Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Tyrolean violin relisted again


GoldenPlate

Recommended Posts

Scott Cao is a respected violin maker and violin firm.

His model is not s///. Your attitude is.

Scott Cao's entry level mass produced violins are absolute s///, his better instruments may be very good and as a maker they may be fantastic. I may have worded it a bit harsh but I believe that's an accurate statement, I wasn't expecting some random Scott Cao violin lover to stop in and get butt hurt. But my attitude is certainly not even close to the worst in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we done now?

Personally, I don't enjoy these spats, and don't appreciate the language... and disagreement does not require personal attacks on the seller, the party offering an opinion, or denigration of a third party's (a person/company not even part of this discussion) wares. Is this all this necessary to make a point? I think not. Find another way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you email him and offer 1000$ outside of ebay, I'm sure he would be happy to. After all, finding some gullible rag and bone man with more money than sense was the reason to offer it there in the first place

Mr Saunders, Perhaps you would be so kind as to let us all know each one of your Ebay names so that we can be sure that you are not just talking nasty about this Jais violin so that you can buy it for a favorable price?

It is clearly a genuine Jais violin based on Karel Jalovec's pictures and attributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clearly a genuine Jais violin based on Karel Jalovec's pictures and attributions.

If that's all it took to establish proper attributions don't you think that would make everyone with ability to look up things in a book "experts?" Or put it another way, nothing ever published in a book can be wrong?

As for Dr. V, it's fine if you judge fiddles based solely on sound. Discerning consumers (and hopefully sellers) have much higher standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its interesting to note that two new members, dr V and lorenzo, seem to have no interest in any threads except relating to mr hound, and have taken it open themselves to vainly support the hounds loose attributions, and ridicule experts and wannabes like me, who point out the simple truth; mr hound is making claims about some of his violins that cant hold up to expert scrutiny, and has no one but V and lorenzo to back him up

one of the smartest decisions i made in this business is to not rely on my own "appraisals" and work in person(not from pictures) with a top expert qualified to make such appraisals, looking up pictures in a book does not count as appraising, it takes decades of experience seeing thousands of violins, and i do believe mr saunders has that kind of experience

im going to go out on a limb here, but its my impression mr hound is not working with an appraiser of mr saunders experience or caliber, i suggest he try doing that in the future, as it can only help his business

for those yahoos who dont understand, jacob is one of few top experts in austria certified to testify in court cases concerning violin fraud, including the machold case, you dont get certified to testify in court unless your opinion is highly respected and presumed accurate, i dont think there are too many other posters or sellers on maestronet who would ever be called on or trusted to give expert advice in a court case, even in america

as to the jalovec pictures of jais, jacob explained at length in the first jais thread that only two of the four looked genuine, seems jalovec had some of the same problems accepting something was real because of the label, not the workmanship, word to the wise......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Dr. V, it's fine if you judge fiddles based solely on sound. Discerning consumers (and hopefully sellers) have much higher standards.

Yeah forgive me for judging violins in the $1000 price range by tone, power, projection, and play-ability Lost on most of you would be experts is people actually play these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im going to go out on a limb here, but its my impression mr hound is not working with an appraiser of mr saunders experience or caliber, i suggest he try doing that in the future, as it can only help his business

Your ridiculous aspersions aside, I doubt you're in a position to give Mr Hound business advice...

I don't see how anyone can read the guys descriptions, with pictures, and his guarantee and return policy and have an issue with him, it comes off as petty jealousy to me, I've always been one to go against the grain when I feel a wrong is being committed even at the risk of being unpopular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pure and simple, the animosity is generated by the fact that mr hound consistently sells violins for more than what they are worth, above what they would sell for in a store, and he wants everyone to think hes such a good guy for it, sure its buyer beware, money back return, but theres a sucker born every minute, and you, V, would seem to be one of them

me personally i detest overcharging for violins, whether by honesty or fraud, its the same difference, some poor sucker ends up paying more than somethings worth, thats why i get an expert appraisal on everything i sell and never go over that price, usually well under, and use buy it now on ebay, i couldnt possibly with a clean conscience do what pahdahs doing, to each his own, to me its not about how much money you make, but being fair and honest with the customer

on the other hand, pahdahs isnt 10% as shady as some of the sellers on ebay, with their fake italian, made in china garbage, so maybe we should give him a break, but thanks to caspace et al, his violins keep popping up on maestronet, so its hard not to comment

the good things i can say about pahdah, he usually gets the country right, and within margin the age of the violins hes selling, he does pick up and sell some interesting violins, and technically speaking it is an auction so if the sale price goes over appraised value, thats largely the bidders fault, but its not the bidders fault if you convince them its something its not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ridiculous aspersions aside, I doubt you're in a position to give Mr Hound business advice...

