Prices of Nakaya pens on the Bay site.

[Christopher Godfrey]

This has been <mentioned> previously here on FPN; but yesterday I did a little research and found the following:

 

(i)Long, black hairline with BB nib, "used 2 years" -- 7 examples, all showing same photos, prices rangine from 911,05 to 1153,27;

(ii)Crocodile green model, SM nib, new -- 2 examples, prices 8999,99 and 8989,99;

(iii)Mugunghwa (?), EF, new -- 2 examples, showing exactly same photos, even down to same elongated fingernails holding the pen (!), prices 4500,00 and 4251,06; and, finally

(iv)Briarwood, SF nib, used -- 5 examples, prices from 1199,99 to 1499,99.

 

All the pens advertised were in Japan and usually in different locations.  My question is: are the sellers perhaps using agents to sell their pens and the first one to sell gets the commission -- or what?  Anyone got any ideas?

[Mercian]

11 minutes ago, Christopher Godfrey said:

My question is: are the sellers perhaps using agents to sell their pens and the first one to sell gets the commission -- or what?  Anyone got any ideas?

 

I have seen the same phenomenon occurring with several not-inexpensive makes of pen.

 

I have two theories about it:

1. the actual pen that is being 'coincidentally' shown in all the listings is currently for sale on a Japanese domestic-market-only website, and all the various vendors that we see on eBay are merely offering it for sale on a marketplace with global reach, and each is adding their own mark-ups (which vary) to the price of the pen in Japan - I presume that they refund one's money if somebody else bought the pen in Japan before they manage to buy it with some of the money that one has sent to them. Or;
2. the pen is (again) for sale on a domestic-market-only Japanese site, and some criminal gang have posted several listings of it under different pseudonyms, all with hefty mark-ups, in order to gull some foreigner into thinking that the lowest-priced of their pseudonymous listings is 'a bargain' (because it's less-exorbitant than their other listings are).

I once reported four such listings to eBay as being clearly dodgy - e.g.s all using the same photos of the same pen (it had a name engraved on it in a distinctive Latin script); some vendors listing the item's location as being in other cities to their own stated location (& I included links to the other three listings in each report).
You can probably guess how much action eBay took over it.

 

My response to the phenomenon is that I won't even consider ordering any 'nice' pens from any eBay vendor who is in Japan.

I am certain that there are honest vendors in Japan - presumably many/most of them - but the plethora of obviously-dodgy listings (who may well be criminal fraudsters) has taught me to distrust vendors in Japan.

[Christopher Godfrey]

@Mercian: rem acu tetigisti! 

 

There is something very un-kosher about the practice, isn't there, and it was the first time I really thought to take proper comparative notes.  Cheers!

[whichwatch]

I think it is situationa #1 that Mercian pointed out.

 

This has apparently become such an issue that Nakaya has posted a warning on their website that seems to refer to what this thread is mentioning.

[Seney724]

The practice has been likened by another member to that of arbitrage.

It really is pretty annoying and, for the most part, it comes from sellers in (or claiming to be in) Japan.

This thread has a good discussion of it.

 

[Lam1]

5 hours ago, Mercian said:

 

My response to the phenomenon is that I won't even consider ordering any 'nice' pens from any eBay vendor who is in Japan.

I am certain that there are honest vendors in Japan - presumably many/most of them - but the plethora of obviously-dodgy listings (who may well be criminal fraudsters) has taught me to distrust vendors in Japan.

 

It is a pity that this situation eventually leads to distrust - although completely understandable.

I have done business with several vendors from Japan and never had any problems (but none had exorbitant prices, of course).

In the end, due to eBay's greed honest people pay the price for these dishonest sellers.

[Paul-in-SF]

8 hours ago, Mercian said:

the plethora of obviously-dodgy listings (who may well be criminal fraudsters) has taught me to distrust vendors in Japan.

 

I'd like to propose a different perspective. 

 

The fraudulent element is the implication that they actually have the pen in their possession. What's bad about that is that it can lead to canceled sales when they find out that their source has already sold the pen to someone else. They are trying to sell a genuine pen (as far as they and we know) for a market price, at a markup from the price they can buy at. The potential buyers in their marketplace (i.e. us) don't have access to the pen other than through these re-sellers (if I may so term them) if Mercian is correct that the pens they are re-selling are only offered in the domestic market. The worst that happens to us potential buyers is that we get disappointed when the sale is canceled because the pen was already sold elsewhere. We could consider that the price we pay for not having the skills to shop in the Japanese domestic market. 

