Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Pahdah's Roth


GoldenPlate
 Share

Recommended Posts

Flyboy... Jesse is at least honest in presenting himself as a real person...Please could you do the courtesy of doing the same

Considering the back and forth between CCM and lyndon this whole past week, there is no way I'm going to go public. I joined this board probably in 1995 and have never changed my handle.

I'm a bit busy today, but I have no issues backing up my claims with citations which everyone can check. Just give me time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FLYBOY wrote

"Post #35 refers to your SPECULATION on this "Roth DG 1929," not your return policy.

When I wrote "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?" That was shorthand, it wasn't quoting YOU specifically, but what you'd led others to believe, specifically in your earlier "Jais" and other listings. I have no compunction about bring those posts up if you like me to, a bit busy atm to look up posts. Can have citations ready in about 8 hrs.

So much for "civil discussion." "

Yes, so much for civil discussion. When you make outrageous statements that distort the facts and slander others to fit your agenda and arguement, do not be surprised if someone demands you recant them.

First you quote me and then "explain it away" by claiming the "right of short hand"? Would you permit others that privledge? Quoting me specifically is exactly what you did by saying, "Several Ebay sellers, Pahdah_hound, Lyndon, Martin, have asked: "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?"

I did not say that, and you have misquoted me. And then, based upon that misquote you accused me of being in violation of the UCC. I replied with the facts and requested that you withdraw you false accusations or prove them. I will wait for the proof.

If you can find where I said that; not something like that, or a little like what it might make someone believe I might have wanted to say, but where I said that, as you quoted me, I will apologize. If you cannot find where I said that I expect you to apologize. I am waiting....

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLYBOY wrote

"Post #35 refers to your SPECULATION on this "Roth DG 1929," not your return policy.

When I wrote "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?" That was shorthand, it wasn't quoting YOU specifically, but what you'd led others to believe, specifically in your earlier "Jais" and other listings. I have no compunction about bring those posts up if you like me to, a bit busy atm to look up posts. Can have citations ready in about 8 hrs.

So much for "civil discussion." "

Yes, so much for civil discussion. When you make outrageous statements that distort the facts and slander others to fit your agenda and arguement, do not be surprised if someone demands you recant them.

First you quote me and then "explain it away" by claiming the "right of short hand"? Would you permit others that privledge? Quoting me specifically is exactly what you did by saying, "Several Ebay sellers, Pahdah_hound, Lyndon, Martin, have asked: "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?"

I did not say that, and you have misquoted me. And then, based upon that misquote you accused me of being in violation of the UCC. I replied with the facts and requested that you withdraw you false accusations or prove them. I will wait for the proof.

If you can find where I said that; not something like that, or a little like what it might make someone believe I might have wanted to say, but where I said that, as you quoted me, I will apologize. If you cannot find where I said that I expect you to apologize. I am waiting....

Jesse

Why don't you read again what I specifically wrote. Where have I quoted you (in person)? When anybody reads the following, how can they interpret that as anything other than a distillation?

Several Ebay sellers, Pahdah_hound, Lyndon, Martin, have asked: "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My user name is Pahdah_hound which is also referenced in the title of this thread. Clearly you are quoting me. And what follows is an indictment and accusations regarding my listing. If it wasn't me you were quoting who was it? Your backpedaling about this is a joke. Why don't you just recant it and apologize for your mistake. It is obvious to anyone that you are not standing behind your comment but have still refused to withdraw the comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, its called a "distillation". Is that differnet or the same as "short hand". Looks like its semantics to me. You didn't mean what you said and now you're caught and cornered. You quote, in quotation marks, three individuals, including myself, as having said something that I consider injurious to my reputation. When asked for proof, you hide behind sematics claiming it was shorthand, or distillation. I don't accept that explanation and that backpedaling. Just admit your mistake and apologize or provide proof for what you claim.

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I attribute little value to anything posted on this forum by anyone who does not identify him/herself.

So? No offense, but your name means nothing to me.

