posted on September 9, 2000 12:46:57 PM newabacaxi - Oops. My intent was not to belittle either of us - merely to point out that uncovering the outrageous discrepancies in owner's claims and the truth required neither conservator nor appraiser, but anybody whose BS-O-Meter was turned on and who could do a keyword search on the Net.
I'd at least have some respect for the seller's if he'd actually showed some creativity in his fish stories. Instead I'm amazed (and amused) that he thought he could successfully palm off his "evidence". Reminds me of my "COPS" experience, where the guy who stole my garden furniture vehemently denied having taken it or even knowing about it -while standing in his backyard right next to my stolen furniture. He then made quite a stink that I had violated his "rights" by calling the police...
posted on September 9, 2000 01:10:31 PM new
Let me introduce myself. My name is Sharon, I am one of the representatives from OldAndSold. I wish to make
this very clear, this is my first time to enter in on this thread, as is it my last. I am sure this statement will be
scrutinized, and broken down . Let me repeat First, And Last..... I represent my feelings only. In no means do I
represent any other persons that work for or represent OAS.I find This thread is totally destructive. It appears that if
anyone enters and posts an even a slightly objective opinion they are accused of being in some manor connected
with OAS or the owner of the painting. I have due to curiosity kept up, and followed this thread. We at OAS made
the decision not to enter into this thread at the very beginning, and until know have kept to that agreement. I must break ranks.
I have become angry with the way this thread has progressed into a vicious free for all.
It appears a few have taken it upon themselves to be sleuths, and have gone to extraordinary lengths to
discredit this painting and slander it owner. Many posters selectively taken parts of the owners information from the
Provenance, and concentrated on discrediting the information. If the information is read in it entirety it gives a good
description and analysis of the painting. With signatures of persons that did these analysis. Concerning the
discrepancies in dates. The owner stands by the history he has provided. These are facts that were given to him by
family members. With this kind of history dates, and yes sometimes facts can be misconstrued due to passing years, loss of letters and documents,so on.The body of
evidence should not be disregarded.
As I followed the thread I noted that several of the posters seem to be making inflammatory statements, I
believe this was done to inflame, and incite the owner to become involved with this forum. HCQ went to the
extreme lengths to register and pose as a prospective bidder on the painting, and to make telephone calls to the
different institutions that are listed in the Provenance. Then again appeared to take selective statements and post them to
this thread. This person appears to be going to great length to discredited the owner ,and the painting. I ask myself
why? The sale of this painting should not concern you on such a personal bases.The owner of this painting has a right to sell the painting in the manor he chooses. Weather it be an Auction House or an Online auction. This is his decision to make.
If AW posters have a problem with the manor in which he chooses to present and sell his painting, I suggest it is your
problem alone. You have no right to slander this person, or his painting. The owner has choose to keep much of
his information available to an actual interested buyer. He will not sell the painting until the prospective buyer
has had an expert of their own choosing verify that the painting is a Van Gogh. This should stand to alleviate all your cocerns.
posted on September 9, 2000 03:22:09 PM newHCQ -
I'm not belittled
Sharon -
"I find This thread is totally destructive. It appears that if anyone enters and posts an even a slightly objective opinion they are accused of being in some manor connected with OAS or the owner of the painting."
They invited the attention ... and now you are complaining because several people were able to poke holes in the so-called "provenance" big enough to sail the Titanic through? With, I might add, totally fact-filled posts.
"I have become angry with the way this thread has progressed into a vicious free for all."
And the only person who was suspended for repeated personal insults was ... the owner of the painting.
"It appears a few have taken it upon themselves to be sleuths, and have gone to extraordinary lengths to discredit this painting and slander it owner."
The provenance is hearsay and wishful thinking with little in the way of facts to back it up, the work does not resemble anything Van Gogh did in Arles, and the owner is a most irascible person (in my opinion).
"Many posters selectively taken parts of the owners information from the Provenance, and concentrated on discrediting the information. If the information is read in it entirety it gives a good description and analysis of the painting. With signatures of persons that did these analysis."
If the information is read in its entirety, and then compared to the "provenance", it reveals that the auction description is full of half-truths and wishful thinking.