 

I've gone back and forth with myself on this issue. I still wouldn't buy a pen that is being arbitraged in this way, assuming I can tell that's going on. Maybe it's because the prices, with the added markup, are too high. Maybe because it feels icky. 

 

I'm also not clear what anyone expects eBay to do about it -- check to make sure every item listed is in stock with that seller? Penalize sellers for canceling sales? Is there a practical solution for eBay to implement?

[Lam1]

12 minutes ago, Paul-in-SF said:

 

 

I'm also not clear what anyone expects eBay to do about it -- check to make sure every item listed is in stock with that seller? Penalize sellers for canceling sales? Is there a practical solution for eBay to implement?

 

I think it would be a simple software implementation to identify multiple auctions that have the same photos and prevent them from going online. Also, when people report this kind of things (as @Mercian did), they should remove the auctions. A similar thing happens with fake pens, and eBay also doesn't seem to take action either.

[Paul-in-SF]

7 hours ago, Lam1 said:

I think it would be a simple software implementation to identify multiple auctions that have the same photos and prevent them from going online.

 

So the first one posting with the photos would be fine, anyone after that would not be able to post those photos? Or the first one would also be taken down, retroactively? 

 

What about sellers who use (and identify) stock photos in their listings? Those might also often be duplicated. There are probably other circumstances that I'm not thinking of that would also not be appropriate for automated rejection. I don't think it would be as easy as you suppose.

 

As for responding to reports, that takes personnel for investigation and implementation, and is therefore an expense. I wish they would do it at least with reported fakes, but that's mostly not the issue under discussion. 

[Mercian]

12 hours ago, Paul-in-SF said:

I'm also not clear what anyone expects eBay to do about it -- check to make sure every item listed is in stock with that seller? Penalize sellers for canceling sales? Is there a practical solution for eBay to implement?

 

Hi Paul,
I do agree with most of your points

But, in answer to the one that I quoted above:

 

When someone goes to the trouble to actually report listings to eBay that are 'different' sellers in 'different' locations who are all offering exactly the same individual item for sale (with each claiming that it is in a different location) - all of which was glaringly obvious in the case of the engraved pen that I mentioned above - at the very most only one of the listings is not fraudulent (and it's possible that all of them are fraudulent/'arbitrage' listings).
As I said before, in each of my reports I not only described why it was that I found all the listings suspicious, I also went to the trouble of including in each of my reports the links to all of the other listings that were using the same photos of the same pen; I had 'done all the work' for eBay's report-monitoring/investigating staff.

 

Obviously, I can't 'name and shame' the sellers here whose listings of the same exact pen I reported to eBay.
But they all have generic names, all had (still have) multiple sales listings up, and many of their multiple listings use each others' (or somebody else's) photos.
They are, in this respect, 'serial offenders'.
Which is why I chose to report them when I found them all offering to sell what was undeniably the exact same individual pen.

 

Also:
any 'arbitrage' listings contravene two of eBay's 'selling practices policies':

 

"You must make sure the items you're offering are in stock for the duration of the listing and are delivered to the buyer"

and
 

"You must not:

• List an item that may be out of stock by the time of purchase"

(Text of policies copied from https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy?id=4346  I suppose that it is possible that these policies only apply in UK, and not in Japan, but that seems unlikely.)

 

Anybody who is offering an item for sale that is NOT already in their possession, but is instead an item that they might be able to purchase less-expensively from another vendor after one has paid them for the item, is undeniably contravening both of those policies.

Which is why I find eBay's choice to ignore what are clear and obvious contraventions of its own policies to be so annoying.

 

 

On the subject of photos:
I don't particularly object to sellers using manufacturers' stock photos of any inexpensive item (say, a Lamy Safari that is in current production) of which they have many examples in-stock.
 

But any seller who has copied manufacturers' stock photos in order to try to sell a single example of an expensive pen that is no longer made immediately arouses my suspicions.
You want me to pay you several hundred (or over a thousand) dollars for an item that is no longer made, but you can't even be bothered to take even one digital photograph of the item?
Then I don't believe that you have it.
Or, at the least, you have made me suspect that you are probably attempting to deceive me about the condition of any item that you may actually have in your possession.

