Re: [Ancientartifacts] Re: 'Good' Seller with poor COA

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.

----- Original Message ----
From: Ramon Jr <>
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
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