The owner has embellished the bits and pieces of information from the various lab reports (and apparently falsely claims that the L.A. County Museum of Art did a pigment analysis ... their director says otherwise, and the analysis is NOT signed or on any letterhead that can be traced.) Many of the statements in the lab reports are NOT backed up by the lab reports, the "provenance" takes a bit of data from the lab report and embroiders it into a fanciful construct:
****************
EXAMPLE:
LAB: "a word is possibly visible "SOUV"
LAB: "X-ray of "Yellow Roses" reveals another painting beneath, with what appears to be an iris, a bud and iris leaves."
Provenance states, as if it were established fact: "Under the 'Yellow Roses' is a painting of Yellow Irises with a dedication to Anton Mauve, signed 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888'. This shows up in X-ray and in Infra-red."
From the two bits of data, the seller has constructed an entire painting and an inscription.
"Concerning the discrepancies in dates. The owner stands by the history he has provided. These are facts that were given to him by
family members. With this kind of history dates, and yes sometimes facts can be misconstrued due to passing years, loss of letters and documents,so on."
Oral histories MUST be backed up with facts, or at least not be provably wrong because of the facts. The timeline of Molly's life and the supposed timeline of the painting's history DO NOT MATCH! There is no way to make Molly a neighbor of Helen Henderson Chain because the Chains were DEAD before the Browns came to Denver.
"The body of evidence should not be disregarded."
The "body of evidence" indicates that this is an old painting on used canvas ... nothing more.
"As I followed the thread I noted that several of the posters seem to be making inflammatory statements, I believe this was done to inflame, and incite the owner to become involved with this forum."
The owner was in flames when he arrived, and took extreme umbrage that anyone would dare apply logic and fact to his view of the painting. He refused to answer direct questions, claimed proof in the form of photos of the painting in situ in Molly's house but refuses to post the pictures.
I have attended some high-end auctions for art. THE SELLERS LAID EVERY BIT OF PROOF THEY HAD ON THE TABLE BEFORE THE AUCTION.
"HCQ went to the extreme lengths to register and pose as a prospective bidder on the painting, and to make telephone calls to the
different institutions that are listed in the Provenance."
If she had not done so, I would have. And she did note that his emailed claims to a supposed buyer were NOT the same as his claims in the on-line provenance ... and questioned the discrepancy.
"The sale of this painting should not concern you on such a personal bases. The owner of this painting has a right to sell the painting in the manor he chooses."
Yes, but he's lying about much of the provenance. And that brings the entire on-line auction industry into disrepute.
"If AW posters have a problem with the manor in which he chooses to present and sell his painting, I suggest it is your problem alone. You have no right to slander this person, or his painting."
Free speech! He can say what he wants, we can critique it if we want. And FYI, inanimate things cannot be slandered, nor can opinions be considered libelous (slander is SPOKEN, libel is WRITTEN).
"The owner has choose to keep much of his information available to an actual interested buyer. He will not sell the painting until the prospective buyer has had an expert of their own choosing verify that the painting is a Van Gogh."
And in my opinion, he's nuts if he thinks anyone will ante $2,000,000 just to get a chance to bring in an expert.
posted on September 9, 2000 03:35:44 PM newIf AW posters have a problem with the manor in which he chooses to present and sell his painting, I suggest it is your problem alone. You have no right to slander this person, or his painting.
I beg to differ. As members of the auction community (and Americans protected by a little thing called the First Amendment) we have every right to comment on not only the manner in which this "Van Gogh" painting is being presented on OldandSold.com, but also the validity of claims made by the owner. If you had read this thread closely, I would hope you would be more appalled by the lack of professionalism shown by the owner, particularly his/her patronizing attitude and refusal to address valid concerns about the painting's provenence. Also appalling is the owner's lack of concern for facts brought forth in this discussion. Additionally, it was obvious to most that the "posers" who immediately registered and entered the thread were intimately associated with the owner (or OldandSold), thereby adding further fuel to the fire, and greater suspicion. Why did the owner dodge every legitimate question concerning the provenence? Each point that has been researched by the posters here lends less and less credibility to that provenence. That is not slander; that's called truth.
