imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:05:29 PM new
I have a problem and I need your help it concerns an auction that ended a few nights ago.
First time I have had this problem in over 6000 listings.
If I give you the URL can you take a look and tell me what you are getting if you bid on this auction.
I think I made things too complicated.
thanks Adrian
{http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=501416635}
[http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=501416635]
thanks Adrian
|
snowyegret
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:07:44 PM new
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=501416635
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=501416635
After reading the revision at the bottom, I would say I would be getting the one Durer shown. The plurals and the use of "set" do make it slightly confusing before that though. But I'm easily confused these days. 
[ edited by snowyegret on Nov 25, 2000 01:19 PM ]
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:09:43 PM new
Thanks I could not recall how to do that
Adrian
|
flynn
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:13:50 PM new
Adrian:
Well first I would agree that it is a bit confusing, but if I were looking at this auction I would assume I was getting two woodcuts, but I think I would have asked first.
I'm only assuming here, but is your high bidder saying they thought they were getting everything you discussed in your listing?
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:19:14 PM new
Its actually one woodcut the 2nd reffered to another auction that ran though not too clearly.My fault.
Thats not the problem the customer was emailed by another person who told them that its not an origional.
Yet nowhere does it suggest that as the date given is c.a.1590 and not 1512 or there abouts when the origional was first printed.
But this maybe my fault not the bidders as I did not explain things very well.So it seems.
Though other bidders understood it to be what I indicated it was.
Adrian
|
rosiebud
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:19:18 PM new
Adrian ~ well at first I would think it'd be the single woodcut, but as I read down through the description, you talk about "All of the illustrations throught the volume" .. "each page measures" .. "the AD mark is clearly visible on all.." so that would lead me to think that you're really selling the entire volume.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:22:23 PM new
Yes because of the plural of "woodcuts" and two pics I would think there were two up for auction. Since I thought it was a great deal I would have wondered why two for a great price, I would have emailed.
Also they may be trying to get out of it too and they are using loopholes.
not bobbysoxer on eBay
[email protected]
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:28:35 PM new
Okay still not the problem.
I was trying to explain how the date was established by telling details about the volume it came from.
But this what the bidder got from another
person who had emailed me about the Durer
listed.
"Ijust thought you would like to know that the Durer
picture that you purchased is a copy and not an
original Durer. I have email correspondence with the
seller and told him that it was not an original prior
to the sale finish, he neglected to state this in his
advertisement."
No where was it indicated it was an origional but an early example of his work.
Which is exactly what it is.Had it been an origional then the date would have been about 1512 which this one was stated as about though confusingly so to be c.a.1590
thanks Adrian
|
macandjan
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:32:40 PM new
Sorry Adrian - I still did not have it right the second time I read through it.
First I had to get rid of the idea that it was the original work then I had to get rid of the idea that it was a whole volume.
I think the problem is that you are SO familiar with this stuff it is obvious to you and hard to realize how the assumptions that are easy to make from all the details given. You
know this is an engraving that copied the woodcut about a century after the original and are just giving details of the volume from which it came. Do I have it right now?
You never say we know the date from....
to explain what the purpose of these details are.
[ edited by macandjan on Nov 25, 2000 01:36 PM ]
|
dman3
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:35:15 PM new
This Does seem some what confuseing with the history you offer but in the end it seems clear to me you are offering to sell a page from a collection of pages.
in any case if a buyer took time to read this great listing they would under stand this is one of two you are offering.
one thing I do with my auction is make it clear right at the top what the person looking at would be bidding on.
Though your list is 20x nicer to look at then any auction I have ever put up and to be honest I think im the last one who should be giveing this advice if it was my listing up top frist thing would say your are bidding on One such and such or something of that nature then I would go into the history that I think was the item #1 selling point .
Only thing I can see is at times while reading I got the feeling this was one of two books you were offering and almost seemed like you were offering me to choose which I want if I bid and win.
As well this is just my opinion with bids like this your only second mistake was giveing up EBAY full time for a full time paycheck .