 

When multiple sellers are all using exactly the same non-stock photographs (or 'doctored' - e.g. to cut away the background - versions of them), then that, too, is IMO a clear indication to me that these sellers don't all possess the item in question. They can't all possess it. At the most, one of them might possess it.
Are we expected to believe that these sellers 'can't be bothered' to simply take photographs of an item that they have in their possession, but can be bothered to go to the trouble to find somebody else's photos, then copy those, AND then photoshop their 'borrowed' photos before uploading the doctored images to their listing?

 

It is a sad symptom of our benighted times that eBay chooses to leave these listings up.
And the people who are suffering the most as a result of that choice aren't the likes of me - it's the honest vendors whose items I will no longer even think of buying, simply because of their geographic location.

[Seney724]

43 minutes ago, Mercian said:

 

Hi Paul,
I do agree with most of your points

But, in answer to the one that I quoted above:

 

When someone goes to the trouble to actually report listings to eBay that are 'different' sellers in 'different' locations who are all offering exactly the same individual item for sale (with each claiming that it is in a different location) - all of which was glaringly obvious in the case of the engraved pen that I mentioned above - at the very most only one of the listings is not fraudulent (and it's possible that all of them are fraudulent/'arbitrage' listings).
As I said before, in each of my reports I not only described why it was that I found all the listings suspicious, I also went to the trouble of including in each of my reports the links to all of the other listings that were using the same photos of the same pen; I had 'done all the work' for eBay's report-monitoring/investigating staff.

 

Obviously, I can't 'name and shame' the sellers here whose listings of the same exact pen I reported to eBay.
But they all have generic names, all had (still have) multiple sales listings up, and many of their multiple listings use each others' (or somebody else's) photos.
They are, in this respect, 'serial offenders'.
Which is why I chose to report them when I found them all offering to sell what was undeniably the exact same individual pen.

 

Also:
any 'arbitrage' listings contravene two of eBay's 'selling practices policies':

 

"You must make sure the items you're offering are in stock for the duration of the listing and are delivered to the buyer"

and
 

"You must not:

• List an item that may be out of stock by the time of purchase"

(Text of policies copied from https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy?id=4346  I suppose that it is possible that these policies only apply in UK, and not in Japan, but that seems unlikely.)

 

Anybody who is offering an item for sale that is NOT already in their possession, but is instead an item that they might be able to purchase less-expensively from another vendor after one has paid them for the item, is undeniably contravening both of those policies.

Which is why I find eBay's choice to ignore what are clear and obvious contraventions of its own policies to be so annoying.

 

 

On the subject of photos:
I don't particularly object to sellers using manufacturers' stock photos of any inexpensive item (say, a Lamy Safari that is in current production) of which they have many examples in-stock.
 

But any seller who has copied manufacturers' stock photos in order to try to sell a single example of an expensive pen that is no longer made immediately arouses my suspicions.
You want me to pay you several hundred (or over a thousand) dollars for an item that is no longer made, but you can't even be bothered to take even one digital photograph of the item?
Then I don't believe that you have it.
Or, at the least, you have made me suspect that you are probably attempting to deceive me about the condition of any item that you may actually have in your possession.

 

When multiple sellers are all using exactly the same non-stock photographs (or 'doctored' - e.g. to cut away the background - versions of them), then that, too, is IMO a clear indication to me that these sellers don't all possess the item in question. They can't all possess it. At the most, one of them might possess it.
Are we expected to believe that these sellers 'can't be bothered' to simply take photographs of an item that they have in their possession, but can be bothered to go to the trouble to find somebody else's photos, then copy those, AND then photoshop their 'borrowed' photos before uploading the doctored images to their listing?

 

It is a sad symptom of our benighted times that eBay chooses to leave these listings up.
And the people who are suffering the most as a result of that choice aren't the likes of me - it's the honest vendors whose items I will no longer even think of buying, simply because of their geographic location.

Thank you @Mercian.  I, for one, am very grateful for your diligent efforts to try and have eBay rein in this egregious and annoying practice.  But, to do so, eBay would have to limit one of their revenue opportunities. something they are loathe to do.

As I have said in a concurrent thread about an hour ago, "The sad and reprehensible fact of the matter is that eBay's policies are in place and enforced only when eBay is the beneficiary of the enforcement.  Otherwise, their policies are wasted, meaningless words."