If the information is read in it entirety it gives a good description and analysis of the painting. With signatures of persons that did these analysis. Concerning the discrepancies in dates. The owner stands by the history he has provided. These are facts that were given to him by family members. With this kind of history dates, and yes sometimes facts can be misconstrued due to passing years, loss of letters and documents,so on. The body of evidence should not be disregarded.
That's like saying a story sounds good so the details (facts) don't matter. Reading the provenence carefully, I find it to be superficial and apparently based mostly on heresy. As a professional art historian myself (I will gladly provide my credentials), I find that unacceptable, and I suspect most legitimate auction houses found it so too. As it has been documented through the research undertaken by "sleuths" here, many of the most basic dates are incorrect, and need to be so noted in the auction description. To not do so, and continue listing it with suppositions and myth is misleading, if not downright fraud. Also, the documents put forth to support the analysis are not shown in their entirety, but in part. Talk about attempting to misconstrue facts.
He will not sell the painting until the prospective buyer has had an expert of their own choosing verify that the painting is a Van Gogh. This should stand to alleviate all your cocerns.
Does OldandSold still collect the buyer's premium on the final bid even if the art expert finds it not be a Van Gogh? Also, are there any experts now who consider it to be a Van Gogh? If so, the owner should put this name(s) forward as that would more strongly support his/her claims about the painting. At the very least, all information about the work should be readily available before one bids (the site notes: ONCE YOU PLACE A BID, YOU MAY NOT RETRACT IT. IN SOME STATES IT IS ILLEGAL TO WIN AN AUCTION AND NOT FOLLOW THROUGH ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED). So, the expectation is "buy, have an expert test it, and if not Van Gogh, you can refuse it". What about "here is solid proof this is a Van Gogh, and buy with confidence"? At the very least, the auction should say "believed to be by Van Gogh". But, then again, that would not garter higher bids, would it?
P.S. Abacaxi, talk about great minds thinking alike!
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 9, 2000 03:39 PM ]
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 9, 2000 03:40 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2000 05:33:31 PM new
First off - theshar, can you provide us here with contact information so that we can confirm you are in fact "one of the representatives from Old and Sold"? Your writing style is remarkably similar in construction to that of lagoldie.
So, here we go again: rather than have the seller actually reconcile the owner's "provenance" with contradictory information from numerous reputable sources, or actually come out and say "Hey, we're only a venue," this soi-disant OAS representative points her finger at us skeptics for doing something so questionable and underhanded as to actually research the seller's claims.
The hideously underhanded and "extreme lengths" to which I went to obtain information about the painting was to follow OAS's own instructions and form, which requires (a) registering and (b) clicking on the "bid" button to get to the "question" form. I repeat: There's no "ask seller a question" button; you HAVE to register AND click on the "bid" button in order to submit a question to OAS to be forwarded to the seller. In any case, at no point did I represent that I actually was interested in bidding on the painting.
Here's the full text of my query:
This listing claims this painting was given by H.Chain to M.Brown "for her wedding to J. J. Brown in 1890". The Browns were married in 1886, not 1890. The Browns did not move to Denver until 1893, one year after the Chains died at sea, so H.Chain could never have been "a neighbor" of the Browns. Please explain how you reconcile your claims with the documentary evidence regarding the Browns. Please also provide documentation, such as correspondence, inventories, and bills of sale, showing that this was indeed purchased by Chain, given to Brown, and sold by Brown's children "in the 1920s."
Please also provide the full LACMA analysis, including letterhead, signature, analysis of medium, and analysis of canvas, as well as a certified appraiser's valuation of the painting and the likelihood of it being a genuine Van Gogh work.
Is Old and Sold the seller of this piece? If so, how does this affect your claim that you "have no control over the quality, safety or legality of the items advertised, the truth or accuracy of the listings...."? If the winning bidder has a certified appraiser examine the painting post-auction, and said appraiser finds that the claims in the Old and Sold listing are false, is the buyer's premium refunded? Since the owner represents that this is an authentic Van Gogh work, may I assume that if said owner's claims are proved false, will the owner refund the costs associated with the auction, including the inspection and appraisal, since a claim of misrepresentation or fraud could be made?