I would have wentwith the part time job to fill the void thats my opion usually gets little mileage as most keep there trash can close by and just flick it in
http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
|
flynn
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:36:41 PM new
Adrian:
Okay, I now see where you stated that the volume you have is dated 1600, but it's buried among so much other stuff that I can see where someone would be confused, as you can I was by my first post!
If I were you, for future auctions, if you need to reference other items in your listing, do so at the end and not the middle, or the beginning. I think that maybe that might help eleviate any more problems of this nature.
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:38:11 PM new
macandjan
You are correct on the last.
Looks like I made it too confusing which was not my intent.
On the Title it mentions ca 1590
Origional 1512 so mine should not have been
considered to be an origional.
Though it appears that what the high bidder believed.They Paypaled me for it already.But I have no problem refunding them the money as I want a happy not an unhappy customer.
Though I thought it was quite clear it was not an origional.
AHHHHHH
Back to the drawing board on this one.
Oh well cannot get them all right
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:42:03 PM new
OK, since you asked.
For a starter:
ADAM AND EVE TAKING THE FRUIT FROM THE SERPENT
Genuine early woodcuts of Albrecht Durer with the Durer Monongram AD.From the "Passio Christi" first printed in 1516
............................................
You state "woodcuts, which would lead me to believe there are 2 for sale.
By the scan of the pics [at least on my monitor] they could very well be 2 similar, but different items up for sale as 1 lot.
Just a side note, but you might want to check out this software for $15, your pics would/could look 100% better for potential bidders. http://www.trivista.com/products/asmallerimage/
............................................
Also, the auction description is VERY hard to follow & it's not really clear to me what the exact age of these woodblocks are, other than they aren't modern reproductions.
I can certainly understand why the high bidder was/is confused, but of course they should have asked any questions they had, long before they placed their bid.
|
dman3
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:46:29 PM new
imabrit
Ok now that I know what you were looking for as I read this ad you seemed to make it clear that you were not sure of when it was done.
As I read you seem to be saying you were assumeing the date and I never once got the feeling you were saying this was an orginal just that it was very earily undated work.
this is a one in 18 or more million point of veiw though
http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:50:55 PM new
I will have to re-work this one,as I said it sometimes hard to put it into words what you want to convey.
As I said to its the first time in over 6000
items sold so I guess my average is not bad.
Okay I thought the date in the Title clarifies that it not a 1512.
ZJ CA 1590
Then again in the top of the title description it says ZJ ca 1590.
I can see it but thats not important its what the bidder thinks.
Anyway its easy to fix and not the end of the world though.
I have to create a second larger image of what this is as the detail on the print has to be seen by the bidder.
An almost complete first printing set is coming up for auction nect month and is expected to bring between 12,000 and 18,000
pounds.That pounds not dollars plus premiums and the estimates on these are often low.
Kind of cleared up what I thought or what the bidder thought but not completely.
Taking Beth out to the movies.
Later Adrian
As to quitting a full time job for ebaY was the best 18 months I have had with the family.Lots of time together.
But I have gotten back into comission sales something I am good at anyway.
Adrian
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 01:52:44 PM new
dman3
Thank you but it looks like you are the first in 10 to realise that so it looks like I goofed.
Adrian
|
HartCottageQuilts
|
posted on November 25, 2000 02:00:51 PM new
I didn't find it confusing at all.
OTOH, Fatboy (ex-husband #2)was an antiquarian book dealer, so it's not like I don't have experience with the often, um, rambling descriptions given on this stuff. (Hey, I happen to enjoy the rambling, but it can baffle the uninitiated.)
I see you as offering ONE plate out of a book which you've reasonably dated to c.1590 and which is composed of a number of different artists' works.
MY problem is in your offering a choice: "I have a total of 32 in the set and offer you here 2 to choose from being from the first in the sequence."
First of all, I see only 1 image with a closeup - so where's the choice?
Second, "choices" are forbidden by ebay.
I think the email your bidder got was a seriously dirty trick, probably by a competitor. I see nothing to indicate that you were offering an "original" Durer, nor more than one piece.
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 25, 2000 02:07:44 PM new
HCQ - Thank you, I forgot to mention this part in my first post as well.
