parts went faulty etc. I suggested that the machine could not therefore be "genuine 1978" or "original factory configuration" or "unmodified" (all words from the unaltered first ad) In fact I suggested that the only "1978" parts that could be seen were the unit base (with s/no label) the base motherboard and possibly the keyboard.
The seller probably after viewing this thread - how he came by it so quickly after I contacted him is anybody's guess - started to remove all the photos from the ad which show any date codes which were not 1978, removal of photos showing the riveted velcro studs - clearly from RFI and not 1978. Though he missed one, if you go to the ad now - well as I write you can't go to the ad as it has now been pulled and all the photos have been removed, never the less I can post the evidential ones - I was going to say there is a blank space at the one he missed.
There was a photo that clearly showed the RAM type selector chips, these were soldered in the motherboard - which was not of a REV 1 1978 board as the ad stated, in fact these were still socketed at this time as Apple were still selling machines with 4K RMA chips fitted or 16K RAM chips, the 4K RAM chip models has different selector chips inserted.
There was a photo, laterly removed, which you could make out the word REV between the slot 3&4 mounting tabs, I suggested that this was more likely to be a rev 3 or 4 board and not the rev 1 that the seller was adamant about. I suggested that he could clarify by posting a photo showing the motherboard with the processor removed - which would have had silkscreened the motherboard part number: the number 820-0001-01 would have clarified a rev 1 board. the seller chose not to do this but instead just remove the photo evidencing the REV printing.
I cannot say anything about the keyboard as to it's pedigree, but the system the seller was asking 5 grand for looks very much like a "make up" system.
Well, I guess it does not matter anymore as Dan has pulled the item.
Okay, I didn't realize he was changing the ad. I did see the picture of the riveted velcro, but I'm not familiar with how that dates it.
Thanks for the update.
I don't have much to add as a follow up, and I am not an expert in the Apple ][, being my first Apple ][ was an 1983 'e' Model.. But since I commented earlier....
The Apple ][ in Question has been "Removed" and the "lone CPU" in question, has been "edited", ( again ), and lowered in price..
I'm not against someone making a Profit, but using deceit... Really "irritates me"...
Thank You IntegerROM, for doing the "Right Thing".......
I agree. I'll update the AUP soon, with a ban on "point and laugh" eBay threads. This particular discussion has become something very different, however:
It still matters. Dan Foust (danapplemacman) contacted me, accusing IntegerROM of libel and aggressively demanding that I delete this discussion about his eBay listing. I discussed the appropriate response to Foust's demands with my lawyer, who assurred me that IntegerROM's post did not constitute libel.
Nonetheless concerned for Foust's reputation - and initially somewhat skeptical of IntegerROM's claims, because Foust had updated his auction listings to remove many of the incriminating photos - I replied to Foust asking him which of IntegerROM's allegations were false. Though I asked him for more examples, Foust disputed only a single fact:
I asked IntegerROM to defend his assertion, and he promptly responded with a link to the eBay auction in which Foust clearly purchased two Integer ROM cards. But there's 28 Apple II cards in the auction lot, and surely Foust wouldn't be so brazen as to encourage me to check his eBay history knowing it would disprove his case, so perhaps he genuinely forgot, I thought.
This is a picture of the ROMs on one of the Integer ROM cards that Foust purchased:
This is a picture of the ROMs that appear on the Apple II that Foust listed for sale on eBay:
Note how the stickers match exactly, from their orientation on the ICs to the partially clipped 'A' of the word 'Apple'. It amazes me that Foust would accuse IntegerROM of libel for saying he purchased "several INTEGER ROM cards recently", when it's clear that not only did he do so, but he pulled the ROMs from those very cards and installed them in this Apple II.
Combined with all the other inconsistencies, it is positively deceitful that Foust attempted to pass this computer off as "an original beautiful 1978 genuine Apple II computer, NON-upgraded, with original style silver Apple power supply, early Apple II raised power light keyboard, original 1978 motherboard with Integer BASIC ROM set!"
Further, I do not like receiving belligerent demands that I delete posts from this forum, although I take it very seriously when those demands include accusations of libel. In this case, Foust's accusation of libel was blatantly untrue and his demand that I delete IntegerROM's post was an attempt to cover up unethical behavior.
