Keith,
I guess different people feel differently about such things, and that's just fine. Personally, I feel that the thing being described should actually BE as described...and any descriptor that is materially inaccurate is, in fact, a misrepresentation. I also happen to know what the law says about such matters (I'm also a trained attorney): the law in the US at least applies a level of knowledge and liability to the seller that doesn't allow for casual misstatements such as "1966" or "GT40" when it's not. Adding in "SPF" does nothing to lessen liability for the seller, same as in trademark law where using a further descriptor doesn't cure a trademark violation.
I know this first hand as well - a while back I purchased a Fiat 1500 Osca (via ebay) which was represented to be an Osca version. The car showed up and it was a standard Fiat 1500. I only paid $6,000 for the car but through a long and winding litigation pathway the court awarded costs and damages - now there's a dirt bag in NJ with a $40,000 lien on his house. I'll get paid the $40,000 plus interest before long.
A lot of people (including judges) have been screwed by somebody on ebay (or other forum) trying to pass something off as something it's not. So when it comes time to put some pain back on those deceptive sellers who misrepresent items for sale, my personal experience has been that they're highly disfavored defendants.