I don't see how anyone can read the guys descriptions, with pictures, and his guarantee and return policy and have an issue with him, it comes off as petty jealousy to me, I've always been one to go against the grain when I feel a wrong is being committed even at the risk of being unpopular.

The wrong that you refuse to recognize is being perpetrated by pahdah_hound to ascribe a dreadful Saxon fiddle as a Johannes Jais, and another almost as bad to Aegidius Klotz.

Now this is my own opinion, but it's a waste of good money and fuel to ship these "examples" even in the US, never mind half-way around the world, when you can go to your nearest auction house and find way better fiddles for the same or slightly more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the lurkers, I paid a little over $600 for my violin from Pahdah and it received two verbal appraisals from a maker and a respected shop for significantly more, not an outlandish amount but certainly well more than I paid, I still play it everyday, it's a work horse. Now I didn't have time to run to the auction house and do a compare so I won't comment on that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you be so kind to share the pictures of your violin?

I would if I thought for even a second I could get a legit, fair, non-skewed evaluation of it here, but I think we both know that would not happen with all the Pahdah hate and the hanger ons piling on. I'll take the word of the two experts who have already seen it in person and handled it, plus my own experience playing it and comparing it to violins in the same price range it was verbally appraised for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would if I thought for even a second I could get a legit, fair, non-skewed evaluation of it here, but I think we both know that would not happen with all the Pahdah hate and the hanger ons piling on.

First; I don't blame you. I'm happy that you bought a violin from Jesse that you like and I don't see any advantage for you of placing it on the forum within the framework of the present discussion. In truth, though I can count the number of times one one hand with fingers left over that I've ever suggested a fiddle on Ebay, I have recommended Jesse as a source for an inexpensive instrument.

Second; I've met Jesse, and found him quite a like-able fellow. On one or two occasions, I've had some specific difficulty with some of the language/terms in listings that have shown up on the board, wrote him privately, and found him receptive, reasonable, and realistic. He's a merchant, not an expert... and I don't think he'd argue with that description. The text he writes is promotional. He is obviously good at what he does, as he has multiple listings, many sales, and inevitably many threads here dedicated to his offerings.

I try my best to avoid all but simple, general comments on the public board when an instrument is in the process of being offered (as I believe I've mentioned several times here) for a number of reasons... some which should be apparent when reading this thread.

Now, concerning all this back and forth garbage, and without mentioning my opinion concerning origin; Jacob disagrees with an attribution. One or two others don't. One of the one or two others are relying on a book that is notoriously incorrect in a number of aspects. Jesse has chosen to continue using the description in his listing, so I assume he's not convinced that he's incorrect. Another poster doesn't really care if the verbiage in the listing is correct or not, as he feels the point is that the violin is a decent deal.

Now I understand that each of us has a different way of communicating, but I will say that if the above exchange were conducted with a bit more dignity, I wouldn't be writing this. I don't see the makings of a cafeteria riot in the above description. Even so, there has been name calling, attack, defense, justification and denigration of third party suppliers (that have nothing to do with this exchange). Few contributors are lily white in this.

If you want this section of the forum to continue without major edits, locked threads and missing members, y'all better read the rules again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First; I don't blame you. I'm happy that you bought a violin from Jesse that you like and I don't see any advantage for you of placing it on the forum within the framework of the present discussion. In truth, though I can count the number of times one one hand with fingers left over that I've ever suggested a fiddle on Ebay, I have recommended Jesse as a source for an inexpensive instrument.

Second; I've met Jesse, and found him quite a like-able fellow. On one or two occasions, I've had some specific difficulty with some of the language/terms in listings that have shown up on the board, wrote him privately, and found him receptive, reasonable, and realistic. He's a merchant, not an expert... and I don't think he'd argue with that description. He is obviously good at what he does, as he has multiple listings, many sales, and inevitably many threads here dedicated to his offerings.

