Re: [Ancientartifacts] Please help

Hi all. I am not an expert but I agree with Paul. In particular the Roman Gladiator Trident, nothing looks right about it. I would be interested in hearing an EXPERT opinion on that piece!

Glenn

Paul Barford <pbarford@pro.onet.pl> wrote:

Your touchy new lawyer acquaintance sells and authenticates a rather
eclectic range of material. Its rather interesting that he's quite happy to
say where the antiques (I use the term loosely) come from, but not a word
about the provenience of some of the antiquities. That in itself is in my
opinion sufficient reason for any responsible collector to avoid his stuff.

I think the wooden "Egyptian boat woman" 360046038108 is atrocious. Its
everything but Old Kingdom in style. As far as I am concerned, the wig is
all wrong (very sixties isn't it), the face is the wrong shape, the pose
odd. To judge from the poor photos, the "tenon sockets" are dowel holes, but
the point of attachment of the arms is rounded and not flat as in genuine
composite models. As for his sales-pitch, the people depicted in tomb models
of this type were on the whole not "aristocracy" but servants. On what does
the LA lawyer dabbling in antique dealing on eBay base his dating and
identification? Can he provide any stylistic and formal analogies if not a
context? What about a documented provenience proving legal export from
Egypt? Without that, he'd of course go at once on my "dealers to avoid"
list.

I'm more puzzled by the attribution of that sad-looking "Roman" "gladiator's
trident".... 360044912579. That identification seems a pretty substantial
imposition on our credibility. If it is what the seller claims, it is
clearly made for a midget retarius fighting a lightly-armed jellyfish. In
any other arena combat, with a shaft less than (it seems from the scale) 10
mm diameter and blunt prongs, it would certainly make for a quick and uneven
fight, breaking on the first blow against a scutarius. (Sales-pitch comment,
gladiators were not the "military"). On what does the LA lawyer dabbling in
antique dealing base his dating and identification? How does he date a
contextless chunk of corroded wrought iron which could be almost anything?
Can he provide any analogies if not a context? Until he gives that, this
identification looks to this archaeologist like the product of an overactive
imagination rather than an opinion a buyer can rely on. Avoid such dealers.

As for the long-unsold "24kt GOLD FRENCH 1800's Louis XIV Bronze Mirror"
with the portrait of the Pilsbury dough-boy.... (PS France did not have a
king in 1800, let alone one called Louis and that is not a recognisable
portrait of the Sun King). Overimaginitive and ambiguously-worded
sales-pitch. For that reason, a dealer to avoid in my book.

It's my opinion that there is no reason why this guy should not belong on
your list of dealers you suggest are best avoided.

Paul Barford

----- Original Message -----
From: Ernie Krumbein
To: Ancientartifacts@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:33 PM
Subject: [Ancientartifacts] Please help

I received a phone call this evening from a man (who had to tell me four
times that he was an attorney) complaining about my inclusion on the
"dealers to avoid" list of a seller on eBay by the name of CATO90025. I
still believe some of his listings of Egyptian articles are very suspect.
Will a few of you kindly take a look at his offerings and let me know what
you think?
Thank you very much.
Ernie Krumbein

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___