Hello-- Not music-related, but I am curious to know the opinions of my SHF brethren on this one. I recently purchased a pair of higher-end, lightly-used wingtip shoes as a buy-it-now on the popular auction site. They looked to be in good shape, the price seemed ok, though I was ultimately pushed to hit the buy-it-now button by the presence of the factory shoe trees in the photos (which alone sell for $50 on the manufacturer's website). The shoes arrived, though sans shoe trees. Weird. I looked back at the auction to see if I missed a disclaimer, but no: it was the standard two-sentence, "Lightly-used, and the photos tell the story" description. I emailed the seller, who appears to deal primarily in shoes. He was amiable enough in his response, but he said that they hold onto the shoe trees for use in their ads. I replied that I wished they'd have mentioned that, because it influenced my purchase decision. He came back to thank me for pointing this out; that they will make a disclaimer going forward that shoe trees are not included in the auctions. From those of you with more experience, does this qualify as SNAD? I don't love the shoes in person--the photos were complimentary to say the least--and if not for the shoe tree discrepancy, I would chalk it up to winning some/losing some in life. I thought I recalled having seen in the eBay rules something to the effect of any accessories pictured along with the item for sale/auction is considered part of the auction unless stated otherwise, as photos are considered part of the description, though I am not seeing it now while briefly perusing their site. Do I have recourse here for filing a SNAD complaint and returning the item on the seller's dime if he's not amenable to including the trees? Thank you.