[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.




--- 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
> >


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


Amazon Video

bUy dvds OnlInE