posted on September 19, 2000 03:51:28 PM
Some very nice people I know,just got ripped off on ebay by a seller who forgot to remove the made in china sticker from a piece of glassware that she was passing off as "elegant".
In doing a search for this particular item, which is a very desirable and high priced area of collecting, I found the following. A number of auctions offering the identical piece with different inserts. All are being offered by dealers in the same geographical area( they must have made a run to the repro wholesaler.) the amazing thing is, and what really disturbs me, is that the original old pieces on ebay are not getting any, or very low bids, while the junk is starting at over $100 and has bids. This makes me ill, this hurts all of us in the long run.
posted on September 19, 2000 03:58:21 PM
Does the listing actually describe the piece as vintage or in any way represent that it's other than a new repro?
posted on September 19, 2000 04:07:02 PM
also keep in mind that many fine collectables and vintage older glass pieces were made in china and made in japan and its marked on them.
and many sellers today are calling items made in the 50s and early 60s how ever wrong it is, vintage.
posted on September 19, 2000 04:22:37 PMdman, just curious -- what type of old glass is it that's marked "Made in Japan" or "Made in China"?
Your comment "...many sellers today are calling items made in the 50s and early 60s how ever wrong it is, vintage" also has piqued my curiosity. Care to opine on what you consider to be the appropriate timeframe for the use of that term?
posted on September 19, 2000 04:26:39 PM
Since I grew up in 50s and 60s, that is vintage to me, and to most of the baby boomers that I know. For someone 70 and over, vintage would be another era I guess. I am a collector of glassware and have never, never found a good piece of glassware marked china or japan. Am I missing something?
posted on September 19, 2000 04:36:50 PM
HCQ,
Of course they never use the term old, or antique. This fools those who aren't savvy enough to question or think that because it is listed in a catagory, it is really what it means; or that a high starting price indicates the glass has value. Found some more under an alternate spelling, and from a different region, but same part of the country. I can send you a keyword to search if you want me to.
dman,
this stuff is brand new, a repro of an older glass collectible, and has a paper label made in china. They do not mention in the ads that it has a paper label saying that. If they did, anyone who would bid over $200, would have to be nuts.
cariad
posted on September 19, 2000 04:43:10 PM
I don't think the issue is whether the item has a paper label on it. The issue is whether it is misrepresented.
If it is described accurately (other than the paper tag thing) I don't see a problem.
If buyers are making assumptions that the pieces are something other than what they accutually are, that's the buyers' problem.
posted on September 19, 2000 05:15:44 PM
If the glasses have paper labels that say "Made in China" and that is not included in the description then I would say they are being misrepresented.
posted on September 19, 2000 05:44:50 PM
nowwhat, I recently bought a digital camera and it had a little sticker on it that said "3 hour battery life" or something like that. This wasn't mentioned in the ad. Is that a misrepresentation.
Does a description have to include every tag that has ever been attached to an item?
I don't see how the tag itself makes one bit of difference (assuming it's not damaging the item).
posted on September 19, 2000 06:02:40 PM
To a glass collector, "Elegant" is a short cut to: "Elegant Glassware of the Depression Era". So, yes, listing it in that category, knowing there is an {unmentioned} CHINA paper label, is deceitful...However the, the bidder must bear some responsibility: ask for extra photos top to bottom; ask for MARKINGS or LABELS...I once saw a piece of Bavarian China in THE STYLE OF Royal Bayreuth, with no mention nor photo of marking. But knowing Royal Bayreuth fairly well, I knew for certain the piece WAS NOT one of them...I emailed seller for a photo of any marking on her piece and was sent a photo of a Bayreuth stamp from ANOTHER item.... So, bidders must be aware and ready to ask the right questions. As to the seller, someone browsing that seller's listing should Email him/her and mention nicely that "Those appear to be very recent reproductions" (as opposed to some reproductions made in the 60's and 70's...
******************** Shosh http://www.oldandsold.com/cgi-bin/auction.cgi?justdisp&Rifkah
posted on September 19, 2000 06:10:48 PM
HCQ-email sent.
Labels do make a difference. Stating that this item was new, that it was made in china immediately destroys any collectible value. In my opinion, not giving that information to a bidder is being deceptive.
Years ago many dealers used to remove made in Japan labels, so they could claim uncertainty, or pass a piece off as being European. Funny thing is, there are so few items left with their original paper made in Japan labels, that they are collected today.
