Dear Erroll,

I am reading this your thread now for the first time. I am sorry for what happened to you.

Anyway, if the seller listed it as being of the Kangxi period, ebay will refund you regardless if he says that he doesn’t accept the return.

Jan-Erik is of course right. I am adding two details from your pictures.

Look at that vase: it is not Kangxi, both because of how it has been painted and because of the legs that are going over the framing lines.

And look at that flower: it is not Kangxi either.

Another detail that I didn’t like are the two rings on the base. The color is not right as also said by J-E, but I also think that I have never seen that smearing cobalt there. And the whole base and foot are not convincing too.

I must say that I don’t like the Katawiki vase. Base and foot not convincing, although the picture is not clear.

But the main point is the decoration. I have never seen that decoration on a Kangxi vase. Now, it is true that nobody has seen everything and I am really far from that, but those flowers are pea vine in my opinion, which are typically seen during the 19^th century and onwards.

Giovanni

I forgot the pictures

Thanks Giovanni:

Yes in retrospect this was not my wisest decision. The more we look at this vase the more problems we find with it. I don't know what screening method Peter uses at bidamount.com, but clearly it needs to be improved. Although many of the items listed on bidamount.com are incorrect as to period, I think that is just the way things go. However, if fake items are posted there it gives subscribers a false sense of security.

Regards,

Errol

Hi Errol,

I am sorry this hasn't turned out well, but don't let yourself be put off from collecting.  It is a minefield, but your instincts were right; we all just agreed with you (with a lot of help from Birgit  ? ) and I think, had you not contacted the seller, you would not have bought this.  Perhaps that is the lesson to be learned: go with your instincts and don't ask opinions of anyone you don't know and trust.

Giovanni's post is really helpful.  I didn't pick up on the legs but how right he is!  I also realise now what the problem with the dots is: it doesn't fit in, it shows a clear fear of negative space and talented artists use negative space, they don't fear it.

I know you have suffered a loss here, but I think several of us have probably learnt so much from that, too, so thank you for sharing it and I really hope you get your money back.

As for screening the ebay items, my feeling is that time is the issue: there are just so many items and we need to be aware that we can't just accept everything as being what it says it is, even if it appears ok at first glance and is put in the lists on this site.  Peter is only human and a few things are bound to slip through.  Maybe we should all try to cast an eye over the lots that appear and flag up anything we have concerns about?

Julia

I don’t know what the answer is. I haven’t placed a bid on anything since the hoo-ha with the jarlets. I don’t think I’ve even looked at the BIN page.

I’ve also noticed an upsurge in (deliberately?) misleading descriptions e.g. “19th century Kangxi” even by reputable sellers. “19th century with Kangxi marks” is, to my mind, a more accurate description. This may be a minor thing but it’s just one more device that muddies the waters.

All these minor liberties combined with genuine mistakes and genuine attempts to mislead creat a suitably opaque (and grubby) environment for those wishing to dupe.

It would be very nice if the sellers that feature on Bidamount held themselves accountable to a higher level of integrity. A good place to start would be to offer no-quibble returns if the item is not of the advertised period. This is the law in the UK, even antiques have to be ‘as described’. If they are found to not be as described, the buyer is legally entitled to a refund. 

Nic

Hi Errol,

I feel sorry for you that the vase isn't "the real thing", but Julia is right. You shouldn't give up collecting. It's such a great hobby. But it's sometimes dangerous to rely only on pictures and someone's statement. A while ago I also won an auction with a piece that was said to be Wanli, but when I finally held it in my hands and compared it to pieces from a reference book in my library, it was obvious, that it was a later Japanese copy. The item was also in Peters newsletter, but in the end it was my own fault. 

Unfortunately the market is full of fakes (also very good ones), and it's sometimes very hard to see the differences. So I think it's always much better to hold piece in your hand, feel the glaze, the weight and turn it over and over again before you buy it. 

best regards 

Chris

Hello Julia, Nic and Chris:

Thanks for your comments. Chris while I agree with your thoughts about handling pieces before one buys them that is obviously not possible if one buys items on eBay.

I'm still dealing with PayPal over this issue. While they have been good in the past with items that arrived damaged, they are quibbling here that they need a more formal document than an email from Mr. Nilsson. Obviously, they have no way of knowing that he is one of the world's foremost experts on Chinese porcelains. Also, he deliberately avoids getting involved in this type of matter since he essentially runs an organization that deals with academic issues involving Chinese porcelains. Amusingly PayPal suggests that I get a pawn shop dealer to appraise the vase. I don't know how they can expect anything more. No reputable appraiser would give a formal appraisal without handling the piece. This would entail my having to mail off the item and pay for a formal appraisal and as Julia points out  even with the best outcome I would still lose financially in this type of situation since I have to pay for shipping the item back to the UK.

