Confirmed that the seller is currently on Peter’s list for this week. Not sure if the seller purposely described those items wrongly or not knowing the truth?

This is a serious accusation (seller mixes authentic and fakes for sale), and I do not have the exprt knowledge like Peter’s and some of yours, so please correct me if the pot I am having doubts about is indeed authentic. I am posting to get your opinion to confirm what I am thinking, please educate me. 

This seller does have authentic items.. this one is an example. Even though I cannot see the footrim, I believe it is (late) 19th C as described. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/19th-C-CHINESE-BLUE-AND-WHITE-COVERED-BOWL/183537481837?hash=item2abbafb86d:g:JFoAAOSwwPdb7Yi2

Hello Huey:

Regarding Chinese antique items we have to face up to the following adverse trends all of which make it dangerous to buy these items except at major auction houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonham's where the prices are beyond most of us:

1. There is an ever increasing demand in mainland China for genuine Chinese antiques. Many of these buyers are willing to pay top dollar for items and often outbid small independent sellers such as those we have on eBay;

2. In some countries, and I'm thinking of the Netherlands in particular, there is still a huge supply of fine Chinese items in private collections. I have found that most of the dealers in the Netherlands, who sell on eBay, hardly ever include contemporary fakes in their sales even though they may err occasionally in dating;

3. Outside of the Netherlands and perhaps Sweden, small independent sellers in the UK and in the USA are presumably finding it more and more difficult to run a weekly eBay auction as some do. The temptation then to mix a few genuine items with a lot of fakes (obtained from manufacturers in Hong Kong and mainland China) might become irresistable and become a process into which they gradually slide in an attempt to make a living. I'm not implying that that is justifiable or that all do it. It is simply a fact.

4. Some of the larger eBay sellers in the USA such as Chamberlain Antiques are totally honest, but even they only have sales every now and then. So buyers need to be wary of eBay sellers who have auctions every week. The supply of genuine Chinese  items is not large enough for anyone to hold a weekly auction consisting of more than 15 items, in my opinion.

5. Peter in setting up bidamount.com has greatly assisted all of us who are interested in buying and collecting antique Chinese art. Peter tends to feature only those items that he thinks are genuine. However, when one looks at such items one (and I'm including myself) is often tempted to look at the seller's other items. That is where those of us who are unwary might be trapped into bidding on a fake item because we might think that all the items in the auction have received the tacit approval of bidamount.com on which so many collectors rely.

6. I therefore agree that all of us should be on the lookout for fake items and should draw Peter's attention to them as you, Bill and Alan did with the Samson Tea Cannister and the fake Yuhuchunping "Yongzengh" vase. As we saw in that case, Peter has agreed to ban the seller from any of her items ever being included on bidamount.com in the future.

7. I think the above policy should be applied to other sellers also when it becomes evident that they are mixing genuine and false items on a regular basis and where there is fairly clear evidence that fraud is occurring. We all need to write to Peter to point these items out but only after a reasonable discussion in the forums.

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of other forum members regarding this matter.

Errol

Dear Errol,

These are all very sensible suggestions that you make, and I vote that they be adopted on this Forum.

It is possible that a seller in all innocence may list something that is wrong but that he or she may list the item unknowingly; after all, it's impossible to get everything right all of the time. But there is a big difference between that, an honest mistake, and a systematic listing of fakes and fraudulent items. Once it becomes clear that an eBay seller falls into that second category, Forum members should discuss the issue, and if a convincing case against the seller can be made, as happened in regards to ecliptic_art, then that seller should be blocked from ever appearing on bidamount.com in future.

Excluding demonstrably fraudulent sellers from the site will safeguard the site's integrity and help make it a plausible, must-go-to resource for people interested in Asian art.

Best wishes,

Alan

Posted by: Alan Fletcher

Dear Errol,

These are all very sensible suggestions that you make, and I vote that they be adopted on this Forum.

It is possible that a seller in all innocence may list something that is wrong but that he or she may list the item unknowingly; after all, it's impossible to get everything right all of the time. But there is a big difference between that, an honest mistake, and a systematic listing of fakes and fraudulent items. Once it becomes clear that an eBay seller falls into that second category, Forum members should discuss the issue, and if a convincing case against the seller can be made, as happened in regards to ecliptic_art, then that seller should be blocked from ever appearing on bidamount.com in future.

