Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

The £1900+ memorial plaque....


alastaircox

Recommended Posts

I believe the plaque and medals were a sideline of the bidding, what everyone wanted was the Gas Hood super rare and with provenance, what's the betting it shows up on Antiques Roadshow this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the plaque and medals were a sideline of the bidding, what everyone wanted was the Gas Hood super rare and with provenance, what's the betting it shows up on Antiques Roadshow this year?

Or on a dealers website with an extra £1k tacked onto the final ebay price..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no problem with naming any commercial site. It is patently silly to do otherwise. Not least,as most people contributing to this thread not only know the site but the actual item as well. It's the same silliness whereby folk will write An***try.

As for discussion about particular sales, I note Grovetown's link to a change in the rules. I presume that these have not yet come into effect, otherwise, i would have expected the mods to have binned this whole thread.

The proposed change posting has been up for absolutely ages - over a year at least, so I assume they've been implemented by now.

If not and either way, they generally pull such threads pretty sharpish.

On one hand, I think the owners/ managers are a bit too windy on this front, yet some contributors just can't help themselves when it comes impugning individuals - rather than limiting themselves to the objects - whether through lack of wit or self-control I don't know.

This even very recently, so you can see why they veer to absolutism.

Cheers,

GT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GT - I can't see any mention in the actual rules on this, which would be helpful if there's been a change in practice.

I have no issue here, one way or the other, as I don't buy or sell militaria and rarely even open threads such as this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the British Medals Forum there is a specific section called "Ebay and other related Auction Discussions".

There are currently 4346 Different topics within that section attracting 52826 individual posts.

They do not seem to have a problem with it at all.

The subject of the Plaque above is also one of those topics.

KB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never used eBay so I find looking for things on it completely bewildering. Threads like this attract me as a matter of idle curiosity - I have no idea of the value of the things on sale and am extremely unlikely ever to bid (in fact, I have no idea how to), but I am intrigued by these discussions.

That said, I see no reason to be so coy about the matter: if we're going to have a discussion about this item for sale, it seems somewhat pointless to raise the matter but then not link to the matter in discussion. Not linking the thing doesn't stop the discussion. If anything it makes the discussion even less-well informed as some members might wade in talking about the wrong item.

If, as Mr Bugle points out above, other forums can have grown-up discussions, I'm sure we can, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mods do have a point. This rule has been in force one way or another for quite a number of years simply because some members, despite warnings, were making comments about sellers and their goods which may well have been libellous. You only have to get it badly wrong once and it is the mods who are left caring the can. I would have a good bet that those who made accusations with actually handling the goods, would disappear in a puff of smoke.

For what it is worth, the problem can be tackled by contacting the seller directly and asking about the authenticity of the goods. I have a particular interest in antique photographs for instance and often on e bay I see items described e bay as "Daguerrotypes". I have been collecting long enough to know that the majority of such items so described are not, as they are quite scarce. A polite message to the seller, along with a way to actually identify said article , in most cases, brings an admittance that they don't really know, or that they have got it wrong, and the description has been changed.

There is more than one way of skinning a cat.

TR

ps. I am a also member of the BMF and a medal collector of long standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the "rules" are the "rules" :w00t:

My own view is summed up in post #24.

I am sure Terry that you have expert knowledge on "Daguerrotypes" ............99.9999% of everyone else won't though.

Many people including myself have in the past become stung by reproductions, fakes or lack of information/Knowledge.

Correct me if I am wrong but was that not the main principles for Internet Forums coming about in the first place? - to share knowledge and connect with others of similar interests?

Regrettably as a society we are becoming more and more risk averse,

I am not calling for a rule change by the way.... I am just debating the issues and wondering why different forums have such markedly different approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This rule came about because of a particular thread which explicitly named a certain ebay seller as a faker. That seller then appeared on the forum and threatened to sue, a threat made more credible by his having successfully sued someone for the same thing on another forum. Of course forums are here to spread knowledge and provide assistance to would-be buyers, but not at the risk of their own destruction and that is where the line has to be drawn. The fact that the subject of the original post was himself later sued regarding another transaction in which his goods were proven to be faked, he settled out of court and the details are freely visible on at least one other forum does not alter this. That constituted evidence; the opinions of forum members, however well-informed, don't.

Obviously I can't speak for the Mods but where an object is patently genuine and described on here as such, I can't see why there would be a problem. Once someone calls it, however, they have potentially damaged the seller's business and the GWF as the host of such comments could be liable. The situation is quite different in the US, where the onus is upon the seller to prove the legitimacy of their goods. The UK libel laws are a faker's charter, but for the present we're stuck with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the rule seems to be in place in this form:

"You will not make any statements that could be construed as defamatory of an individual, group or business".

Obviously, you can't defame an object yet, as stated before, there are a number of members that just can't resist going ad hominem and so spoil it for the rest when trying to consider these things.

Cheers,

GT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... there are a number of members that just can't resist going ad hominem and so spoil it for the rest when trying to consider these things.

Tell me about it... I have saved a New Year's message - now deleted - that was sent to me on a GWF thread from one 'admirer'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me about it... I have saved a New Year's message - now deleted - that was sent to me on a GWF thread from one 'admirer'...

Sorry

:blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always worth repeating, but it's well worth remembering in the UK we now have the Consumer Rights Act as of October 2015:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Rights_Act_2015

Details can be seen in the link above, essentially it brings together and updates a lot of earlier legislation (such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979). In a nutshell, the three main things the Act requires goods to be are:

- Of satisfactory quality.
- Fit for a particular purpose.
- As described.

Consumers also "have a minimum of 30 days in which they can reject goods that fail to conform to the contract"

When it comes to antiques and collectables, this final "as described" applies just as much as to everything else. Ignorance, feigned or otherwise, is no defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry

:blush:

I did wonder, but IIRC, the 'praise' was in iambic tetrameter, a quaint fashion much favoured in the former dominions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to antiques and collectables, this final "as described" applies just as much as to everything else. Ignorance, feigned or otherwise, is no defence.

A stipulation that's pretty much useless in respect of an item's authenticity when it's your word against the seller's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stipulation that's pretty much useless in respect of an item's authenticity when it's your word against the seller's.

Not entirely true, though more for the courts and those with deep pockets than anything else. In the example you hinted at in post 36 one of the key things in establishing the items were fake was the hiring of a recognized handwriting expert (by the buyer who had been systematically cheated) who conclusively established that many of the supposedly original documents from a variety of sources somehow had identical handwriting on them. Expert opinion in select fields can be recognized as such in a court of law. A great shame in many respects that it was settled out of court, as it would have been a landmark case otherwise. It may be difficult to enforce, but the protection is there under law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in the case alluded to the Plaintiff had spent £13,000 over two years on dud items, it was broadly worth his while to pursue it and I gather from his postings he also recovered his costs of around £4000.

That, of course, assumes the defendant has the means or the assets to be be able to pay.

I know someone who has been heavily hit by a faker, yet the faker seems to live in penury - lawd knows where his proceeds evaporate to - and the odds of my chum recovering his monies, even if the law found for him, appear to be nil.

The law of the sale is not the point here: it's our being disbarred from discussing artefacts - prior to some poor sap, possibly from the forum, shelling out for them - prior to sale because some blunderbuss gobs can't keep their counsel when it comes to offering opinions on the vendors, rather than sticking to the items themselves.

Cheers,

GT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...