Regarding bidamount.com, I agree that one cannot expect too much. However, I do get the feeling that the role of the site has not been formally thought through. Is it there to serve as a booster for the sale of Chinese art or is it there to guide buyers and help them avoid fake items? I agree with Julia that eBay has become a minefield. The temptation of eBay is that most of us like the idea of getting good items without the markups of major auction houses and private high-end dealers and I have been successful with many items in this regard. However, the statistics are against one. I think that Peter has stated that more than 98 per cent of Chinese art on eBay is fake. So the odds are against most buyers and eBay is a willing partner in this vast deception because they benefit financially from it.  However, in the long run it might be worth paying more for an item which has already been screened by a good and reputable porcelain dealer and that is what I'm planning to do to replace this vase when I eventually get rid of it. 

Thanks for all your helpful comments. I think Julia is right that one needs to examine these items very carefully before buying. The dots she noted on the neck (they were more like blobs) were a giveaway. Giovanni's point about the legs is a more difficult one to detect for the average buyer and the blurriness of the double ring on the foot was not something I would have thought of.

Regards,

Errol 

Dear Erroll and all,

I fully agree with Julia, Bidamount (Peter) should not be blamed if something slips through the mesh.

I do not know if he is checking everything himself or through a staff. The items are thousands and thousands; remember that it is not only porcelain, but also bronzes, jades, paintings, silks etc etc. Not only Chinese but Japanese too. It is an incredible amount of work.

Who of us never did a mistake? Nobody, I think. I did many and still do. And we only look at a few things.

Dear Erroll and Nic, I am finding strange what you are saying about ebay’s policy. Every time that a buyer did absurd claims, ebay forced me to refund, including shipping costs for the return. Never asking for a third party’s opinion. Just refund, stop. Blocking the money on my paypal account.

I think that ebay have a different policy for sellers located in UK and USA and sellers located elsewhere. Which should simply be forbidden by international laws. Why that? All the times that I have been cheated it has been by UK sellers, just to say how absurd is that discrimination.

Giovanni

Hi there,

I think there has been some confusion? I merely suggested that it might be more reassuring if sellers (wherever they are in the world) that do not give refunds for items not as described are not included on Bidamount. Merely a suggestion. 

The sale of goods act (UK) states that an item must be as described and fit for purpose. If not, the customer is legally entitled to a refund. Second hand, vintage and antique goods are NOT exempt. eBay is not exempt either:

It may be that the seller will ask for proof that it is not ‘as described’ which, of course, is a grey area and very troublesome which is why there is the saying ‘buyer beware’. It’s also why I suggested that sellers that offer a no-quibble refund be promoted on Bidamount. There are plenty out there. Scrap Dixon, for example, offers this level assurance. 

Apologies for any misunderstanding I may have caused. 

Nic

Just to add, I do not condone a seller asking for proof. The best sellers who know what they’re doing will give a refund even if they disagree with the buyer. But I suppose, there have been cases of people saying something is not as described just to get a refund because they’ve changed their mind. Obviously that is not the case here but I just wanted to clarify what I meant by no-quibble refunds.

The best sellers will happily receive the item back, confident that they’ll be able to sell it again. The ones who refuse or argue about it may be trying to hide something. 

Nic

Dear Nic,

Perhaps I have not been clear.

There are NO sellers that do not give refunds for items not as described. Even if they say that they do not accept return, ebay will anyway force them to accept the return. Although paypal is no more property of ebay, they have an agreement resulting in blocking the money of the seller on his paypal account. There are no ways to escape that.

I have already mentioned an absurd case that happened to me, a buyer who said that a glaze drip on a rare Kangxi plate was a damage. Yes, not an imperfection of whatever else; a difference in glaze thickness was, according to this idiot, a damage. Ebay just sent me three options: full refund after return, offer a partial refund, or full refund without return.

I do not know if this crazy policy is the same on all ebay’s plattforms.

I really don’t agree with your opinion that a seller should give a refund even with no reason, just because requested by the buyer. Do you have an idea of what this means? Do you have an idea of how many buyers from China are just buying because Chinese antiques are on fashion, but knowing nothing about it? I can assure you that there are plenty of buyers who knows nothing. They buy something and then they proudly show it to a friend who most probably knows even less, and if he will say that in his opinion it is a fake, they ask for returning the piece. Or because by the pictures they were expecting the thing better looking than in real.