"I have a total of 32 in the set and offer you here 2 to choose from being from the first in the sequence."
Adrian has explained here, that he had another similar woodblock up for auction on eBay, but that certainly wasn't clear by reading his description. At least it wasn't to me.
|
bitofagrump
|
posted on November 25, 2000 02:26:09 PM new
A rather nice looking display, but you do need to consider your spelling and grammer.
Only use too when you mean also and please...put in a few more commas.
"So for know unless someone can come up"
Three times, I had to read that phrase before I realized what you were getting at.
Simply say, "For now, the estimated date is 1590. If more revealing information is presented, this will be revised."
Initially, I thought you were presenting a choice of 2 cuts. However, later in the description, it does become a bit more muddled and one might think it was more than the one piece.
The fact that it is not an original was quite clear to me-but you do bander about a few too many years to be completely clear.
Generally though, emailing you to completely clarify the offering would have been what most serious buyers would do, as has been mentioned by a number of the other most helpful individuals here.
You do offer some mighty interesting items, I must say.
Cheers.
|
printseller
|
posted on November 25, 2000 03:53:32 PM new
Bad news Adrian,
I'm afraid that the fellow is right, your print is an early reproduction of a Durer woodcut.
There are hundreds of these that were made for more than a century after AD's death, some from the original blocks, but most from copperplate copies. This one is probably mid to late 1600's, but it's definitely a repro.
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 25, 2000 06:19:03 PM new
printseller
I was not disagreeing that the email was wrong in fact I agree with it,that is not a
genuine Durer woodcut of the first printing as the email suggested.I wish it was,that would have been nice.
Is there a way to discern if this is possably
a woodcut or a copper engraving.As the orgional seller who does this for a living
believes them to have come from a woodblock.
As to the date its definitely no later than 1600 as the other prints in their testify to that fact and these Durer cuts do appear to be earlier.
Anyway the deal has ben cancelled I am out listing fees but it is partially my fault and I accept the blame.Thought I had it explained correctly but did not.
Live and learn.
|
macandjan
|
posted on November 25, 2000 09:02:35 PM new
Perhaps it would help to show how I would do a description of an item like this:
This is a loose plate from a collection of engravings that were bound together about the year 1600. It carries a page marking on the perimeter that identifies it as one page of this volume and in no way detracts from the imaige. The subject matter is a reproduction engraving of the work of ALBRECHT DURER which was produced about 1500-1510. It is one of the first 2 plates in this volume which represent
woodcuts by this artist and are followed by works of several other artists dating over the next century. Beside these 2 plates of this artist I shall be offering 32 other plates from the same of volume at auction.
I might have details wrong but that is for the format mostly - short and sweet - THEN go ito details of the printer and dating of the other plates after a concise description at the start.
[ edited by macandjan on Nov 25, 2000 09:06 PM ]
|
jmjones6061
|
posted on November 25, 2000 10:10:27 PM new
Adrian,
I understood it completely - but I love old stuff - especially prints - I wish I could afford this one! It's gorgeous!
BTW - I also bid on some of your coins! - I have no idea why - except they just appealed to me! Thought they might be good for the kids. Here in the midwest, old means maybe a hundred years!
Jane
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 26, 2000 07:07:37 AM new
jmjones6061
Thank you,though it was not my intent to get anyone to buy anything but the coins are indeed a lot of fun.
macandjan
Thanks I think I will build the description around what you have.I have to becareful with the word reproduction as it believe me people then think it is modern.
The high bidder still thinks that the item is
an actual print,printed during his lifetime.
I will post the new description here later see what you all think.
Adrian
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 26, 2000 07:51:07 AM new
Here is the revised version.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PRINTING OF 1511 BUT OF A c.a.1590 DATE
Early example of the work of the famous artist Albrecht Durer (1471 - 1528).This particular print dates to about 1590 approx. 70 years
after his death.Had this been a print produced during his lifetime it would be a very rare and highly desirable piece with a high market value..
THIS IS ONE PRINT ONLY OF A SERIES OF 32 I HAVE.THE REST TO BE LISTED HERE AT THE RATE OF 2 A WEEK FOR THE NEXT 16 WEEKS
Here is a chance to own an early example of the work approx. 400 years old.That would make
for an impressive print framed.
