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

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@hotmail.com>
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
> > >
> >
>

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___