And, yes I know the standard " the buyer has to take responsibility and not assume".That statement should make us feel good, as buyers get turned off on buying, period ??!!
the seller who sold this one does have several negs and neutrals, but a healthy positive count. She has retaliated to every complaint or neutral
cariad
cariad
Noah's last words: "damn woodpeckers"
posted on September 19, 2000 06:21:41 PM
"So, bidders must be aware and ready to ask the right questions. As to the seller, someone browsing that seller's listing should Email him/her and mention nicely that "Those appear to be very recent reproductions"
Shosh,
The seller's response to buyer's email was to claim that the glass was Moser or Summit(?) and no idea how that paper label ended up on it.
cariad
posted on September 19, 2000 08:06:13 PM
Well, I took a look at the auctions you gave me, cariad, and I can't see anything deceptive. The items are listed under the "General" category for that item type, not in any of the antique or collectible categories, and there's not even a mention of the dreaded "antiqueD", let alone any statement of age or manufacturer. This seller's got FIVE similar (different colors) items running concurrently, all at the same opening bid ending in .99, which to me are dead giveaways.
Now, I agree that seller's reply email was one of the most pathetic attempts at dissembling I've seen since Paypal's last published statement.
However, that doesn't alter the fact that your friend was looking in a non-antique category and found five widgets from the same seller in the same identical style at the same opening bid with NO representations concerning age or manufacturer. And she thought she was getting an antique?
posted on September 19, 2000 08:11:21 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but is elegant a special glass collecting term? Is there any reason why glass from china can't be "elegant?"
posted on September 19, 2000 08:24:12 PM
HCQ -- how do YOU define antique? Ebay says 50 years, which makes me one -- LOL, yet another thing to be unahppy with ebay about . Believe me, the things that were in my house and kitchen when I was a kid are not antiques to me. Nor do I personally consider Depression era items true antiques.
In any case, as someone who lists items in the Elegant category (when I have them), and as a buyer/seller/collector of Depression and Elegant glass, I definitely, absolutely, positively feel the subject piece was misrepresented. The *General* category is for those items with unidentified or *other* manufacturers than the common Elegant makers like Heisey, Cambridge, Fostoria, Fenton, etc. I would NOT say that category is appropriate for reproductions. Reproductions IMO -- and judging from actual practice it really IS just my opinion -- should go in the Contemporary Glass category of Pottery and Glass, or be VERY CLEARLY labeled as repops if they appear anywhere else. (Okay, my ACTUAL preference would be that they be outlawed from the world, but I'm not going to hold my breath.)
Another fact regarding Elegant glassware is that some of it was produced in the same pattern beyond the actual Depression era, sometimes into the 70s IIRC. But NONE of it was Made in China.
Sadly, I see for too many people selling things in various *antique* and collectible categories which are reproductions, and many of them know it full well. Few of those who know it are honest about it.
posted on September 19, 2000 08:25:27 PM
If an item I'm selling looks "Elegant" to me I will use that word in the item description.
You mean every time I have used it to describe a glass object I was really saying the piece was "Elegant Glassware from the Depression Era."
I would not have had a clue that all that would be implied in that one word. Maybe the seller didn't either.
How Elegant can something that starts with a .99 bid be?
posted on September 19, 2000 08:36:38 PM
THE WORD VINTAGE IS THE MOST ABUSED WORD ON EBAY. THERE ARE SELLERS WITH ADMITTED REPRODUCTIONS THAT HAVE VINTAGE IN THEIR TITLE. WHEN I SEE THE WORD "VINTAGE" I SELDOM LOOK ANY FURTHER. IF IT SAYS OLD THEN I KNOW THE SELLER IS REPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HE SAYS. I HAVE COMPLAINED BUT FEEL MORE PEOPLE SHOULD JOIN IN AND GET EBAY TO DEFINE THE WORD VINTAGE ONCE AND FOR ALL.
posted on September 19, 2000 08:36:55 PM
sorry HCQ,
You didn't see them all...there are that many. The particular one I speak about was listed in the Elegant Glass catagory. There are quite a few dealers selling this, and some are at least listing it in contemporary general.... That is not as deceptive as the other.
cariad
posted on September 19, 2000 08:41:49 PM
Tegan.
it is perfectly okay to describe a piece of glass as being elegant as an adjective. We are referring to glass that is/was listed in the Elegant Glassware sub catagory.
cariad
posted on September 19, 2000 08:56:37 PM
HCQ writes: However, that doesn't alter the fact that your friend was looking in a non-antique category and found five widgets from the same seller in the same identical style at the same opening bid with NO representations concerning age or manufacturer. And she thought she was getting an antique?"
She was looking in the Elegant Glassware catagory and didn't see 5 items by the same seller.
Many buyers don't know all the ins and outs of ebay. Granted they need to learn, but most of them are likely to just stop buying on ebay after an experience like this. This hurts all of us. I agree with those who say all REPROS should be stated as such. Anything else is misrepresentation.
cariad
posted on September 19, 2000 09:26:25 PM
cariad-so do you believe reproductionsshould be 'outlawed' on ebay?
Or should they have thier own catagory?
And like someone else said, anything that comes out of China, Tawian, or other Asian countries, they can't be considered 'elegant' or even good pieces?
