Gernot, thanks and thus advised! Oh well, I never paid a whole lot of attention to tin toy robots that were made after about 1969. In fact, I did not pay much attention to the listing or the other comments in the thread. I think sometimes I just like to rush in and play the devil's advocate. This probably comes from the occasional idiots who come along and make faulty assumptions, rushing to (typically incorrect) judgment about me and my thinking.. It can be a bit unnerving at times. There is such thing as the honest mistake. Nope, I still have not read the whole listing. The "Tin Age" photo would clue anyone in that the piece was not made in 1962. Maybe the seller truly did not know. Oh well, someone said the thread was over, but it's always nice to talk about things having to do with vintage tin toy robots made in Japan. Oh, and on a side note, I got lucky and managed to get into someone's house a couple of weeks ago, where the owners were emptying it all out prior to demolition. There were toys in the attic, and I thought it was going to be my long-awaited payday. It turned out to be some old Fisher-Price stuff and other garbage. ::SIGH:: Well, I did at least manage to get some decent general antiques out of the deal, so it was worth my time. But no robots. Drat. I swear, it has been SO LONG since I have pulled a Japanese robot or space toy from an unexpected place.
The job of keywords is to bring viewers into the tent. Once inside, he who enters can decide whether to spend any actual money. If the sole purpose of this thread was to induce a seller to modify his listing, I am remiss for chiming in. I am, however, always up for a discussion of the hair-splitting kind, and sometimes maybe I'm responsible for initiating them. That toy is still arguably original, right? Is it not made by the same folks who made it the first time around?
Yes, "original" is stretchy, but "original" is a word that can have all sorts of meanings. I mean, let's say some ignorant buyer wants to buy a robot that has a very "original" design. Maybe he'll type in "original robot" and see what comes back. Meanings are in people and not in words. I'm not trying to win a debate here or anything, but I don't think it's really fair to keep a seller from describing his item however he chooses. (His reputation will form over time anyway, and in turn, buyers will respond in kind.) "Gosh, what a uniquely original toy," someone might say, and then we can hash out our respective meanings of "unique", too. Now this brings to mind the guy who sold the "Microsoft XBox picture as shown above" when the XBox first came out and was on fire. The winner received a picture of an XBox, just like the seller described. I do believe this was about the time ebay began locking down real hard with seller protections. There's always a bad apple out there to spoil the fun, and now the turnabout is such that scamming buyers can do about whatever they want to even the straightest of sellers. Once ebay spins off PayPal, maybe we'll see another competitor step up to the plate. Some actual competition would do everyone a lot of good, and it would expand the segment of consumer-to-consumer selling. Witness how the invasion and subsequent success of Japanese cars into the US market managed to get GM and Ford to finally put out decent product. Did I just digress?
I know a guy who will call a knock-off box he's selling as something like "beautiful box, very close to mint and original as you can find" or some crap like that. What I say is that if a buyer is fine with educating himself in the marketplace, that's one way to go. Alternatively, he can dive into Alphadrome and maybe save himself from goofing up. On the same topic, I think it's fine to list reproduction toys in vintage (pre-1970) robots, since the era distinguishes the look. If I were selling a late model Mr. Atomic, I'd call it a re-issue or a reproduction, but anyone who knows robots knows exactly what this is. I think the headline is (or was) arguably misleading yet also arguably not misleading, depending on how much duty one ascribes to a seller. What I don't see is that the guy said it was actually manufactured in 1962, but I did not bother to read the description beyond the listing headline, which is the springboard. Last but not least, what I can say with relative certainty is that ebay would back up a seller who received the robot and claimed from the description that he had reason to believe that the toy was made in 1962, "because look, ebay, it says 1962 right there in the headline" and yup, some know-nothing at ebay would agree and tie up the seller's funds. It's a shame that people have gotten away from reading and thinking like they have.
The keywords are only as misleading as the reader wants them to be. It's a 1962 design, and the design is about as original as they get. He could even say "vintage" and be in the clear, but I'd expect him to specify the vintage, e.g. vintage 2005 or whenever the heck these came off the line. The seller wants viewers, but he's not out to cheat anyone. The pics have him squarely in the safe zone. This is not even "buyer beware" territory. "Buyer know what you are buying" is all this is about.