Appalling ebay listing

[wainfleet]

I had also seen this item and formed the same opinion of it as Tocemma. His reasons for doubting it are identical to mine, and I can't add anything to them. I have absolutely no doubt that it is not as described.

Why should you believe either TE or myself? It is right that "experts" should have to justify their opinions. I ought to have done so on my own recent topic, and will do so if another such situation arises. I offered on that topic to give an informed opinion to any forum pal (and have offered one already). But you only have my word for it that I've collected for 30 years, handled a lot of original kit, looked at a lot of wartime photos and become quite discerning over the years. I don't have a degree in WW1 uniform and equipment, nor do I ask anyone to take my word that I know what I'm talking about. Read my previous posts and make up your own mind as to whether I'm suited or not. Anyway no charlatan can pose as an expert on here for very long before being exposed. I share TE's anger at seeing collectors being blatantly ripped off, that's my motivation, believe me or not as you choose. My opinion on something is intended as an additional line of enquiry, whether you accept it or not.

Incidentally, a 100% ebay feedback score is meaningless. Should I ever decide to start my own cottage industry of dodgy items, I would return any questioned item with a naively innocent air of "oh, that's how it came to me and I thought it was fine, but I am a totally ethical person and wouldn't want anyone to be unhappy with something I've sold them, please return it at once!" Result - one relieved buyer, no negative feedback. Those people who already knew me wouldn't buy from me anyway, so I wouldn't get neg from them, and anyway until recently the danger of seller retaliation made everyone anxious to avoid neg feedback at all cost.

Happy days!

W. [Add: edited for spelling mistakes and shouting.]

[27thBN]

Hello all,

Thank you for the replies. I have reported this item using Ebay's procedures but as suggested in my previous post, I am less than hopeful that they will deal with this item.

Roger has given a very good description of the problems with this cap, and I will add to this. In my opinion (based on 40 years of collecting and latterly at a very advanced level) this cap is most definitely not pre 1916 in origin. In fact I would go further and say that in my opinion as a collector of both WW1 and WW2 items, that this cap dates to WW2.

1. The material is most untypical for a line infantry cap purporting to date prior to July 1916.

2. The chin strap (which appears to have been on the cap for some time0 is, as Roger has pointed out, of a style that cannot date prior to the mid 1920s at the earliest.

Grovetown has correctly pointed out that therefore this cap cannot be WW1.

3. The lining is similar to caps from the Great war period, but this style of lining was used from from prior to the Great War and well into the post WW2 period. I have had and seen caps known to be post WW2, that have had this type of lining.

4. The date stamping is completely bogus. Note that the 'maker' and the 1916 have been applied seperately and unevenly, and also randomly at the edge of the sweatband.Why would a maker go to the trouble of a gold blocked trademark centre to the lining of the cap (albeit faded) and then hand apply a date, badly, to the sweatband. Having seen quite literally hundreds of Officers caps over the years, I have never seen one marked in this way. This has been done to enhance the '1916' connection to the claimed owner.

5. The badge is not of a type or quality I would expect to see at that period.

As to the other comments posted, posturing No. Bloody angry yes. I am hoping that this thread will not go the way of other such threads recently and be moved to the relative obscurity of Skindles. This is a part of the forum dealing specifically with uniforms. It is clear that some of the members do indeed bid on ebay items and I note with dismay that this items already has bids (just looked at it again and it seems some bids have been withdrawn so maybe somebody has read ths thread)

What really sickens me is the idea of an identity that has most likely been decided by sticking a pin in a page of ODGW, has ben used to sell a later period cap in virtually unsaleable condition. A great insult to the memory of a gallant Officer.

Regards

Tocemma

Thats for answering the obvious question of whats wrong with it as i know nothing about the item in question ..i know somewhat more now thanks

MC

[Chief_Chum]

Spot on Wainfleet. Your comments reflect my own.

I also think TM is quite right to be disgusted by anyone trying to tie in a Great War soldier who was killed in action to up the price of generic militaria, irrespective of condition.

Anyone who does not have the years of experience of some of the collectors on the Forum should be grateful that someone is prepared to point out the fake kit. I would hate to think that any of you had paid the amount of money some of the recent jumble sale stuff has been fetching on eBay without some kind of warning. Mind you, if you then choose to ignore the warnings that's up to you!

Taff

[Kate Wills]

...therefore putting the accountability for his thoughts and actions in the lap of the admin of this forum. ...

Firstly, my thanks to Tocemma and Wainfleet for their co-operation. The Forum's purpose is to expand our knowledge, and their expertise in the field of uniforms and equipment is staggering. Whether we are collectors or just lookers-on, your observations are masterclasses.

I have quoted Mick's post above because it encapsulates the GWF Trustees dilemma. The GWF is the medium that carries your messages. We do not necessarily agree or disagree with any post, but if that post incurs complaints, those complaints will not necessarily be targetted at 'Bloggsy' or 'Mr Good Guy' or whatever Forum user name you have, but will be targetted at the legal entity that is The GWF Ltd. Those complaints or solicitor's letters will not land on your doormat, but at our registered address.