OAS responded:
"In regards to questions toward Old And Sold Antiques Auction, we are not the
seller of this painting. It was presented to us in the same manner as all of our other auctions. We are not the authenticators of this piece. We are working with the seller of this piece to help them display their
provenance for interested bidders. The winning bidder on this painting has the right to refuse purchase based on their chosen experts opinion. We would not
collect a buyers premium if they were to refuse the sale. We have a separate contract at the close of auction for the winning bidder that outlines the complete terms and conditions of the sale. All costs and liability are with the bidder if they wish to pursue the painting."
IOW, if the high bidder hauls himself out to CA post-auction and pays an "art expert" to examine the painting (both must occur according to the TOS within 10 days of EOA), and then rejects the work because of inaccurate or misleading information provided by the seller, he can't recover his costs. So this is hardly a matter of "oh, if it doesn't turn out to be what we say it is, you won't lose anything."
It's kind of amusing to observe, given the seller's remarkable coyness regarding providing documentation of his claims, that OAS requires all bidders submit three personal references and a financial statement within 48 hours of bidding, or OAS will cancel their bids
Edited to add:
it gives a good description and analysis of the painting. With signatures of persons that did these analysis.
Uh, theshar, as of 8PM CST none of the 3 "analyses" have ANY signature at all. Where do you see them?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 9, 2000 06:17 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2000 10:00:37 PM new
athenal11365 In reply to your question," Does OldandSold still collect the Buyer's premium on the final bid even if the art expert finds it not be a Van Gogh"? OAS WILL NOT RECEIVE commission or Buyers premium unless the painting is sold. The winning bidder WILL NOT HAVE TO PURCHASE the painting if they are not satisfied with its authenticity. If someone bids on the painting, and the owner accepts the bid or a bidder has reached the owners reserve, that person is required at the owners request to have an expert of their choosing analyze the painting for its authenticity. The person that purchases the painting will have every opportunity to ask the owner questions, review documents, and as I mentioned have an expert analyze the actual painting. In regards to the added costs the winning bidder would occur to purchase this painting. This is something a bidder would have to take under consideration before bidding on the painting. One could speculate that if the person could afford a painting in this price range they could afford to pay the added cost to satisfy their need to be satisfied with its authenticity.
posted on September 10, 2000 01:16:48 AM new
I don't know if this painting is an authentic Van Gogh or not (although I doubt it) and since I don't have $2 mill to throw around I won't be able to bring an expert in to validate the authenticity.
But I do know one thing for sure...after this thread, there is no way in he** I would ever list or buy on OldandSold!
posted on September 10, 2000 05:12:20 AM new
theshar -
I think that the smell of money ($100,000 minimum if the painting sells for opening bid) has blinded OAS to the gaping holes in the supposed provenance.
Did you go back and look at the lab reports and note the lack of signatures and the way their small statements of fact have been confabulated by the seller into an entire panting with a supposed origin?
Notice the lack of ANY proof that the item was ever owned (or even looked at) by Molly Brown, despite the firm claim on the front page and the ? Notice the lack of ANY statements by any experts that the painting resembles a Van Gogh?
Look for yourself at the REAL Van Gogh painted about the time the seller claims this one was painted and notice the diference in color, brush work, and feel?
posted on September 10, 2000 05:16:12 AM new
Whether the bidder could "afford it" is not the issue. The question is, would bidder have bid on the item if seller had accurately represented it? If the answer is no, why should the bidder bear ANY cost?
This is a bit like an auction in which the seller says the T-shirt up for bids is autographed by Hilary Clinton and is brand new. The bidder bids based on those representations, receives the item, and finds out it's a silk-screen of Hilary's signature and the shirt has BO stains under the arms so is obviously not "new". The seller says he'll refund the $200 purchase price, but not the $2 shipping. Hey, it's only $2, and anybody who can buy a $200 T-shirt can "afford" to eat the $2 shipping, right? Point is, the bidder wouldn't have had to shell out for the shipping if seller knew, or should have known, that his representations were inaccurate or misleading. I'd volunteer that the seller of "Yellow Roses" has now had ample notice that his representations are highly suspect.
theshar, you said you are not "speaking on OAS's behalf...I represent my feelings only. In no means do I
represent any other persons that work for or represent OAS."
If that's the case, why, right out of the starting gate, do you tell us you are "one of the representatives from OldAndSold"? Is that supposed to give your opinions some sort of weight? If not, why note your connection at all, since it has nothing to do with the myriad questions regarding this painting's provenance?