[mulrich]

I bought a pen on eBay that ended up being a counterfeit. I don't think the seller was aware of the deceit when listing the pen. Everything was handled appropriately after I discovered the problem. Annoying, but the recovery system worked. I've probably bought a couple other pens on eBay but not many. I know there are reputable sellers and good deals on the site but there's more uncertainty than I prefer. Unfortunately there aren't great alternatives for used pens. I've looked on Reddit but it feels way too chaotic, likewise FPGeeks. I'm still holding out hope that classified will eventually return to FPN. There can be problems here too but safeguards here give me more confidence. 

[Number99]

Automated inventory-less listing sales on eBay. I explained how they work in another thread earlier.

 

Automated e-commerce site-eBay listing inventory management software. (These are not industry terms, these are translated words by machine translation software.)

For example, there are people who sell software to connect to other EC sites (e.g. eBay and Amazon from Yahoo auctions in Japan), mimicking the "Ink Frog" Amazon to eBay automatic mass listing software.

There is also software that diverts product images and descriptions directly from the original seller without the supplier's permission.

Of course, even a child can understand that if a Japanese person steals another person's image in Japan, he or she will be sued because the law and the court have the same jurisdiction.

 

I will not reply to this thread any more about this because some people want to make it an absurd story that makes no sense that the responsibility lies with the Japanese and I have been asked to admit it before.

 

P.S.

The attacks have started again downstairs...

My friend and I experienced these phenomena, but fortunately we were able to obtain products with the same images at a lower price from the original seller. (In my case it was Amazon, not eBay... eBay is a minor e-commerce site that is not well known in Japan.)

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/375769-purchasing-in-and-shipping-from-japan/?do=findComment&comment=4686875

 

P.P.S.

Anti-image stealer software is available. Objective circumstantial evidence that substantiates a phenomenon.

https://note.com/yuukishishido/n/n5f9c6d47191b

 

P.P.S.

The "P.S." above and beyond were written before the two later posts.

 

Edited November 15 by Number99

[Seney724]

13 minutes ago, Number99 said:

Automated inventory-less listing sales on eBay. I explained how they work in another thread earlier.

 

Automated e-commerce site-eBay listing inventory management software. (These are not industry terms, these are translated words by machine translation software.)

For example, there are people who sell software to connect to other EC sites (e.g. eBay and Amazon from Yahoo auctions in Japan), mimicking the "Ink Frog" Amazon to eBay automatic mass listing software.

There is also software that diverts product images and descriptions directly from the original seller without the supplier's permission.

Of course, even a child can understand that if a Japanese person steals another person's image in Japan, he or she will be sued because the law and the court have the same jurisdiction.

 

I will not reply to this thread any more about this because some people want to make it an absurd story that makes no sense that the responsibility lies with the Japanese and I have been asked to admit it before.

 

You have repeatedly been provided with more than ample data and evidence coming from several different members, all of which refute your theory.  You just do not want to accept that fact that you are incorrect in your claim.  As you say, "even a  child" can see & understand this to be so.

[Mercian]

2 hours ago, Number99 said:

Automated inventory-less listing sales on eBay

 

Which would contravene the two eBay selling practices policies that I already cited above.

 

In case you missed those quoted policies, here they are again:
 

3 hours ago, Mercian said:

"You must make sure the items you're offering are in stock for the duration of the listing and are delivered to the buyer"

and
 

"You must not:

• List an item that may be out of stock by the time of purchase"

(Text of policies copied from https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy?id=4346  I suppose that it is possible that these policies only apply in UK, and not in Japan, but that seems unlikely.)

 

eBay's own policies explicitly forbid all sellers from listing any items as being 'for sale' if those items are NOT in their current inventory/stock/possession.

 

Who do you suggest is to blame if/when sellers flout these policies? Or if the sellers allow their automated sales software to flout them?
Whose responsibility do you say it is to check the accuracy of their sales-listings before uploading them?
Every prospective purchaser in the world? NONE of whom has ANY way to know what any seller does - or does NOT - have in his possession, let alone the ability to check what any seller is going to upload before he uploads it!

 

If seller 'A' is using such automated software, and it is creating sales listings for items that he doesn't have in his possession, then seller 'A' is at fault.

 

I also 'doubt' that "automated inventory-less" sales programs have the capability to trawl the web for photographs of similar items, AND then edit out the backgrounds of those photos, AND then attach the edited photos to their own sales listing posts.

Only HUMANS have the capability to do ALL of those things.

