May I suggest you do the honourable thing, return the item, apologise
to Stephen and remove yourself from the "List of Good Sellers".
Dan
--- In Ancientartifacts@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Churley
<churley482@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I can now report that the seller of the jug is none other than Ernie
Krumbein of Passage to Antiquity. The very person who has compiled
the 'List of Good Dealers' for this Group. How ironic! In light of
what I have said already, and latest developments, I would like his
company to be removed from the 'List of Good Dealers'. Or perhaps a
new list should be compiled of "So-called good dealers with
meaningless COAs".
>
> I gave Ernie a number of options:
>
> (a) give me a full refund of $500 for the jug (as per his COA);
>
> (b) I try to sell the piece on eBay and if it sells he refunds me
the balance up to $500;
>
> (c) he categorically refuses to give me a refund.
>
> Ernie has chosen (c) sadly. He has also refused to tell me whether
or not he believes the jug has more restoration than his COA states;
and he has refused Rolf's offer to look at the jug to give a second
opinion on it.
>
> All Ernie says is that because I have "altered" the jug by using a
tiny bit of acetone, he will not offer me a refund. He has not asked
to see a picture of the jug to see if it now looks different. And his
COA does not state that the slightest test on the piece will
invalidate the guarantee.
>
> I know very well that dealers do test pieces with acetone to see
whether the surface is original or restored. I have done so with some
pieces I have bought from other delears - dealers who deserve to be on
the 'List of Good Dealers' - and on the rare occasion that the
surface is not original I have obtained a full refund.
>
> So would the modifiers of the Group please accept this email as my
formal request to have Passage to Antiquity removed from the "List of
Good Sellers".
>
> Cheers,
> Stephen Churley
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David K. <romulus2x@...>
> To: Ancientartifacts@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:32:41 PM
> Subject: [Ancientartifacts] Re: 'Good' Seller with poor COA
>
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Then you have a clear case of misdescribed goods. I hope the seller
> honours their obligations.
>
> David K.
>
> --- In Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com, Stephen Churley
> <churley482@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> > Thanks. In this case I don't think it would be fair to stretch the
> word "around" too far because the area I am questioning is indeed the
> main body of the pot, not the areas immediately adjacent to the
> junction of the handle and neck with the body.
> > Cheers, Stephen
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David K. <romulus2x@ ..>
> > To: Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 6:58:05 PM
> > Subject: [Ancientartifacts] Re: 'Good' Seller with poor COA
> >
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> > Just a comment on the linguistics ...
> > If the COA had stated "the handle and neck have been restored" the
> situation would be clear since those would be the *only* areas to
> have been restored. But the wording "has been restored *around* the
> handle and neck ..." is more ambiguous and could be taken to mean not
> the handle and neck themselves but the areas of the pot immediately
> adjacent to them, i.e. the body of the pot.
> > However, from what you say, it sounds as if the restoration extends
> well away from just those areas - so the COA was wrong.
> > In any case, having said all that, if I was the dealer I would
> simply accept that the customer was not happy and refund..
> > David K.
> > http://www.romulus2 .com/henjack/
> > http://www.romulus2 .com/lamps/
> >
> >
> > --- In Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com, Stephen Churley
> <churley482@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ramon,
> > > The COA mentions that the piece "has been restored around the
> handle and neck and is in extremely good condition". But it
> appears there is also restoration to the main body of the pot as
> well. I have tested small areas of the piece with acetone and the red
> surface (which is supposed to be burnished) comes off
> easily from both the restored and unrestored areas. I have other red
> burnished pieces of similar age and culture (4500 years old from the
> Middle East) which I have tested with acetone and the burnish does
> not readily come off.
> > > I would rather not circulate a picture at this stage because if I
> reveal too much about the piece members of the Group may be able to
> identify the seller. I would prefer to keep the seller anonymous at
> this stage.
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Ramon Jr rsdeheredia@ ...
> > > To: Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 4:21:42 PM
> > > Subject: [Ancientartifacts] Re: 'Good' Seller with poor COA
> > >
> > >
> > > Is "extremely good" the only mention to condition?.
> > > Or does COA mention restorations, as you seem to imply.
> > > "I have discovered that the pot is more restored that his COA
> > > described.."
> > > And to what degree.
> > > A pic in photos section would be nice.
> > > Ramon Saenz de Heredia
> > > -- In Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com, Stephen Churley
> > > <churley482@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > I am having a problem with a piece of ancient pottery which I
> > > bought last year from a dealer who is on the 'good' list and who
> is a
> > > regular contributor to this Group. I will refrain from giving his
> > > name for the time being.
> > > > I have discovered that the pot is more restored that his COA
> > > described. His COA has a 'Description' section setting out the
> age
> > > and culture of the piece and also its condition which is said to
> > > be 'extremely good'. The COA also says:
> > > > "I guarantee that to the best of my knowledge and belief the
> above
> > > described antiquity is authentic and from the period given.
> Should
> > > this piece ever be shown to be other than as described we will
> gladly
> > > refund the full purchase price."
> > > > The seller is refusing to refund my money on the grounds that
> the
> > > COA's description refers solely to authenticity not to condition.
> But
> > > the 'Description' section does also refer to condition.
> > > > It seems to me that condition cannot be dissociated from
> > > authenticity here. If the seller had intended to do this he would
> > > have had a separate section in the COA entitled 'Condition'.
> > > > Either the COA is a serious document to be taken at face value
> or
> > > not. This seller appears to be dodging his responsibilities.
> > > > I would value your opinions and advice.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen Churley
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Ancientartifacts-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Ancientartifacts-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Ancientartifacts-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