Edited to add: Hmm...why'd they delete the Molly Brown Museum letter?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 10, 2000 05:19 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 07:28:44 AM new
HCQ It appears you are reading my statement selectively. If the first paragraph is read it entirety, it clearly show that I am representing my thoughts and feelings alone. I wanted to let all know I was connected with OAS. Reason one, I noticed any person that entered with a bit of an objective opinion was accused openly of being in someway connected with OAS or the owner. I WAS BEING HONEST. Last of all I have entered this chat with my user name and password that I have had for about 10 months.You see before OAS added its own hosting serves I used AW to host my pictures on OAS. I truly do not think my opinion carries any weight. But I have a right to it.
Again in response to questions about OAS fees. We do not stand to make any Money if the painting is not sold. Just for the record, OAS does not and never has charged any fees for any of the services we offer. We do have Featured Dealers that pay 3% on an item sold, no sale no commission.No cost to our dealers unless an item is sold. We have a wonderful open atmosphere on the site. We are not or have never been about making money. It we had this aversion for making money why would all be free on OAS? We have become a threat to larger sites do to this practice.Perhaps I might do some speculating myself here, do any of you fine poster peddle your wares Ebay?
posted on September 10, 2000 07:47:52 AM new
theshar -
"Perhaps I might do some speculating myself here, do any of you fine poster peddle your wares Ebay?"
Considering that this message board is called "THE EBAY OUTLOOK" ... it stands to reason that the persons posting here are selling or buying on eBay. I do both.
Now ... why was the letter from the "Molly Brown museum" withdrawn from the list of supposed proof? And where are these signed lab reports you were talking about? The ones posted have no signatures, making it impossible to doublecheck with the person who did the reports.
If this were a GENUINE Van Gogh or even something that had a decent chance of being one, bought in a thrift shop or found in the attic, with good lab reports, we'd all be cheering "GO Gogh, GO!"
But it has a confabulated provenance and VERY shaky lab reports and a vilwe-tempered seller. Nothing to cheer about at all.
posted on September 10, 2000 08:20:14 AM newtheshar, if by "selectively" reading you mean "finding the assertions, both as a whole and in every part, questionable", yeah, I guess you're right.
I think you need to reread my post, as compared to athena's. It was clear to me from OAS's response to my first email to them that OAS would not collect any fees if the sale fell through.
My interest is in the ethics of requiring the bidder to bear the cost of the post-auction expenses if it can be demonstrated that seller knew, or should have known, that his representations regarding the item were misleading, and that the buyer bid based on those representations.
Assume for a minute that some dumb multimillionaire (there are many, and I have met several) took the offered "provenance" at face value, didn't bother to ask seller any questions, and bid on and won the item. She sends her conservator out to California, who says "nice painting, but no Gogh," and she backs out of the deal.
THEN she stumbles upon AW, where she reads seller's other claims, and finds many of them differ significantly from the statements made in the listing. Bidder contacts LACMA, who tells her LACMA didn't do the pigment analysis. Bidder contacts me through AW, and I foward to her seller's email which flatly states that seller does NOT know whether this was a gift from Chain to Brown but merely that Brown acquired "some" paintings in 1890.
I suggest that bidder would by now be hopping mad and understandably would demand Seller reimburse her for post-auction expenses. Apparently according to OAS's TOS, Seller is free to tell bidder "too bad".
Hoo boy. I can see the lawyers lining up already.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 10, 2000 08:21 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 09:11:38 AM newtheshar says: We are not or have never been about making money. It we had this aversion for making money why would all be free on OAS? We have become a threat to larger sites do to this practice.
This is patently laughable. Unless Old and Sold is a non-profit operation (by design, not by lack of revenue) then it is almost certain to be about making money. Just because you do not charge money for certain services doesn't make you "not about money." There are many other revenue sources besides listing fees (banner ads, internet marketing information harvesting i.e. DoubleClick, etc.).
Unless you have a deep-pockets philanthropist pouring money into your operation you are almost certain to be funded by venture capitalists. Venture capitalists are not into funding companies without any concern for a return on their money. You may be ignorant of the business plan for your site but you can be certain that the people funding it's operation aren't. You can also be certain that your operating funds come from people that are about the money.