I try my best to avoid all but simple, general comments on the public board when an instrument is in the process of being offered (as I believe I've mentioned several times here) for a number of reasons... some which should be apparent when reading this thread.

Now, concerning all this back and forth garbage, and without mentioning my opinion concerning origin; Jacob disagrees with an attribution. One or two others don't. One of the one or two others are relying on a book that is notoriously incorrect in a number of aspects. Jesse has chosen to continue using the description in his listing, so I assume he's not convinced that he's incorrect. Another poster doesn't really care if the verbiage in the listing is correct or not, as he feels the point is that the violin is a decent deal.

Now I understand that each of us has a different way of communicating, but I will say that if the above exchange were conducted with a bit more dignity, I wouldn't be writing this. I don't see the makings of a cafeteria riot in the above description. Even so, there has been name calling, attack, defense, justification and denigration of third party suppliers (that have nothing to do with this exchange). Few contributors are lily white in this.

If you want this section of the forum to continue without major edits, locked threads and missing members, y'all better read the rules again.

Well said, Jeffrey.

I simply don't know where all the vitriol and bile expressed by some posters comes from.

I have no axe to grind in the topic and violins under discussion but I, too, have met Jesse Kamien and even bought violins from him.

He is very sincere in what he does and doesn't claim to be a world authority in attribution but explains the items to the best of his abilities, shows excellent pictures and offers a 'no quibbles' money back guarantee. He does not deserve the small minded attacks heaped upon him in this and other threads.

Like Manfio, I used to post more and read more in the days when the tone of MN was more civil.

I'm not even sure how I summoned the will to comment on this thread but I feel that a few folks, including Jeffrey, deserve some support in countering the personal attacks and vindictiveness now being expressed.

I'm sure there are many of us who gain no pleasure from witnessing these train wrecks.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this subject with so few facts to support it.

It would be realtively easy to sumerize the facts though:

Someone offered a beaten up saxon violin as a Tyrolean instrument by “Jais Bozen†& was informed of the fact that it wasn't in the previous thread. Bruce even kindly provided photos of a real Jais violin, which was really beyond the call of duty, since it was easy to identify as saxon anyway. The violin sold, but (apparently) was returned, then relisted as a Jais again, in the knowlege that it wasn’t one.

The criminal offence “Betrug†(Fraud) here, is defined as knowing deception & intention to enrich oneself and causing material damage to a 3rd. parties wealth. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrug Below €3000 the maximum penalty is 6 months imprisonment, above €3000, 5 years. I can’t comment on american laws, but I presume they have some.

It is a pretty henious thought that we have decended to a moral nadir where such behaviour is considered run-of-the-mill, or perfectly allright, and that J***’s “got a fine reputation†a nice bloke, etc. and that those who object to such behaviour are just grumblers or plain jealous. I for one cannot eat enough for how much I would like to puke.

The rest is flatulence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criminal offence “Betrug†(Fraud) here, is defined as knowing deception & intention to enrich oneself and causing material damage to a 3rd. parties wealth. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrug Below €3000 the maximum penalty is 6 months imprisonment, above €3000, 5 years. I can’t comment on american laws, but I presume they have some.

It is a pretty henious thought that we have decended to a moral nadir where such behaviour is considered run-of-the-mill, or perfectly allright, and that J***’s “got a fine reputation†a nice bloke, etc. and that those who object to such behaviour are just grumblers or plain jealous.

Again perhaps he is taking the appraisal of someone he knows and trusts in person rather than random people on the internet with an axe to grind? You can take the same fiddle and show it to 20 experts and get 10 different opinions, that doesn't constitute fraud especially when we're talking $1000 violins, in that price range they'll always be a large grey area as to origins, maker, etc... At that price range you should be buying for it's quality as a playing fiddle rather than a long term investment.

You keep throwing around the word fraud, but fraud doesn't equate to not taking some dudes opinion over the internet as gospel.

Even so, there has been name calling, attack, defense, justification and denigration of third party suppliers (that have nothing to do with this exchange). Few contributors are lily white in this.