Dear Tom,
i do agree with your decession due to some remarkeble points:
Of course first i agree that no public postings should contain any kind of descrimination or offenses that can´t be proven.... second it is a fact that this treads are also watched from guests and all members within the community should allways bear that in mind.... in this specific thread i just judged the thread to be a kind of expertise from IntegerRom, who just issued several indications that probably the offer at ebay might probably not fullfill the text claimed within the offer and that any potantial buyer must be aware of the differences recognized and spotted out. Again specially when items are offered at realy high-price segment - some of the possible bidders do realy first check out if there is any text here within the forum as the result that within this comunity there are several members with recognizable detail knowledge and expertise to the stuff and visit the forum to listen to those experts... before making a decession to give a bid to that item....
so it would be a bad deal for the forum to "shut up" in such cases... because it would be against the target of the forum: "give and share knowledge about apple computers"
and the fact that in the one or other case some unethical behavior might be uncovered is more only a side-effect that in some cases might occur....
it also has influence to the market - where we all are involved in in the one or other way - as buyers or as sellers... and it surely is in the interest of us all to keep a watching eye to that market... in our own interest..
if someone in the market gets under suspision that the offered goods are not that as they are labeled it is in the interest of us all to keep that kind of behavior out of the market or to at least spot that behavior out to forwarn the other members...
but i agree too that it is a very narrow path and difficult to handle the dicession between what is expertise and what might be an unjustified offense - and that such threads must be kept under "survilance" just to list the facts and not raise unproved accuses... the facts themselve should always speak clear language by themself... and facts never need to be withdrawn...
regards speedyG
Tom, Doc, Speedy, and all:
I guess I had a hand in this. When I started the other thread my sole intention was to highlight the ever increasing amount of "Over The Top" prices some sellers are asking for Apple II items on eBay.
Never did I think that a second thread would show up touting the descrepancies of any particular item (from any particular seller). As I stated before, I have, over the years, bought several items from Dan and have never had a problem.
I always figured Dan to be a knowledgable Apple II / Mac person. That he would intentionally misrepresent his items was is beyond me.
So; if you decide that both threads should be removed and some sort of guideline set up for this type of situation, so be it. On the other hand, Part of AppleFritter is, as has been said, sharing information and I spend a lot of time searching the Apple II and Mac areas to see and share what is happening there so that everyone has an idea of what is going on.
It's just a shame that this had to happen.
Steven
We'll probably go with something similar to what 68kmla has:
I really have no problem with high prices on eBay: it encourages preservation. With eBay not even charging listing fees when you list 50 or fewer items, the seller has only his time to lose, when he lists an item at an exorbitant price. It doesn't bother me. In fact, a few years ago, I was contacted by a power company that needed some very specific vintage Mac parts in order to keep their turbine running, and I was only able to source the parts because somebody had them listed on eBay at a rather unreasonable price (unless one needed it to keep a power plant running, that is). You never know what somebody might be willing to pay for an item, or what the motivation might be.
Discussions about eBay items remains acceptable, and is encouraged. Posts consisting simply of "Look at what a ridiculous price the seller wants for this item" will not.
Hello Steven,
the point itself in watching whats going on at the market isn´t wrong at all - as i explained above also visitors of the site are searching here for information what´s going on out there... just remember the threads related to the sales of apple 1 items...
just even the persons that sell pickup from here sometimes critic and upgrade their information - just think about the last appleI thread that caused the selling lady to add to the offer better documentation and recognizable items to prove the authenticity of the offer and supplied the bid with better pictures .... thats good and its O.K. for every one....
also the thread you started is good in case the one or other seller looks in this place he might recognize the offer is "outragious" and might correct the minimum bid for the offer ... that would be good too....
the point that went wrong was not the thread ... if the seller from the above by IntegerROM remarked item would have just corrected his offerdescription it would have beeen O.K. too -
in fact the thing that realy went wrong was the behavior of the seller who wanted the critics and the facts to be suppressed !
Thats a thing that nobody should try to do ! probably he might go in this place and ask for a nicer attitude ( in case he feels himself attacked by offenses ) - but he never should be permited to supress facts ! Thats exactly the reason i posted my opinion above.... and that is regardless to whatever would turnout in such a story .... facts may never be denied !
Tom,
It is my honest opinion that not being able to make a comment about an outrageous price is the wrong way to go.
There is a huge difference in pointing out an inflated price while NOT flaming the seller and (in this particular case) taking an item and tearing it apart with no concern at all for the seller. That Dan was called out on his item and tried to stifle what was going on by threats is a whole different animal.