If those people didn't exist you wouldn't have a job.
posted on September 10, 2000 11:59:50 AM new
Actually I think I've seen at least one chat thread that would certainly "top" this one regarding very valuable items being offered online and defended by the seller in a chatroom.
A year ago, an auction appeared on eBay for an exceedingly rare US stamp, one of the "upside-down airmails" (better called "Inverted Jenny" ). There's a specialized stamp collector board on eBay and the appearance of this item, along with several other exceedingly valuable and scarce offerings (one a gold coin) from the same previously-unknown seller ID, caused an immediate hubbub. Various of the participants were rather skeptical, and yea, *hostile* regarding the possible authenticity of this offering. Somebody passed the fact of these discussions on to the email of the seller and he appeared "in person" to answer questions and defend himself.
The items were from his grandfather who'd recently died, he said. They were legitimate, worth a lot of money, and in his possession. He didn't understand the hostility of these pseudo-experts who he KNEW were so wrong and missing such a good opportunity. Questions such as why a stamp likely to sell at Sotheby's for $150,000 was being put on eBay where the validation problems would vastly reduce its likely realization (final bid was in the $35,000 range), what the grandfather's name was, whether he had a "cert" (appraisal certificate), what the cert serial number was, whether he would scan the actual stamp placed on a copy of that day's newspaper, whether an expert could examine it in the presence of lawyers in advance, etc, were brushed aside with bland assurances that anyone not bidding would miss out and rather garbled statements of how any payment and transfer of goods would take place.
It turned out to be a complete scam by some bozo living in a small town in Canada; all he had was a digitized image of the stamp copied from an online auction catalog. Gobs of further details are available still from Linn's Stamp News, article URLs:
http://www.linns.com/print/archives/19991004/news1.asp and
What I found of amazing interest was just HOW blatant this fellow was to come into a "roomful of experts" as it were and just tell one bald-faced lie after another. It was only at the point at which one of the active-investigators in the participants posted a couple of phone numbers for the RCMP (Mountie) assigned investigator in this fellow's town, along with the officer's name and a quote that they "knew of this person" and would advise under no circumstances that he be sent funds in any form, that the seller vanished from participating in the chat sessions. I also recall a posting later that commented that somebody had actually sent a bank check for $5000 for a different eBay item to this individual but it had been confiscated and returned to the bidder when this seller tried to cash it at a pawn shop rather than a bank. (No links to document that anecdote, unfortunately.)
A while later I recall one of these stamp chat watchdogs noticing a suspect auction for a painting also on eBay, possibly by this same scamster having moved to a different Canadian town; as I recall the web-sleuth determined that an image of the full canvas was published on the web by a reputable art dealer who had the painting in his gallery's possession with a section of the scan having been pirated by the eBay auctioneer to try to sell "his" painting. So, there have been outrageous attempts at scams made in online auctions of art and collectibles, incidents that go far beyond questions of extent of documentation of background and analyses of existing works of art like is being discussed here.
I might make comments too about various developments in THIS situation, but truly I thought some of the participants here might get a yuk out of these references and don't want even to appear to draw any parallels or linkages between this situation and those others.
posted on September 10, 2000 12:34:21 PM newpyth00n (love that moniker) - I don't really think you NEED to make any "observations". Sometimes the facts speak for themselves.
I really do find it interesting that the owner absolutely refuses to provide the basic documentation we've asked for to anybody but a "real" bidder - apparently, somebody who's gone so far as to forward to OAS a "financial statement" and 3 personal references). One would think that, were there any questions ANYwhere on even the most rinkydink message board, the seller of this work would be chomping at the bit to post every speck of communication he's ever had with anybody of repute regarding the thread of ownership and authorship of the work. Nothing like that has happened, even though (as an OAS principal told me on 9/5) OAS is "doing our best to work with the seller to provide further information about the piece". How come?
