So I messed up.....

[Tedw9]

Yep, big surprise there.

I made a couple of mistakes, first of which was trying to do business with Steiner again after the Mets hat fiasco.

Second was reading in a hurry and switching a couple of words around when I read it.

I purchased a Red Sox at Tigers game used base. The picture shows a Red Sox game used base. I saw the Red Sox base picture, saw Red Sox in the description title, bought the base. It was a Tigers base.

Yes, I freely admit I screwed up. Am I the first or only person to switch names or numbers when reading? Nope. Yes, I messed up.

But, Steiner should have a pic of a base with the CORRECT team logo showing. It's deceptive the way it is. I just checked out a Yankees at Tigers base, guess what.....they show a YANKEES base.

Yes, I take responsibility for not reading correctly what was written. But I expect that they show the correct picture, because if a Tigers base was shown, I sure as heck would have reread the description. Maybe it's just me, maybe I am overreacting and I am completely in the wrong here. But I don't think so.

Oh well, live and learn.

[camarokids]

You say the description shows a pic of a Red Sox base, you should return the item. Why would they picture a Red Sox base when it is a Tigers base? Get a refund. Deceptive trade practices....

[Tedw9]

That's exactly what I am doing. I'm returning it to them tomorrow. I was offered another one, for more money. I politely turned it down.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that's deceptive.

[EurekaDave]

I agree. The picture is part of the description. If you see a picture of a Lincoln and the written description for a Ford, most people would expect a Lincoln. We are visual consumers. So I'm with you. Say that the other members of the forum believe you deserve a refund and see what hppens. Let us know....

Dave Silverbrand

[jppopma]

I agree with the picture being part of the description. One would also expect to buy a Yankees or Red Sox base from Steiner since they have the contracts with these teams.It seems pretty deceptive to have Tigers bases (that just happened to be used against the Sox).

[PwKw13]

Being a big player in the game used business, they should know that the origin of the base and the logo are extremely important to the buyer (and key to the value of the object in many instances). You already know that a base is a square-looking object, so there's no reason to put a photo of a different square-looking object unless it's very similar to the one you're getting (logo included).

[coxfan]

A few months ago, I posted an observation that ad pictures of different g-u balls were often just a stock photo of a single ball they repeated. Moreover, they appeared to have altered the color of the pictured ball to make it look brighter, but not like a true g-u ball.

A few years ago, I noticed that g-u bases a company was advertising had the wrong tags for the year they were supposedly used. I assumed that they had mislabeled the year of the base, but now I think they were just using stock photos without regard to photo accuracy. It worked against them, because I refused to buy the base that I thought was incorrectly tagged.

With all the photo matching collectors use, companies should run a disclaimer if the photo is not of the actual g-u item.

[Tedw9]

I'm glad to see folks agree with me on this. And I'm perfectly ok with a stock photo of a base, just as long as the correct TEAM is shown.

The other thing that bothered me about the whole transaction was the customer service reps were a bit rude when I called about it.

The first rep I talked to said, "And why WOULD you expect to receive a Red Sox base?" When I replied that was the base shown on the site, he told me to "Hold on" and transferred me over to someone else. He didn't say he was transferring me, just to hold on and the next thing I know I'm talking to someone else.

And the second rep, when I turned down his offer to pay MORE money for a Red Sox base, started rattling off the return address, I asked him to repeat it. He did, with a condescending tone. Sorry, I can't type 100 wpm!

The past two experiences have left a really bad taste in my mouth. It's a shame, because I love their products, but their business practices and customer service stink.

[419redsoxfan32]

I'm glad to see folks agree with me on this. And I'm perfectly ok with a stock photo of a base, just as long as the correct TEAM is shown.

The other thing that bothered me about the whole transaction was the customer service reps were a bit rude when I called about it.

The first rep I talked to said, "And why WOULD you expect to receive a Red Sox base?" When I replied that was the base shown on the site, he told me to "Hold on" and transferred me over to someone else. He didn't say he was transferring me, just to hold on and the next thing I know I'm talking to someone else.

And the second rep, when I turned down his offer to pay MORE money for a Red Sox base, started rattling off the return address, I asked him to repeat it. He did, with a condescending tone. Sorry, I can't type 100 wpm!

The past two experiences have left a really bad taste in my mouth. It's a shame, because I love their products, but their business practices and customer service stink.
That is really ashame that you have had that experience. I'm not posting as a Steiner apologist; however had a similar experience with auction items being unavailable after I won them. I won a Wakefield jersey and GU Pitching Rubber, but both were "unavailable". I pushed to speak to a high-level rep, as I have been a good Steiner client, spending thousands of dollars. A gentleman named Kevin from Steiner was very empathetic and nice. He substituted other goods at reasonable (not Steiner retail) prices to satisfy me. He also said that when he received another Wakefield jersey, that it is mine at my winning auction bid or below. I would like to see them get a better handle on their inventory, however Kevin was a pleasure to deal with. Sounds like they need more people like him!