The thread that I started pointed out just the item and the price. It was meant in good fun and to inform Fritter Critters what is happening on the secondary market. I believe that that was what was happening. When this secondary thread started (and this is what should have happened)it should have been transferred over to the original thread or cut entirely. Again, just my opinion.
But to chastize everyone from making comments about what is actually happening out there
is not the way to go.
Yes. I agree that limits should and probably will be set, but (again...just my opinion) you just cannot throw the baby out with the bath water, or shoot your nose off to spite your face.
Personally, I will abide by what ever you guys decide, but before you act; just think about it.
Steven
I read Apple Fritter a lot, but don't post much. I've been collecting Apples for a long time, and after a recent mistake no longer have an original Apple II. I'm looking to find another one, and found this thread, and others relating to ebay items (such as the one recently on the Apple 1) fascinating, and always learn a lot from reading them, and would actually like more of them. Please don't delete or ban them. The process IntegerROM went through to find these inconsistencies will certainly help me, and I will certainly look back at this thread.
Nothing is going to be deleted. The only thing that's going to be banned is ebay ogling threads that deal solely with incredulity over asking prices.
No problem. Just post in an unmoderated forum, such as the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.apple2.marketplace.
This thread was created as it did not belong under the "THIS is laughable!" one created by Steven, which had the purpose of looking at, as some see it, 'overpriced auctions'. Whereas this "most laughable yet..." thread was concentrating on one aspect of auctions - that of 'flowering' the descriptions to such an extent that they are not what they seem - in essence the descriptions and photos not fitting the purported item on sale.
As such, and I disagree with Steven here, it did not belong under his thread. I think it is in keeping with the AUP, under section 2.
After all that has been said, I think I have been vindicated in bringing forward evidence of the most downright unethical and deceiptful of ads.
There is another area of concern if anyone cares to look: Check out the link to the ad as posted above by Tom to the "Lot of 28 cards...." have a good look at the cards close up, now check out this seller's auctions where these cards are now being resold - in particular pay attention to the "UNUSED" word as part of the title and descriptions.
Where the "Lot of 28 cards..." contains within the description the following
Now, for example, check out the ad from Dan for the "UNUSED 1978 Genuine Apple II Integer BASIC ROM Firmware Card Very RARE Tested!" and you have within the description the following
You can easily check that this is the same card; where did the original seller state that he was a 'former dealer' or that his card was 'unused'? The card itself may have been made in 1978 - maybe - but the chip date codes are 1980/81
In a way it is really funny to use the word "UNUSED", the majority of people would take that to mean 'new' or 'never been used' whereas here it means '...it may have been used for years in the past, but I have just bought it and not used it and hence I am selling it UNUSED....'
If anything, everything that has happened over the Apple II ad has ended up blowing the reputation as an honest seller. Taking account of the other 'embelished' ads I am not sure of trusting anything that is put up.
I have no beef with anyone here even if I disagree with some of the comments. I feel sorry for the community here and in particular Tom for the hassle this has caused him. I do not however regret starting this thread or bringing these deceptive details to the attention on a public forum. I am just sad that it was necessary to do so. With the resurgance in vintage Apple products on Ebay the auction costs are driven up, which is fine in itself in a commercial market, but there is a duty to expose sham ads to stop this before it escalates. Lets say some people spot a sham ad and say/do nothing and the seller gets away with it then this opens the door for other people to try the same.
I am glad the information I have provided has been of some use to some of the community, I cannot take all the credit or accept all the thanks here though as I gleaned some of the information previously from Mike Willegal's site.
On a positive not however, and if Tom agrees, I would like to see maybe a new section within the Applefritter site where we can maybe detail the differences in the Apple II models - timelines, like motherboards versions, case changes, RFI boards and cases, power supplies with photos, that way we can build up a library of what to look out for in any ads. Some of this information exists already spread over various forums, some in photo format, some in text postings. This may be a benefit to the whole community here and can draw on all the expertise available. I know, I think, that 1MHZ bought a machine a few weeks back and posted some photos of the motherboard to check out which flavour it was.
Comments/suggestions always welcome.
A section detailing the differences in the Apple II models is a good idea only if it is accurate, there is a lot of mis-information on the web, you might need Dan's help. /irony
That would be fantastic. I'll send you an email. Anybody else who's interested in helping, please email/message me.