Here are a few thoughts on a rainy, windy October afternoon.
In the vintage bicycle hobby, I think we should push back against the practice of sellers setting reproduction or knockoff parts alongside originals where no warning is given that some of the parts are reproduction or knock-off.
Let's look at an example. A seller has 10 sets of chrome fenders that appear to be for a Schwinn Black Phantom. Eight of the sets are originals and two are reproductions. The reproductions are not obviously different at first glance from the originals being offered, but they certainly are not as well-made in general. All sets are laid out on a table or seller's mat. There is no obvious difference in the prices and no description offered. The seller simply says he is selling "fenders" and puts a price on each, all within the same range. This kind of behavior is going to mislead a buyer into paying top-dollar original prices for a lesser, reproduction part. The seller comes out way ahead and the buyer gets burned.
I think, as hobbyists, we should collectively push back against this kind of behavior. There is no active statement misrepresenting the items, but there certainly is a level of deception present. This is a sin of omission. The seller tries to mislead the buyer by camouflaging the reproduction parts alongside originals. The buyer is ultimately burned when he gets home with his item and finds it's a reproduction that was placed alongside originals, or when the item shows up in the mail and something turns out to be amiss. It leaves a bitter taste, and if the buyer is a newbie, burns him on the hobby.
I've seen this happen a few times - fenders, handlebars, vintage bicycle advertising signs, etc. It's something that is not necessarily "common" in the hobby, but it happens frequently enough that it is a problem. I think people in our hobby should be better-behaved than that.
I think the right way to do things is if you list several similar items together, and one of the five things you listed is a reproduction, you should call that out rather than using the originals around it as camouflage to pass off a reproduction or knock-off as original.
I sometimes see this kind of behavior utilized along with "shill" bidding. Shill bidding is where a seller or a friend of the seller acts as a straw bidder to artificially raise the price of an item. Sometimes the same guys who "camouflage" knock-offs and reproductions, as described above, use shills to raise the prices of items (which may or may not be the camouflaged items).
I've seen quite a few auctions for parts, or even whole bikes, where the bike is listed on eBay and "sells" on eBay, but then a week later I see the same original seller pushing the bike for sale on another website or at a swap for a much higher price. This isn't a case of a bidder backing out, but rather the seller being unhappy with the eBay price, and with the failure of the shill to draw higher bids from the real bidders. Evidently, the shill bidder won the no reserve eBay auction, and the seller is still stuck with the item or bike. Again, as hobbyists, we should push back against this kind of behavior. "Times are tough" is never a justification for outright dishonesty.
I'll end my Friday editorial with that.