Dear Erroll,

I think that I said what the dealer has to lose when he is forced by ebay to take back an item: he has to pay the return shipping, it will not be worth to re-list the item because it is somehow “burnt” and the second-high bidder will not accept to buy it. It is a big loss.

Of course, I am glad to accept the refund if I did a mistake in the description, but it is crazy to accept a refund because of the ignorance or the bad faith of the buyer.

As for your situation, I don’t know if paypal is more fiscal than ebay. If you start a return procedure at ebay you will get the return with no question at all. At least this is what happened to me four times, but as said I don’t know if it has been because of different ebay’s policies according to the platform (if from Italy, UK, or else).

Giovanni

Hi All,

just to clarify another point. I do not think sellers should give a refund without the buyer giving a reason. I do think that a seller should give a refund if the item is ‘not as described’. 

I only stated that some sellers might be resistant to giving a refund because they may have had people claiming an items is not described just because they’ve changed their mind. I then went on to say that this obviously isn’t the case in this situation. 

It was a possible scenario to explain why some sellers state on their listings ‘returns not accepted’. Of course, the other reason (which I akso mentioned) is that they may be trying to hide something I.e. that they know it is a fake and therefore do not want it back.

I agree with Errol, I think I was naive. Although I knew it was possible that the odd mistake might happen on Bidamount (collating so many items is a huge task after all) I did think the odds were tiny. I also though that whilst the items were up on Marketplace, even if Peter and his team had missed something that other experienced collectors would pick up on it, so I figured there were several ‘filters’ that meant items were safe to buy. However, it seems that experienced collectors do not necessarily look at the marketplace. This makes sense, of course. The experienced collector has less need for someone to do the vetting for them due to their considerable experience.

Bidamount is a fantastic resource and the marketplace is a great invention. Peter has mentioned in his videos that there are exciting developments afoot. Maybe these developments will include the ironing out of this one glitch?

On another note entirely, I think it’s worth noting that Bidamount is a powerful site. Items featured in the Marketplace regularly achieve higher prices than the ones that don’t. I recently posted 6 items I was eyeing up on eBay. The following day, one of those items appeared on the Marketplace. Within a few hours of appearing it jumped from £11 to £110! This has happened a couple of times since I joined. Clearly, there are hundreds of people that use it as a guide. I believe the newsletter is sent out to thousands of people. I tend to forget about this fact because these people do not interact on the forum. But it does give Bidamount considerable clout with sellers who are savvy enough to recognise the benefits of having their items chosen for the newsletter and/or marketplace.

Nic

Hello,

We do our very best filtering literally tens of thousands of thing each week to cull out suspicious items and reproductions. This is in addition to the piles of eMails we get each week from sellers wanting to be in the NEWS Letter or on the eBay Today page. In the case of the b & w vase we made an error somehow and it slipped through.  Just this morning we've re-tuned a few things to help make sure it doesn't happen again. This was our mistake and I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience it has caused my friend Errol. 

As a policy, eBay permits the return of any item, for any reason regardless of stated seller policies to the contrary, including shipping.

Again, my apologies for our error and mistake. 

best , Peter

Dear Erroll and all,

I am happy to know through Peter’s post that what I said about ebay’s return policy is the general rule and not a policy that apply only in Italy. Including shipping cost, as said, and regardless what stated by the seller. So dear Erroll you know what to do.

I would like to switch to a different topic, that since long I have in mind, recalled by what Peter said about the emails he receives from the sellers. I take this opportunity to spend two words, absolutely due, concerning the total correctness and ethical integrity of Peter. I have always had the pleasant surprise to see my sales included in his list, without any request on my part, and without ever having had a request for a contribution of any kind on his part.

Intellectual honesty is a rare commodity today especially on the net and when money is involved, but it exists and Peter is a rare example of that.

Giovanni

Hi Giovanni:

I share your admiration for Peter and what he does and I certainly hold no grudges. Indeed, Peter has on many occasions overextended himself to help me with advice before I bid on an eBay item and I greatly value this free help. I also think that bidamount.com is simply a wonderful resource.

However, I do agree with a couple of points raised by Nic. Clearly eBay sellers are clamoring to have their items listed on bidamount.com. I too have noticed, as Nic points out, that when an item is shown on bidamount.com, the bidding starts to heat up. The reason for this, of course, is that a listing on bidamount.com suggests to buyers that the items listed are genuine. 

I think this gives Peter considerable clout and the use of good filters by Peter and his group can achieve what eBay fails to do, namely separate genuine items from fakes. Nic has suggested that any seller who persistently sells fakes or who mixes fakes with genuine items as some of the higher-end eBay sellers do should be banned from bidamount.com permanently. In other words, even if they have the occasional good item they should be punished by the item not being promoted on the website. I agree with this. eBay does not impose any obvious penalties for fraud so penalties should be there to deter this type of activity.