 

2 hours ago, Number99 said:

I will not reply to this thread any more about this because some people want to make it an absurd story that makes no sense that the responsibility lies with the Japanese

 

The ONLY people being blamed in this thread are the few crooks who are posting these listings in Japan. And the people at eBay who are choosing to allow the dodgy listings to remain up on eBay, even when the listings have been reported as suspicious - with great evidence to support that suspicion - to eBay.

 

NOBODY in this thread has imputed culpability to 'the Japanese'.

 

Attempting to misrepresent the previous posts in this thread as having any kind of 'racist' agenda is, apart from being a contemptible piece of attempted obfuscation, in itself an example of racist generalising.

 

Particularly in light of:

On 11/14/2024 at 6:58 PM, Mercian said:

I am certain that there are honest vendors in Japan - presumably many/most of them - but the plethora of obviously-dodgy listings (who may well be criminal fraudsters) has taught me to distrust vendors in Japan.

 

and:

 

20 hours ago, whichwatch said:

This has apparently become such an issue that Nakaya has posted a warning on their website that seems to refer to what this thread is mentioning.

 

(Unless you are claiming that Nakaya has some kind of anti-Japanese racist agenda.)

 

and:

 

19 hours ago, Lam1 said:

I have done business with several vendors from Japan and never had any problems (but none had exorbitant prices, of course).

In the end, due to eBay's greed honest people pay the price for these dishonest sellers.

 

and:

 

2 hours ago, mulrich said:

I bought a pen on eBay that ended up being a counterfeit. I don't think the seller was aware of the deceit when listing the pen. Everything was handled appropriately after I discovered the problem

 

and:

 

3 hours ago, Mercian said:

And the people who are suffering the most as a result of that choice aren't the likes of me - it's the honest vendors whose items I will no longer even think of buying, simply because of their geographic location.

 

 

There ARE some eBay sellers who list themselves as being Japanese/in Japan who are doing some very dodgy things in their listings - things that clearly breach eBay's 'selling practices policies'. And eBay is NOT doing anything to remove such listings, let alone the sellers who are creating them.

 

Are similar things being done by eBay sellers in countries other than Japan? Almost certainly.
But this thread is about the suspicious listing practices for Nakaya pens that are listed for sale on eBay and stated as being 'in Japan'.

Posting in this thread to say that one has found suspicious listings in, say, the UK, or India, or Argentina would be off-topic, and inappropriate.

[Number99]

5 hours ago, Mercian said:

Which would contravene the two eBay selling practices policies that I already cited above.

 

In case you missed those quoted policies, here they are again:

I didn't want to post this because this is what happens...

 

It is stated in this article that eBay allows drop shipping they say. (The text and the operation often appear to be dissociated.) 

I did not want to post just this link.

Find out how they can do this with impunity.

As they say, eBay is an obscure e-commerce site in Japan as well as Spain.

It is also Asia's largest and largest used goods market. 

Think where they would have to register their address to do dropshipping in Japan.

 

I thought before I posted that the link was inappropriate for this place, so I removed it.

 

5 hours ago, Mercian said:

anti-Japanese racist agenda

Did I mention racism? I simply wanted to say that I have been hurt by absurd attacks on this in the past. (And I was not the first one to specify "Japanese" in that thread.)

And I have limited written expression about it. (I certainly did not assume that you were.)

I find it strange that when you refer to "Japanese" it is not racism and when I say "Japanese" it is associated with the term "anti-Japanese racist agenda".

Edited November 16 by Number99

[Paul-in-SF]

@Mercian, thank you for posting the two rules that these arbitragers or re-sellers are violating. If I may ask, do they specify what the punishment might be for such violations? Fine, banishment permanent or temporary, or something else? Is it your opinion that whatever punishment is imposed would be effective in terminating the behavior by that selling entity? 

 

5 hours ago, Seney724 said:

As I have said in a concurrent thread about an hour ago, "The sad and reprehensible fact of the matter is that eBay's policies are in place and enforced only when eBay is the beneficiary of the enforcement.  Otherwise, their policies are wasted, meaningless words."

 

Call me cynical (I often do) but i venture to suspect that, at some level, this is the basis of every single decision made by every single corporation, especially near-monopolies like eBay. If a corporation ever does something because it seems the right thing to do, or progressive or generous or noble, start peeling their motivation onion and you will discover where they think it will benefit their bottom line. This is the curse of corporations -- they live and die by the profit and loss statement, and the votes of the stockholders to always, always maximize profits. It seems to me this is unlikely to ever change. 