Excluding demonstrably fraudulent sellers from the site will safeguard the site's integrity and help make it a plausible, must-go-to resource for people interested in Asian art.

Best wishes,

Alan

Alan, can you take a look at the two items we found and see if they are authentic in your eyes? 

Dear Huey,

you are asking if those two items are authentic. But authentic what? I believe that what you mean indeed is if they are 18th century. If that is what you mean, then both them are not. And it must be said that they both are not even old, they are modern replicas.

But be aware that the seller here is applying a subtle strategy (on which I do not agree), consisting in generally saying 18th/19th century in the title, and then not mentioning at all the period in the description. 

The seller's description for the pot says indeed: "Up for auction is finely and beautiful Chinese blue and white enameled porcelain scroll pot; blue and white porcelain scroll pot of standard form, exterior painted with Chinese figures scene"

In the description of the Qianlong marked vase, he says that it has the Qianlong mark, he doesn't say that it is Qianlong.

This strategy is on the edge between what is allowed and what not (in my opinion it should'nt) but I suppose that these not so correct sellers are relying on the possibility that ebay should be of the opinion that what really describe the item is the description and not the title.

I don't know if that is true, but possibly it is.

Giovanni

Dear Huey,

To my eye, both the blue and white scroll pot and the celadon glazed vase appear to be relatively new products. 

Regards,

Alan

Hi all:

I think from a strictly legal point of view the use of an incorrect item description if deliberate and designed to mislead is equally fraudulent whether it is mentioned only in  the title of the item or is confined to the description. 

I have noticed more and more that Chinese items on eBay are being described  as "18th or 19th century."  I think that is excusable for small eBay sellers without expertise but not for companies that hold frequent large auctions except in the case of items such as jade and cinnabar vases and boxes where the dating is very difficult. The problem with the use of such a broad brush is that even a hint that an item may be 18th century pushes its price up a lot. However, the 18th v. 19th century problem is minor indeed  compared with the problem of misrepresenting a modern copy or fake as a Qing dynasty or earlier item. That can result in buyers paying  thousands of dollars for items that are essentially worthless. I really do not believe that most of these are innocent mistakes. Most sellers know where they bought the  items involved and should be able to distinguish modern replicas from Qing  and earlier items.

I think adverse publicity on the forums and holding sellers feet to the fire is an excellent way of dealing with this overall problem. I noticed that one major and fairly frequent eBay seller of Asian art has been much more cautious recently in describing items than was the case in the past following a lot of adverse publicity on this forum. Even there though the habit of stating "I think this is c. 1900, but I have been told it might be of the Qianlong period" is not excusable unless the expert source of the information is named.

Anway we are fighting the good fight here and i think we are making progress.

Regards,

Errol

Well done Huey 🙂 

Dear Forum members:

I think everyone on this thread agreed that the two items mentioned and discussed in the posts above were probably modern replicas. However, they did quite well at auction (see links). So the sellers continue for the most part in these cases to laugh all the way to the bank!

Link One:

Link Two:

Regards,

Errol

Yes dear Erroll,

that is really disappointing. It is sad to think about a honest, although inexperienced, buyer who is proud of having done an effort for purchasing something that indeed is worth nothing. It is so sad.

Giovanni

Posted by: clayandbrush

Yes dear Erroll,

that is really disappointing. It is sad to think about a honest, although inexperienced, buyer who is proud of having done an effort for purchasing something that indeed is worth nothing. It is so sad.

Giovanni

I am with you 100%, Giovanni. Luckily I have this forum to discuss and learn; others are not so “lucky.” Those 2 poor buyers wasted $1800 and $800 - a  lot of money down the drain. 

This seller is still on the list of Peter’s handpicked items. I try to stay within that list and don’t wander off, unless there is something else I really know for sure.. 

Hi Huey and Giovanni:

The $1,800 pot was particularly surprising. Huey, I think it was the item that attracted your attention and prompted you to start this thread. I agree that this seller should no longer be included on bidamount.com.

Regards,

Errol

It never ceases to amaze me what people spend good money on. First they buy then they asks questions, when it should be the other way around.

It is very simple if you don't know ask somebody who does know

I do it all the time. I like to get a second opinion if time permits and if it is  a rush then I bid very very low.

Mark

Mark