We sell glass ornamnets from Poland, work with the couple that go there and get them, from a small factory. They were over recently, she had returned from Poland, and told me, a new factory had started in her town. They made China ware. But, they were sending it to Japan, where Japan was marking it 'Made in China' and distributing it.
I don't see the logic in that, but thats what they were doing.
What kind of pieces or things were these that they went so high? I mean the rip off whatevers?
I bought a 'knock off' Tiffany lamp on ebay a while ago, I bought it, because I liked it, and I can't afford the real Tiffany, suits me. I am sorry your friends were ripped off.
But this thread is titled Can't We Do Anything To Stop This?
I don't know. Ban it. Make their own catagory? I don't know, what do you think should be done?
posted on September 19, 2000 09:46:53 PM
Shelly,
I think new reproductions have a place, especially for those like you and me, who like a particular style and don't really care if it's the original thing. But attempts to pass it off as the original and have people pay a high price thinking it is original are reprehensible, IMO. So I think reproductions should not be allowed in the antique and collectible catagories and should have to be identified as such. Yes, give them their own catagory. Then there can be no questions raised about the subject.
cariad
posted on September 20, 2000 05:43:16 AM
Well, cariad, I did the search you told me to do, and those are what I came up with. I wish you'd given me the actual auction number, as I'd asked, so that I could see the listing in question. No rules against doing that in an email.
I do agree that listing repros in any category other than "Glass:General" is asking for trouble (mostly because bidderrs are so anxious to see what they WANT to, not what's actually stated). Talk about a seller inviting grief.
But the listing itself didn't say ANYthing about the maker or age of the piece - IOW, your friend assumed that because it was in that category, it was an antique.
Awhile back a seller reported that she'd listed a quilt pattern in Textiles:Quilts rather than Quilts:Patterns, and the bidder was hopping mad because - based solely on the category - she thought she was bidding on a quilt rather than the pattern. And this in a listing where the word PATTERN prominently appeared.
I think this was a case of too-clever marketing on the seller's part (where are your repros going to get the most hits? Lost in "General"? Or in the same category as the real thing?) and extremely wishful thinking on the part of your friend.
posted on September 20, 2000 05:58:47 AM
Was the name of the original maker used in any way in the title or description? If the seller used the name of the American(?) maker in the title or description without stating that these were reproduction pieces, then I'd definitely side with cariad that the listings were intentionally misleading. The idea of having a seperate category for reproductions is a good one. It's really tough, as a seller, to sell reproductions without committing the sin of "keyword spamming". A "repro" icon could be added in list returned by the search, so that collectors who were only interested in the genuine article could bypass those listings.
posted on September 20, 2000 07:19:55 AM
HQC writes: "Awhile back a seller reported that she'd listed a quilt pattern in Textiles:Quilts rather than Quilts:Patterns, and the bidder was hopping mad because - based solely on the category - she thought she was bidding on a quilt rather than the pattern. And this in a listing where the word PATTERN prominently appeared."
There is a world of difference between this and what I am talking about.
I didn't give you the specific auction # because the bidder is not involved in this and I would not feel right identifying that person to anyone.
I understand that the way these descriptions are written it would be difficult, if not impossible to prove outright fraud. I have said some of what you are saying to the buyer myself, but this kind of deceptive selling does hurt everyone and it seems as if all onus and responsibility is put on the buyer. By not doing anything but berating the buyer for being a sucker, it seems as if we are at least condoning, if not encouraging these sellers to continue.
cariad
posted on September 20, 2000 08:30:05 AM
How is it different? Rather than relying on the description of the item itself, the bidder depended on the category to provide pertinent information regarding the item.
There's no "berating" going on here. I've stated that the seller was remiss in listing a repro in an antique category, for just the reason your bidder complains. However - and of course all I have to go on here is your word - the seller did not describe the item as anything other than it is.
So your bidder read the description - and despite the fact that no representations were made about the age of the piece, used the category and the opening bid to determine that this was an antique. To me, that says "wishful thinking". And yes, this seller is probably banking on just that sort of reasoning (or lack thereof).
posted on September 20, 2000 09:05:31 AM
Since a buyer does not have the option of handling the piece before purchasing, IMHO, it is imperative for the seller to provide any and all information available on the piece. That includes any stickers or labels on the item. Anything short of that is FAILURE TO DISCLOSE and is deceitful.
A good example is in jewelry. If an item is marked 14k/925, that means it is 14 kt gold over sterling silver. If the seller just says it's marked 14k, he's correct in that the marking says that. However, his failure to disclose the 925 mark would be fraudulent since that greatly affects the value of the piece.
*********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
So, bidders must be aware and ready to ask the right questions. As to the seller, someone browsing that seller's listing should Email him/her and mention nicely that "Those appear to be very recent reproductions" (as opposed to some reproductions made in the 60's and 70's...