I also don't understand why, given the lack of credible provenance and the seller's responses to questions (and whether the painting is authentic or not), OAS would persist in keeping this very, very shaky auction up and running. It seems like extremely poor judgment mixed with a gob of optimism and a dash of the old love for filthy lucre. On 9/5, an OAS principal admitted to me that OAS is "taking quite a bit of heat" for running the auction, adding that they are a "relatively new site and learning," and (I thought rather sadly) hoping that "people will not overlook" the "800 other real nice items up for auction." Is this some wrongheaded attempt to generate site traffic, even at the price of credibility?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 05:56 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 01:47:25 PM new
Dr. BeetleI take great offense at your innuendoes. OAS is funded by myself and two family members. We have absolutely no
investors, there has been no moneys donated by any outside parties. We sell no advertising. We do have a page titled BOOK STORE in which we
can receive a very small percentage if a book can be sold due to a person clicking through from OAS. As of yet we have not
received any revenue from this Schroders. As I stated before we do not charge for our services. Our site is not about
money. It is a place for people to buy and sell antiques in an open non commercial atmosphere. We have no hidden
agendas. It is sad to see people in this world that are so cynical and vindictive. I think I have tried to answer
your questions in a truthful manor. You have gone on a chat line and made untrue accusations, and uncalled for innuendoes in regard to OAS financial statues.
This form of speculation is inexcusable, you should not make such statements, unless you have proof to back your assumptions.
I will not participate in answering anymore questions. I have tried to be clear with
my statements, and truthful. Every statement I have made is attacked, and misconstrued. I find this is a loosing battle, and I do not want to spend my time on
something so blatantly destructive. I have never witnessed a group
having such fun at the expense of others. If there is any one interested in giving OAS a try, please come and see for yourself what we stand for, and what we are all about, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Have great fun with this last statement. Maybe one could speculate we did all of this for a free add on this pitiful board. Sorry AW I just had to do this. I suppose this will get me suspended from the chat, what a shame they just had me were I was going to call names. I guess pitiful is the strongest they will get from me. Granted its not as good as some of the slurs, that they directed at the owner of the painting, but it is all I can come up with. I will not exspend negitive energy on this bunch. Have A Realy Nice Day All
posted on September 10, 2000 02:11:41 PM new
And yet another person stomps off in a snit when repeatedly asked questions they don't want to answer.
Sher -
Doc's questions were hardly obnoxious. It's about money, honey. And whether it's from family, or vulture capitalists, I hope you meant to make money off the site.
But you have not answered any of my questions about why the seller is not being told to show ALL the provenance at the time of listing. He's using your site, and dragging your reputation down like the Titanic ... the provenance is LAUGHABLE and your front page still claims the picture belonged to Molly Brown, without a SHRED of proof on his part.
posted on September 10, 2000 02:33:05 PM new
Heck, abacaxi, the one "shred" of connection to Brown was the Museum letter (the "connection" being that the words "Brown" and "painting" appeared on the same page), and that's been pulled.
Okay, since we're speculating, let me throw out a few ideas on OAS's motivation for continuing to run the auction:
"Hey, we're only a venue. We have no control over what our sellers say about their items. All we want is site traffic. Next week we're listing the severed head of Anne Boleyn (still bleeding) and a piece of the True Cross. Sure, the Cross is pressure-treated Southern Yellow pine, but what do YOU know? Are you some sort of expert?"
"We got in touch with the woman who obtained "psychic proof" of the authenticity of "Sunflowers and Oleander," and she says "Yellow Roses" is the real McCoy."
"We're afraid that if we pull the auction people will realize we KNOW we erred in accepting it in the first place, and we're too proud to admit it. We prefer to brazen it out and hope to God that nobody bids on it and that the auction will die quietly of its own accord."
"One of our principals is personally involved in the sale, so we haven't got any choice in the matter." (This would explain the grammar/syntax similarities among theshar, lagoldie and tightwad and lagoldie's early remark that "I will not give my motives for becoming involved. Because with the critics we have attracted I would be in GREAT trouble. They would crucify me." )
"Actually, right now we're standing here like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming car."
I vote for a combination of #3, 4 and 5.
Actually, I really feel bad for OAS.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 10, 2000 02:40 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 03:18:00 PM new
Only the naïve confuse a realistic grasp of commerce and an understanding of the profit motive with being cynical.
I stated that,Unless you have a deep-pockets philanthropist pouring money into your operation you are almost certain to be funded by venture capitalists. You assure me that your operating funds come from you and your family, therefore you are the philanthropists I mention. Where is the innuendo? I came right out and said exactly what I thought. No subtle hinting for me!