This is why we urge caution.

That said, can anyone think of a safe way of alerting members to potential dangers?

[Steven Broomfield]

That said, can anyone think of a safe way of alerting members to potential dangers?

I'd have thought a link to the listing with something along the lines of a statement that "as a colector of many years' standing, I'd be looking carefully at this because ..."

A simple statement of fact.

[centurion]

That said, can anyone think of a safe way of alerting members to potential dangers?

I think by observing a code that constrains us to be strictly factual and unemotional in these cases. As a former Principal in an international accountancy and management consultancy partnership I have had years of checking consultants reports and getting them to amend them so that the partners didn't get sued. If I may use Tocemma's recent analysis of the hat to illustrate how this would apply(nothing personal)

1. The material is most untypical for a line infantry cap purporting to date prior to July 1916. It would be better if this had illustrated why its untypical.

2. The chin strap (which appears to have been on the cap for some time is, as Roger has pointed out, of a style that cannot date prior to the mid 1920s at the earliest.

Grovetown has correctly pointed out that therefore this cap cannot be WW1. This is the killer fact to emphasise

3. The lining is similar to caps from the Great war period, but this style of lining was used from from prior to the Great War and well into the post WW2 period. I have had and seen caps known to be post WW2, that have had this type of lining. As it stands this adds nothing either way as one could use it support the WW1 claim

4. The date stamping is completely bogus. Note that the 'maker' and the 1916 have been applied seperately and unevenly, and also randomly at the edge of the sweatband.Why would a maker go to the trouble of a gold blocked trademark centre to the lining of the cap (albeit faded) and then hand apply a date, badly, to the sweatband. Having seen quite literally hundreds of Officers caps over the years, I have never seen one marked in this way. This has been done to enhance the '1916' connection to the claimed owner. The bits in red are dangerous and superfluous - the rest of the text will allow a sensible reader to draw their own conclusions and with the point made in line 2 lead them to infer that the hat is "crook"

5. The badge is not of a type or quality I would expect to see at that period. As it stands this is your opinion (expert opinion though it may be) it would be better to describe what a badge of the time would look like and point out the differences between this and the one on the hat.

If line 3 is eliminated and the rest tightened up there is no need to say anything about the seller - he's damned by association

[John_Hartley]

Those complaints or solicitor's letters will not land on your doormat, but at our registered address.

This is why we urge caution.

You're right to urge caution, Kate. There is now sufficient case law to be certain that a discussion board username is no protection against being joined in a defamation suit.

[Grovetown]

That said, can anyone think of a safe way of alerting members to potential dangers?

It's dead simple Kate: people should simply be careful of attributing any motive, knowledge or behaviour to the seller.

Leave the seller out of it completely, or better still, say "I'm sure this person doesn't realise..." or words to that effect (even if a lie).

You can't libel an object.

We can call stuff fake until the cows come home, but provided we haven't remotely suggested any wrongdoing on the part of the vendor; there's no fault in law and nothing anyone (the vendor) could really do about it.

Best wishes,

GT. (LLB).

[centurion]

It's dead simple Kate: people should simply be careful of attributing any motive, knowledge or behaviour to the seller.

Leave the seller out of it completely, or better still, say "I'm sure this person doesn't realise..." or words to that effect (even if a lie).

You can't libel an object.

We can call stuff fake until the cows come home, but provided we haven't remotely suggested any wrongdoing on the part of the vendor; there's no fault in law and nothing anyone (the vendor) could really do about it.

Best wishes,

GT. (LLB).

He probably won't sue for libel but for loss of business due to vexatious and false reporting if sales have failed because you have inferred that the goods are fake. Not sure about the UK but in the US this has happened - this is why you need to be purely factual in your comments.

[Grovetown]

He probably won't sue for libel but for loss of business due to vexatious and false reporting if sales have failed because you have inferred that the goods are fake. Not sure about the UK but in the US this has happened - this is why you need to be purely factual in your comments.

He would then have to show the reporting to be vexatious and false - the onus would be on him and I doubt most people acting fraudulently would even dare.

False: easily defeated. Vexatious almost impossible to prove.

And I wouldn't infer the goods are fake, I would be implying. More than that: I wouldn't just imply - you can outright say so.

It is only when there's the vaguest whiff of a suggestion that the seller knows what they're doing - i.e acting fradulently - that the problem arises.

[tocemma]

Centurion and GT

Many thanks or the comments. In future I'll reserve my ire for the object and not the seller however unscrupulous they may be!

As previous opinions have shown, such items are far more heavily criticised on other forums, badge and medal forums seem to be particularly forthright in their condemnations. Does anyone have any evidence of legal action stemming from this kind of critique, or is it a case of the theoretical rather than the actual?

Regards

Tocemma

[Grovetown]

The American forums can pretty much do what they like, for constitutional reasons. The other - UK - ones seem to vary by forum 'culture'.

I've noticed that the BMF out a lot of dodgy groups, and impugn sellers - but not always by name as such. The man here is a case in point. Perhaps medals are a lot more 'empirical', and so its easier to be robust about them - although how that allows them to assert fakes are knowingly being traded is a moot one.