Personally, I value my internet privacy/anonymity. ;)

FWIW, those on this forum that I deal with professionally all know my real name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always excercise reasonable care and consistently provide substantive performance. If a customer is dissatisfied at any point I do what is necessary to satisfy the customer within reason. My 14 day trial period is just that, a trial period. It does not limit the terms of any implied guarantee of fitness or merchantibility. If a description is brought into question by qualified persons I will extend the return option almost without limit.

Sometimes it pays to read the whole post prior to replying. If you don't like my "distillation," fine, I'll just use your own words. (If you'd like to argue that my distillation does not accurately capture the essence of your return policy/option above, I'd be more than happy to discuss that too.)

You're going to have to explain exactly how you exercised reasonable care and substantive performance when you have admitted to speculation in your description of the "Roth DG 1929" (post #35). "If a description is brought into question by qualified persons I will extend the return option almost without limit," why does this burden fall on the buyer, when you've not satisfied the predicate of reasonable care?

I'm not even asking you to provide names of experts. I'm asking what process & evidence they used to come to the "pre-war" conclusion that you presented in your description: "I believe that this violin was made in 1929 prior to World War II but most likely remained unsold until after the war. There are several factors that lead me to this conclusion. The Roth brand appearing on the button of the violin was not used until the firm relocated from Markneukirchen to Bubenroth/Ehrlangen after the war. Similarly, the internal brand also indicates Bubenroth Ehrlangen, which was the firm's location after the war."

I'll only point out even if it's shown that the top has been opened, it still won't help determine whether the fiddle was made in 1920's (or any other period), never mind 1929.

Anybody can hypothesize all sorts of possibilities, even authorities. Speculation doesn't magically turn into facts just because an authority is mulling over the possibilities. Establishing what exactly happened and when the instrument was indeed made as the label and the ancillary document claim, given that the Roth firm still exists, is a higher bar.

The debate is who has the responsibility of reaching that bar, the dealer or the prospective buyer.

That certain people here can't distinguish between speculation, and the due diligence required to confirm or refute it, is downright pathetic.

I'm reminded of a few lines in "Toy Story:"

[There's a brief debate between Woody & Buzz Lightyear whether Buzz can fly]

[buzz lands on the bed after a fantastic and extended acrobatic maneuver]

Rex: [other toys whistle and clap] Whoaah! Wow, you flew magnificently!

Buzz: Thank...Th-ank you all, thank you!

Woody: That wasn't flying! That was...falling with style!"

My "Jais" citations are still coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? No offense, but your name means nothing to me.

Personally, I value my internet privacy/anonymity. ;)

FWIW, those on this forum that I deal with professionally all know my real name.

I personally think anonymity on here is only an issue when attacking others are the issue. It seems to give little credibility to the situation.

Addie, if you posted your real name it would cause confusion:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, Jesse states in his description "The Roth brand appearing on the button of the violin was not used until the firm relocated from Markneukirchen to Bubenroth/Ehrlangen after the war."

Assuming CCM's 1944 Roth is a real one (I'm not saying it is real or not, no personal direct experience), his specimen shows the brand on the button was used prior to the move to Bubenreuth. If I'm not mistaken Gerald Stephen also mentioned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes it pays to read the whole post prior to replying. If you don't like my "distillation," fine, I'll just use your own words. (If you'd like to argue that my distillation does not accurately capture the essence of your return policy/option above, I'd be more than happy to discuss that too.)

You're going to have to explain exactly how you exercised reasonable care and substantive performance when you have admitted to speculation in your description of the "Roth DG 1929" (post #35). "If a description is brought into question by qualified persons I will extend the return option almost without limit," why does this burden fall on the buyer, when you've not satisfied the predicate of reasonable care?

I'm not even asking you to provide names of experts. I'm asking what process & evidence they used to come to the "pre-war" conclusion that you presented in your description: "I believe that this violin was made in 1929 prior to World War II but most likely remained unsold until after the war. There are several factors that lead me to this conclusion. The Roth brand appearing on the button of the violin was not used until the firm relocated from Markneukirchen to Bubenroth/Ehrlangen after the war. Similarly, the internal brand also indicates Bubenroth Ehrlangen, which was the firm's location after the war."

