Please define "very minor shelf wear"

This is what I consider minor shelf wear, so in my opinion, it does match the description.

Also, as an MOC collector, you should have known better to tell you the truth. I am an MOC collector myself, and therefore I would not buy any figures at all that have "very minor shelf wear" in the description in the first place, as I know I will be pissed if the box even had a minor scuff.

You took a gamble, and you lost, and now you've got to deal with it. Don't blame the seller.

Interesting to hear everyone opinion...even the ones that don't agree with me. Here is the sellers last response:
"ill refund you the 10.50 and you can keep the figure ..fair enough?.next time talk to me before you open a case and ask questions before you bid..and ill do a better job at listing items...thank you"

That package wouldn't bother me, as I've had figures from amazon and RSC look like that. Never buy something with a stock photo for the listing. It's obvious he wanted to avoid negative feedback and a dispute, so he quit being a jerk and offered you a refund. I can't believe you got that fig for 10.50. I would have let it go.

That is definitely not "very minor shelf wear". He could have avoided this all by saying that the figure was mint but the package was damaged. I definitely think the seller was trying to mislead buyers. Not to sound ridiculous, but he probably would have been OK if he had just said "minor shelf wear" or "shelf wear". The "very" suggests that the package may have fallen once or twice from the shelf. Of course, the seller was too intellectually- disabled to spell "cost" correctly or distinguish between "then" and "than" so he probably can't even tie his shoes without drooling all over himself. Therefore he should be tied to a tree and beaten to death with a butter sock. I am a writer, so therefore I am a grammar Nazi.

Anyway, I still think the seller was completely in the wrong. For future reference to the buyer, when in doubt, ask.

For what it's worth, I agree that this is NOT "minor" shelf wear. This is pretty much what would be on the less severe end of the "damaged carding" spectrum.

Also, why on earth would you sell a figure on eBay for less than cost, or "coast" in this case?

Obviously "very minor shelf wear" is subjective. I would say that he was a little misleading and should have done better, but it's not a completely unreasonable description.

I received a couple of G1 Transformers many years ago that were described as mint. The photos were small and difficult to see details so I took the guy's word for it. They were a scratched up, worn/ripped sticker mess. He obviously didn't know the difference between vintage and mint. I tried to explain it, but he just kept saying that they were mint and some play wear was normal. I got a good deal on them so I just kept them and let it go. He was either too dumb or just an a-hole.