---------------------------------------------
SIZE: 7.5 by 5.5 inches with the illustrated area being 5 by 3.75 inches approx.
---------------------------------------------
CONDITION:This print is a reversal of an actual Durer Original,if you took an original Durer and put it up to a mirror this is how it
would look.
Some staining is evident more so in the margins though there is some very light water staining across the left hand corner but as you can see from the picture not that noticeable.
.The AD mark is clearly visible in all and none are dated. The illustrations are somewhat lighter than shown but that is how they scanned with the preset settings.
---------------------------------------------For now, the estimated date is 1590. If more revealing information is presented, this will be revised.
HOW THE DATE OF c.a. 1590 IS DERIVED.
There is an interesting story behind this set of Durer prints that help to establish an approx. date on them which is very important as these where printed from the time of the original printing and up to
the mid 17th century.In fact modern reproductions are still printed today.
Recently a collector in England put for sale a large collection of emblematic and related items,this was a large collection and covered books dating from 1550 onwards.The main focus being on the early 17th and mid too late 16th century.
The volume I have contains 163 separate engravings all bound in a book the binding in vellum bound somewhere in the 17th century. All of these engravings in this volume are of a religious nature one section relates to the life of a Saint Norbert.There is a Title page to this section with the date 1600 on it and the name of the printer a THEODORUS GALLAEUS of Antwerp, some of his works are identified in Adams though the one I have is not listed.He is known to have printed between 1598 and 1600 that I could find for sure.
A number of other names are found such as T.Galle,C.Collaert,Martin de Vos and others.One of the most recognizable names is Phls Galle which I believe to be Phillip Galle 1537-1612.
The last set of engravings are done by the Flemish Artist Jan Wiericx and appear to be from The Creation and early history of man" that he produced between 1607-1608.
The Durer prints are bound in at the beginning of the volume and appear judging by paper and condition to be earlier than the others.So the c.a.date of 1590 is used.
---------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM IS GUARANTEED TO BE AN EARLY EXAMPLE OF HIS WORK NOT A RECENT REPRINT.I HAVE BEEN SELLING A NUMBER OF YEARS ON EBAY AND FOCUS MY ATTENTION ON EARLY AND ORIGIONAL ITEMS MANY HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD OR OLDER. NONE OF OUR ITEMS ARE MODERN REPRODUCTIONS
|
macandjan
|
posted on November 26, 2000 09:05:24 AM new
[ edited by macandjan on Dec 3, 2000 10:50 AM ]
|
reddeer
|
posted on November 26, 2000 09:06:56 AM new
Much better.
|
imabrit
|
posted on November 26, 2000 09:37:39 AM new
Thanks looks like I got it right this time.
Serves me right for doing this one as the last listing of the day.I think I was all mixed up when I put the first description together.
Put together about 60 description and by days end it totally wipes you out as this is hard work too.
Back to do some more research on these and the other prints.
Adrian
|
kinse
|
posted on November 26, 2000 05:54:31 PM new
Imabrit: Is there someone who can look over your copy? Part of the trouble is you have lots of run-on sentences in your (first) description. In addition, there were many problems with to/too, you/you're, their/there, etc.
I'm not perfect when it comes to grammar, but I will say I'm turned off in sellers' descriptions when it's a grammatical mish-mash. I mean, we who speak English should be able to distinguish between YOUR and YOU'RE.
I mean...shouldn't we?
|
macandjan
|
posted on November 26, 2000 09:35:16 PM new
I mean shouldn't we? = humor? =
I mean should not we?
You mean should we not?
All I saw was throught for through out and origionals with an extra i. I figured catalogue was probably the British usage.
"Oh... see them down in Soho Square, dropping H's everywhere. Speaking English anyway they like."
Squeezing contractions everywhere. Dumping E's and A's from ear to air, and 'ir to ar. Spelin krazi
waz frum airz to warez. Hlihwe7&^%%#&%.
[ edited by macandjan on Nov 26, 2000 09:40 PM ]
|