PayPal has decided my particular dispute in my favor and I'm pleased about that. However, I have had to spend multiple hours calling PayPal, sending in documents etc. and it will take some time to get a refund. As regards shipping, PayPal requires that the buyer pay the shipping return costs. I have asked eBay about this and they tell me that they require the seller to send a paid shipping label to the buyer. So perhaps if I had used eBay rather than PayPal for the dispute I would have saved on the return shipping costs.

I have seen some of the correspondence from the seller, a Chinese gentleman living in London in the UK. If this had not all been such a nuisance for me, the situation would actually be humorous. He claims (without documentary evidence) "I have bought this vase from an antique dealer in Xian several years ago and it was inherited from her father who got this vase in the 1980s." How that validates its alleged status as a Kangxi item is beyond my comprehension. He then goes on to say again without providing a single item of document ary proof that "I have also consulted multiple experts in Asian Antique Porcelain, including one working in the Shanghai museum. So the age is absolutely old."  He implies also that I bought the vase in the hope of reselling it and that when i couldn't resell it I decided to return it. This is despite my eBay record which shows that I have never sold a single item; nor do I have any intention of ever doing that.

The vase has been carefully repacked and double boxed by me using new boxes, new bubblewrap and new peanuts as compared to the seller's packaging which consisted of old supermarket grocery containers with Reynolds wrap used as insulation against damage. However, PayPal does not have a valid mailing address for him so that is holding up the return. I suspect he will have to provide an address eventually because he can presumably find another buyer for the vase.

I think this case has been of value to all of us including Peter. One point that is perhaps obvious is that it is probably best to avoid obscure sellers in places like the UK who have a minimal eBay record. I suspect these people buy items from stores in places like Jingdezhen, import them and then resell them on the Western market through eBay just as Tam and Michael have described in another thread. Indeed, some of these eBay sellers are highly successful. It would be interesting to know the demography of their buyers. However, as can be seen from this case, even buyers with some knowledge of Chinese porcelains such as myself can fall victim to this kind of thing.

I am very grateful to all of you for helping out in this matter. You really are a great group of people!

Kindest regards,

Errol 

Hello all:

I finally got a full refund on this vase from PayPal. It is not clear to me whether the seller refunded the money or whether PayPal paid it. I think the latter is the case because I was not required to return the vase because the seller would not provide a valid mailing address in the UK and PayPal did not have one for him. I was willing to return the vase. Be that as it may i have the vase double boxed and ready to go but PayPal suggested that I have no further contact with the seller whose PayPal account now apparently shows an overdraft for the refund amount of about $800 including shipping and currency conversion. PayPal suggested that I just discard the vase or donate it. I don't want it around because I dislike fake items. Anyone have any suggestions as to how I should dispose of it?

I must say that although I had to make at least 20 calls to PayPal about this matter they did in the end back up their guarantee that if an item is not as described, buyer will get his/her money back. So, even though this was an exhausting and irritating business for me I'm pleased  with the final outcome.

Errol

Hi Errol,

It’s great to have you back! I’m glad it worked out OK in the end. Such a nuisance though. I do sympathise.

I don’t know what you should do with the vase. Is smashing it to prevent it falling into unscrupulous hands too extreme? 

Nic

Hello Nic:

Thanks for the welcome back! The experience did turn me off Chinese antiques for a while but I'm now recovering my love for these extraordinary items. I rather like your proposed solution. However, to anyone just wanting a vase and not knowing anything about the niceties of Kangxi versus Qianlong versus contemporary fake, the vase is not terrible unattractive although the garlic neck is so wrong. I may just donate it to a charity without identifying it in any way and letting them sell it just like any other contemporary vase for their own profit.

We do talk a lot about fakes here but we rarely get any revenge against purveyors of fake Chinese art. I felt I struck a small blow in this case by seemingly having forced the seller off eBay and have PayPal declare his account with them as having an overdraft and not in good standing. I have not seen him back on eBay. However, he will no doubt adopt the guise of a friend or family member and creep back on under a different identity.  This seems rather easy to do but I hope I have at least caused him some inconvenience.

Regards,

Errol

Dear Errol,

Glad you resolved the horrible problem with you vase. Maybe you should find a spot somewhere in you residence for a chamber of horrors some museums and art gallery's have a little corner where their over optimistic past acquisitions are displayed my local gallery has a couple of Rembrandt's that were purchase in the Victorian era but have since been proven to be fakes. 

Anyway glad you are back on Bid Amount and look forward to your posts they are always interesting.

Cheers

Michael