“Vintage” boots but Primark

[DollyParton2]

On a whim I bought a pair of brown studded ankle boots listed as “vintage” for £50 from a seller in Netherlands. Arrived today, I love them, almost new condition but am shocked to see they are in fact Primark! I know Primark opened 40+ years ago but a quick search on other listings indicate these were in last 10 years (if even that) others- not in my size are starting at £4.50 for auction.

I just feel a bit of a mug! Guy has very good reviews/ owns a vintage shop etc. I just feel I vastly overpaid and he should have 100% made clear in description/ in images they were Primark if recent times not genuine vintage. WWYD? Thanks!

What brand did he say they were?

He didn’t say just kept saying vintage

Ebay has a section on the listings for brand doesn't it? So if he knew they were primark and didnt add this listing info then I would return them citing "goods not as described".

Just message him and say you aren't happy and felt they aren't as described!

Thing is I really do like them. But I wouldn’t have paid £50!

He may offer you a partial refund .. I think you have two choices though , keep and accept or send back and get a refund as not sold as listed .

They are not as described, not good quality, and defo not worth £50!

I buy a lot of vintage stuff online, and occasionally there is nothing about the brand - which is because some brands mean nothing now to current buyers. Everyone knows Primark, so there is no excuse. It's being deliberately deceptive IMO

Problem is vintage is a very vague term and I think some people use it to mean just not new. I use it a lot in my book listings (generally for those published before 1960) so that people know to not expect an immaculate book. Out of curiosity just looked up a definition: "denoting something from the past of high quality, especially something representing the best of its kind:" So, maybe, if you like them this definition fits? Personally, I would expect something older for something described as vintage.