If they could return the items without valid reason, they will do easily because they have nothing to lose. And you as a seller have to pay the return shipping cost from China to Europe. Crazy.

Besides that, it is not true that the seller can take back the item and relist it without problems. For some strange reason, relisted items are invariably selling at much lower price than the first listing.

And for some strange reason, the second high bidder never accept a second chance offer.

 Giovanni

Hi Giovanni and Nic:

I am far from saying that Peter should be blamed every time a fake item is posted on bidamount.com. Indeed, bidamount.com is possibly the only guide that collectors have in this area and it's truly a wonderful service to buyers. As Giovanni points out hundreds if not thousands of items are involved. However, there has for a long time been an implication or a suggestion that if an item is listed on bidamount.com that it can be assumed by everyone that the item is not a fake. Perhaps, people like Nic and me have simply been naive and have misunderstood the situation. However, if an item is shown and listed on bidamount.com and is not thereby being given a kosher stamp of approval, there needs to be a disclaimer that bidamount.com does not guarantee that all items shown and listed whether for auction, as buy it now items and as Catawiki items are  genuine antiques and of the period claimed by the seller. I think the current situation is too muddled and nebulous and no one is sure what the true situation is. Perhaps I was mistaken. However, as I mentioned in I think the first post of this thread I started down the path of buying this vase because I saw it just below Peter's weeky video in the newsletter and, as I said, that gave me the confidence to feel that the item was not a fake. I realized, however, that it was probably not a Kangxi item from the outset and proceeded accordingly. I would, as I said, have kept the vase if it had turned out to be a Guangxu reproduction, for example. However, the fact that it took Mr. Nilsson all of three minutes to recognize it as a fake (he replied immediately to my email) indicates that this item had no place on bidamount.com.

I agree with Nic about returns. Obviously, there are bad buyers who get buyer's remorse and cause a lot of hardship to sellers and I deplore that. However, I have a very good record on eBay. I have never previously challenged the authenticity of an item I won at auction and I have  returned only two items that arrived broken. For me now to find myself in a position where I have to convince PayPal that the vase is not Kangxi and antique (as everyone here agrees) is an untenable situation. I have an email from a distinguished expert to the effect that the vase is a modern replica and that should be more than enough. Nic is correct that any decent seller acting in good faith should accept back an item when a buyer with a good history has serious doubts about its authenticity. If a seller is an honest seller what does he or she have to fear about accepting a return provided that the buyer accepts the responsibility for shipping it back at his/her own expense and in good shape?

Regards,

Errol

I don't know if you have tried this yet, but rather than trouble with paypal and further proof, why not show the expert's email to the seller and see what he/she says about a refund. You could also point them to this thread. If you get an unreasonable response from the seller then you could show that response to paypal; if Giovanni is right and paypal always protects the buyer then that would give you a stronger case . 

These two companies , ebay and paypal , are now separate so I don't know how that has affected their policies. 

Hi Tam:

If one has a seller with whom one can communicate  I think that what you recommend is a good first approach. Indeed, I think both eBay and PayPal recommend that as the first step in dispute resolution. However, when there is reason to suspect that a seller is guilty of deceptive practices, I think it's best to have the matter handled either by eBay or PayPal initially. I know both guranteee that the item will arrive as described or that one's money will be refunded. However, I have used PayPal  for disputes in the past with good results and I know one cannot file a claim simultaneously with both PayPal and eBay. I think in this case PayPal will already have forwarded the email from Mr. Nilsson to the seller.

However, unlike in other cases where I have filed a PayPal claim, apparently in this case there has been little response from the seller apart from acknowledging that the item was sold and that he believes it to be a Kangxi vase. So PayPal will have to make the decision. I very much doubt that they have anyone available to them who can decide whether an alleged Kangxi vase is genuine or a modern replica so I do understand the difficulty of their position. I think they should, however, ask the seller to find an expert willing to counter Mr. Nilsson's findings and I very much doubt that he would succeed in that.

The seller in question seems from his eBay record to be a small-time and only occasional seller. Indeed, I as an individual have a much larger record than he does and a much larger number of excellent seller reviews and no negative reviews. So I'm fairly hopeful that the dispute will be resolved in my favor. If not, I will file a claim with eBay. Has anyone on the forum had to file claims with both before?

Regards,

Errol

You will win no doubt Errol , for the seller it is best for his Ebay account health to give you the refund now and get on with it , it's just a matter of time really . 

Carl