I did stop doing that since the last warning, and I wasn't trying to demean the maker, only to point out in the $1000 price range you're pretty well limited with what you could get new, you're basically getting a rather poor sounding mass produced Chinese fiddle and getting a 200 year old Saxon fiddle that booms is probably a better buy (if you actually play, well if you collect too). I doubt the maker I referenced would pick up one his lower model violins and think it a quality violin since he is himself a skilled maker, but he's a businessman making things for everyone's budget. I played a higher priced Ming-Jiang Zhu I thought was really impressive so I'm not a xenophobe when it comes to fiddles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again perhaps he is taking the appraisal of someone he knows and trusts in person rather than random people on the internet with an axe to grind? You can take the same fiddle and show it to 20 experts and get 10 different opinions, that doesn't constitute fraud especially when we're talking $1000 violins, in that price range they'll always be a large grey area as to origins, maker, etc... At that price range you should be buying for it's quality as a playing fiddle rather than a long term investment.

Of course, you have a point... but Jacob has a more valid legal one, I believe.

Let's take Jesse and this particular instrument completely out of it... and just use the scenario above as a hypothetical... and say, for sake of argument, that the opinions in question come from direct examination and not via photos on the internet...

In short; A person makes his living by selling something, but does not hold themselves out as an authority. Therefore, they rely on outside expertise. Since they are a professional seller, the potential clients still rely on their judgement in uncovering reasonable, reliable, attributions.

They do their due diligence. In the process, there arises a difference of opinion about the item. The difference of opinion comes from reliable sources with known expertise. Since the seller is not an expert, and makes it clear they are not, their own opinion has little weight. They must rely on the experts. Instead of disclosing the difference of opinion, they choose to continue listing, and selling, the item using an opinion that could arguably be considered in favor of the piece.

To review: The seller does not disclose the origin of his original opinion, nor do they disclose that there are differing opinions by recognized authorities. The seller does not hold himself up as an expert, so his opinion does not carry significant weight nor can he stand behind the attribution.

I'm not a barrister, so I'm not completely sure when non-disclosure enters the arena of fraud in the each state in the US... but I am aware of cases in which the seller is held responsible for damages in a transaction when the facts were not disclosed... and just because more suits aren't brought concerning this issue, it does not make it "acceptable".

The following appears on the site of the Kuhn Law Firm in MN:

Fraudulent nondisclosure (i.e., misrepresentation by omission) is a variation of fraud recognized in Minnesota, and it occurs where: (1) a party conceals a material fact; (2) the fact is within the concealing party’s knowledge; (3) the concealing party knows that the acting party will rely on this nondisclosure on the presumption that the fact does not exist; and (4) the concealing party has a legal/equitable duty to communicate the fact. The final, element, the duty to communicate (also called a duty of disclosure), has been divided by some courts into three subcategories. Under this approach, courts have found a duty to exist: (a) when a confidential or fiduciary duty relationship exists (when disclosure is necessary to clarify misleading information already disclosed; or when one party has “special knowledge” of material facts to which the other party does not have access.Taylor Inv. Corp. v. Weil, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1064 (D. Minn. 2001).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this issue I'm sure will come up again and again, I think it might be helpful to quote from applicable federal law in the US: the Uniform Commercial Code. I've rubricated what I believe are the relevant passages, namely

2-314 (2a) which states that there's an implicit warranty that people in the trade will agree that the fiddle is what the description says it is (in the instant case, a fiddle by Jais of Bolzen)

and

2-316 (3c) which seeeeems to imply that if lies, puffery, and outright nonsense are a usual, accepted way of doing business in the fiddle trade, people selling fiddles can lie, puff, and blither about some fiddle without their lies etc, no matter how egregious, becoming a cause of action in court.

Would the majority of people in the fiddle trade agree that the trade is the province of thieves, liars, and shameless rascality? If they would, then there's no implied warranty that the description is accurate and whoever's selling that fiddle can call it a Jais or even a Strad. But if not, then to stay out of court it can only be referred to as "labelled", or perhaps "experts differ, but one of those who gives it the stink-eye is accepted as an expert by the Austrian courts system".

-------------------------------------

§ 2-314. Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade.

(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. ...

(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as

  • (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description;
  • ...

...

§ 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties.

(1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this Article on parol or extrinsic evidence (Section 2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)

  • (a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
  • (b ) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
  • (c ) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.

-------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...