 

What we are asking eBay to do is to substitute an expense (the personnel hours it would take to deal with enforcement of these rules) for an income stream (the fees these sellers pay to them) not to mention losing the goodwill of these sellers if they were even partly legitimate. I am not seeing how doing this would benefit their bottom line at all. 

 

 

[Seney724]

4 minutes ago, Paul-in-SF said:

@Mercian, thank you for posting the two rules that these arbitragers or re-sellers are violating. If I may ask, do they specify what the punishment might be for such violations? Fine, banishment permanent or temporary, or something else? Is it your opinion that whatever punishment is imposed would be effective in terminating the behavior by that selling entity? 

 

 

Call me cynical (I often do) but i venture to suspect that, at some level, this is the basis of every single decision made by every single corporation, especially near-monopolies like eBay. If a corporation ever does something because it seems the right thing to do, or progressive or generous or noble, start peeling their motivation onion and you will discover where they think it will benefit their bottom line. This is the curse of corporations -- they live and die by the profit and loss statement, and the votes of the stockholders to always, always maximize profits. It seems to me this is unlikely to ever change. 

 

What we are asking eBay to do is to substitute an expense (the personnel hours it would take to deal with enforcement of these rules) for an income stream (the fees these sellers pay to them) not to mention losing the goodwill of these sellers if they were even partly legitimate. I am not seeing how doing this would benefit their bottom line at all. 

 

 

The question you pose is fair and is being currently discussed on a concurrent thread in this sub-forum.

Rather than re-post my comments about "policy," what it signifies in terms of a company's commitment to something, and how it applies here, why not you have a look through that thread.

You can access it here:

 

[Number99]

5 hours ago, Mercian said:

 

Which would contravene the two eBay selling practices policies that I already cited above.

 

In case you missed those quoted policies, here they are again:
 

 

eBay's own policies explicitly forbid all sellers from listing any items as being 'for sale' if those items are NOT in their current inventory/stock/possession.

 

Who do you suggest is to blame if/when sellers flout these policies? Or if the sellers allow their automated sales software to flout them?
Whose responsibility do you say it is to check the accuracy of their sales-listings before uploading them?
Every prospective purchaser in the world? NONE of whom has ANY way to know what any seller does - or does NOT - have in his possession, let alone the ability to check what any seller is going to upload before he uploads it!

 

If seller 'A' is using such automated software, and it is creating sales listings for items that he doesn't have in his possession, then seller 'A' is at fault.

 

I also 'doubt' that "automated inventory-less" sales programs have the capability to trawl the web for photographs of similar items, AND then edit out the backgrounds of those photos, AND then attach the edited photos to their own sales listing posts.

Only HUMANS have the capability to do ALL of those things.

 

 

The ONLY people being blamed in this thread are the few crooks who are posting these listings in Japan. And the people at eBay who are choosing to allow the dodgy listings to remain up on eBay, even when the listings have been reported as suspicious - with great evidence to support that suspicion - to eBay.

 

NOBODY in this thread has imputed culpability to 'the Japanese'.

 

Attempting to misrepresent the previous posts in this thread as having any kind of 'racist' agenda is, apart from being a contemptible piece of attempted obfuscation, in itself an example of racist generalising.

 

Particularly in light of:

 

and:

 

 

(Unless you are claiming that Nakaya has some kind of anti-Japanese racist agenda.)

 

and:

 

 

and:

 

 

and:

 

 

 

There ARE some eBay sellers who list themselves as being Japanese/in Japan who are doing some very dodgy things in their listings - things that clearly breach eBay's 'selling practices policies'. And eBay is NOT doing anything to remove such listings, let alone the sellers who are creating them.

 

Are similar things being done by eBay sellers in countries other than Japan? Almost certainly.
But this thread is about the suspicious listing practices for Nakaya pens that are listed for sale on eBay and stated as being 'in Japan'.

Posting in this thread to say that one has found suspicious listings in, say, the UK, or India, or Argentina would be off-topic, and inappropriate.

@Mercian The link in my post just before is going to be removed for this forum.

 

PS.

If someone quotes my post before I remove the link, I would appreciate it if you could just remove the link.

 

 

@Mercian Link removed. Let me know if you need it and I'll send it to you via PM.

Edited November 16 by Number99