In the case I mentioned in real life, one can only presume the police were unable to show the dealer was i) doing the fakes and/ or ii) knowingly trading them. Short of catching them with John Bull printing set WD arrow in hand, it must be difficult.

I suppose we could just start putting up each and every dodgy item we see, taking care not to slag the seller; being as objective as we can about them and eventually the message will spread (and to the seller too, naturlich).

GT.

[centurion]

The American forums can pretty much do what they like, for constitutional reasons. The other - UK - ones seem to vary by forum 'culture'.

I think that libel prosecutions are very difficult in the US (and the poster rather than the forum would catch it) but actions at state level can be brought about for impugning the business/product line without due cause and damaging sales. There was a report of one instance of damages of over $3,000,000 being awarded against an Internet poster on some one else's blog

[Andy Wade]

That said, can anyone think of a safe way of alerting members to potential dangers?

Urging caution in all dealings on ebay as a general rule and perhaps (I say perhaps) creating something along the lines of a virtual museum of what the genuine article looks like.

I'm sure this forum contains a wealth of people who have pictures of just about every item of kit you could hope to come across. Perhaps (there I go again with that word) a photo directory with descriptions of what makes an item genuine over and above a later model which is close, but not quite... is one way to go. But it sounds like a huge amount of work to create such an archive.

[Chris_Baker]

It also gives the unscrupulous all the details of what to look for, what to disguise, and what adds to the price.

[Moonraker]

Inevitably there are rogues on eBay, but another problem can be the vendor who genuinely doesn't know much about the subject. Now and then I point out a naive error in a postcard listing: just because a card shows soldiers in Wiltshire it doesn't mean they belonged to the Wiltshire Regiment;and a camp postmark doesn't prove that the scene shows that camp

I don't suppose we can expect a militaria dealer to be expert on every type of collectable. I see some surprising pricing of postcards on non-specialist websites.

Some people who have bought in good faith may have an unpleasant surprise should they try to sell and have their assumptions questioned, but by then there will be a new generation of unsuspecting potential purchasers.

Moonraker

[Andy Wade]

It also gives the unscrupulous all the details of what to look for, what to disguise, and what adds to the price.

Isn't that already happening?

Knowledge is power. On both sides admittedly.

[centurion]

It also gives the unscrupulous all the details of what to look for, what to disguise, and what adds to the price.

If they are prepared to do their homework they can find that already - the web is a two edged sword.

[merlot1970]

What's the difference in selling this or killed in action medals for instance ? equally as bad.

[Grovetown]

What's the difference in selling this or killed in action medals for instance ? equally as bad.

The rights and wrongs of medal collecting/ dealing have been discussed here ad nauseam - but this is quite different.

The item has nothing to do with the casualty, and the incorrect attribution will i) increase the price wrongly and ii) could be thought exploiting the fallen for gain (although the seller is no doubt entirely blameless in this).

Cheers,

GT.

[merlot1970]

"Exploiting the fallen for gain" ? surely we're all guilty of that if we buy a KIA group and then sell for a profit ? I know I am.

[o j kirby]

Hello Troops,

We are right to debate and question the originality of items, and share our knowledge of the good, the bad and the ugly. As collectors, we are always going to come up against the "odd" items. Can I just offer a general word of caution?

I sometimes find that collectors can create a single definition of what is right and what is wrong in terms of being original without being open to the variations that the war produced in terms of uniform and kit. A collector once said to me that there can be nothing totally "uniform" in items of uniform!

On the subject of Officer caps, can we open a strand on the great number of variations in design and materials so that we can all gain knowledge? I am sure that we might find the oddities that some collectors would run from, and yet be totally and documented as original. I know that we have a collective wealth of knowledge, and I resect the spirit of sharing that this forum represents.

Owain.

[Andy Wade]

On the subject of Officer caps, can we open a strand on the great number of variations in design and materials so that we can all gain knowledge? I am sure that we might find the oddities that some collectors would run from, and yet be totally and documented as original. I know that we have a collective wealth of knowledge, and I resect the spirit of sharing that this forum represents.

Owain.

That's kind of what meant. I'd certainly be very interested in this simply from a position of learning. It's a fascinating subject which would probably interest most of the people here.

I learned a few weeks back that the Brodie I have must be a WW2 helmet because it has a screw in the top rather than a rivet. It's something I wasn't aware of and I'm the richer in knowledge for it.

[merlot1970]

I forwarded these postings to the seller who says he had his complete uniform although the jacket and trousers were so badly mothed that nothing could be done with them. Like the cap, the jacket had a 1916 makers label. He said he will now be listing more items which belonged to this officer!!!

[max7474]

I can't comment on a cap but I find it a bit odd the a casualty's complete spare uniform would have made it back from France. Asking a lot. Poor chap is killed and someone wraps his complete uniform up and sends it home - personal effects yes, but that amount of kit? The other option is he set off for France and left a complete set behind - even odder thing to do.