By the extremely defensive nature of your posts it appears that your definition of vindictive is the expression of any opinion that conflicts with yours. If that is indeed your definition then I might well be the most vindictive SOB you will ever encounter.
You state: It is a place for people to buy and sell antiques in an open non commercial atmosphere…[/b], if “buying/selling in a non-commercial” atmosphere isn’t an oxymoron then I don’t know what would qualify. And this was, of course, followed by a commercial – If there is any one interested in giving OAS a try….
I sincerely hope you are able to develop a revenue generating business plan before your family’s funds are exhausted.
Dr. Beetle (Unrepentant!)
(fixed UBB BooBoos)
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Sep 10, 2000 03:21 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 04:10:14 PM new
Well, if theshar is who she says she is, she is indeed a "founder" of OAS. She's also a "featured dealer," and has a couple dozen items listed for auction on the site.
As to fees, OAS states that "At this time, no fees are associated with selling or buying. Please take advantage of this limited time to list your items!" So the intent IS to charge fees in the future, and "featured dealers" already pay a 3% fee on sales. Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly a charitable organization.
So despite thesharon's protestations to the contrary, for OAS in general and for her in particular it is very much "about money, honey", as abacaxi put it. Discredit OAS, less site traffic, fewer 3% comissions, theshar doesn't sell her stuff. Can you say "vested interest"?
Oh, BTW - Sharon is OAS's PR person
Edited to add: Remember qualityantiques, who on the first page of this thread jumped in to defend the painting? Well, there's a "Quality Antiques" dealer on OAS, too - and she's ALSO an OAS "founder."
sunly1950, who also defended the painting and OAS in this thread, appears to be East Bay Gallery, a featured dealer on OAS, who on her OAS "me" page says that "sulyn" is her nickname and gives the same contact email address there as sulyn1950 has in her AW contact info.
Wholly disinterested parties, all.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 10, 2000 04:27 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 04:51:53 PM new
So who was "flowblue2" who, butter unmelted in her mouth, posted the first post about this wonderful painting?
posted on September 10, 2000 05:35:18 PM new
HCQ -
We definitely have wayyyyyyyy too much time on our hands this week. But I hate to see flummery and flim-flam go unchallenged.
posted on September 10, 2000 05:43:38 PM new
Hey, I'm stuck in bed, and there's only so much applique one girl can do in a day. Plenty of time here for deflummerizing and exflimflamation
posted on September 10, 2000 06:48:47 PM newHobby? Didn't the voices tell you I was appointed to this mission?
Seriously, if you like P'cola you can own property here for pocket change. We got Hart Cottage for $17,150. Put another $30K in it for things like central heat and air, new kitchen, roof, and a really posh HC-accessible bathroom, but we're still talking less than a down payment on a house anywhere else. Biggest problem was trying to find a mortgage company that'd lend us less than $50K.
Thanks to the tropical depression last week that raised the water table about 4", the temp here's dropped to the mid '80s. Pecans are fallin' and the barometer is high...
Hmm....I wonder who tsudonimh is over at the OAS board? His/her last post noted that the people defending the seller are OAS principals. But that post disappeared in the last hour. Talk about "censorship"
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 10, 2000 07:03 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2000 08:14:53 PM new
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but this whole thing with OAS has made me determined to never shop there, and never sell there. This whole Van Gogh flap has exposed them as a pretty unprofessional bunch. If you don't want people criticizing your auctions, I think you ought to be a little more VIGILANT about who you allow to sell on your site so you don't get any more scammers. Don't shoot the messengers. I think if Shar and the rest of OAS's people had the brains God gave a gnat they should realize that there are many sellers here and as sellers, every fraud that is allowed to happen HURTS us in in the eyes of the buyers. So of course we are not going to just "mind our own business" when we see an obvious fakeroo like the one they allowed to be listed....We don't want to see frauds happening and we are going to speak out and try to avoid having this kind of chicanery associated with the online auction industry. Oh well---maybe now that their fingers have been burned they will think twice before trying to pass off another ersatz Van Gogh or anything else with such shady and concealed "credentials". I guess they were so greedy to get that commission they forgot their common sense.