My "Jais" citations are still coming.

"Sometimes it pays to read the whole post prior to replying. If you don't like my "distillation," fine, I'll just use your own words. (If you'd like to argue that my distillation does not accurately capture the essence of your return policy/option above, I'd be more than happy to discuss that too.)" You based your arguement upon a misquote. You have time to argue endlessly but not to do your research. I am still waiting.

"You're going to have to explain exactly how you exercised reasonable care and substantive performance when you have admitted to speculation in your description of the "Roth DG 1929" (post #35)." I do not have to explain anything to you. The fact is I did due diligence and described the offering accurately. I do not have to let you in on where I did my research and how I do my work. That is my proprietary property. When the information is in the public domain I share it here.

"If a description is brought into question by qualified persons I will extend the return option almost without limit," why does this burden fall on the buyer, when you've not satisfied the predicate of reasonable care? I have shown reasonable care and provide a remedy to the buyer in the event I have made a mistake. (SHHHH Dont tell anyone...I make mistakes)

"I'm not even asking you to provide names of experts. I'm asking what process & evidence they used to come to the "pre-war" conclusion that you presented in your description:" Asked and answered.

I want either proof of your claims or a retraction and apology before you continue to inaccurately attack and make demands. You are in no position to make demands until you prove your main point.

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm addressing this to you personally, Jesse. I've substituted the overstriked part with your statements, and emphasized the part where I stated I had limited time. These are the only changes I've made since that post. Please tell us how this changes the substance of the debate in any fashion.

I was actually waiting for Martin's response to my post #272, but now that he's gone AWOL and Lyndon has issued his "apology," I might as well commence rectifying the misconceptions of Ebay buyers and sellers. Since I don't have time to give the subject full treatment, I will only give a brief outline. Readers will have to do their own research. While I only refer to the United States, these concepts and laws are fairly universal.

In the US, there is the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The following site has fairly accessible definitions. And yes, a "sale" is a contract.

http://www.legalmatc...ir-dealing.html

Note the definition for good faith refers to "substantial performance," "breach of contract," and "liability."

Several Ebay sellers, Pahdah_hound, Lyndon, Martin, have asked: "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?"

Pahdah states: "I always excercise reasonable care and consistently provide substantive performance. If a customer is dissatisfied at any point I do what is necessary to satisfy the customer within reason. My 14 day trial period is just that, a trial period. It does not limit the terms of any implied guarantee of fitness or merchantibility. If a description is brought into question by qualified persons I will extend the return option almost without limit."

The "problem" in a nutshell, is a return policy does not absolve the seller from his substantial performance responsibilities. The seller must exercise "reasonable care" and due diligence. These sellers are basically saying "it's the buyer's responsibility to establish I haven't acted in good faith," whereas the Uniform Commercial Code requires the seller must act in good faith to the best of his ability. Put another way, the buyer is entitled to presume the seller is acting in good faith.

"Reasonable care," when it comes to a seller, does NOT refer to a "regular joe off the street." It is highly contextual.

How does this all relate to this particular case, Jesse's fiddle?

Jesse recognized that there was an anachronism with his fiddle. He tried to explain it away, but when challenged to substantiate his explanation with evidence, he could not even detail what steps he took to establish his explanation. He's implied he sent emails to Roth which went unanswered. So what procedure and EVIDENCE did he use to come up with his explanation? (Referring to his own appraisal of fiddle itself is otherwise known as circular reasoning, or if I'm less charitable, "magical thinking.")

This is the real reason why casual buyers are in peril when they buy on Ebay. The sellers don't meet any metrics, whether it's knowledge of violin subject matter, the law, or ethics. They (sellers & buyers) don't even have awareness of what they don't know.

Sellers should also be aware that any buyer with sufficient knowledge of the law can expose them to triple damages.

That I have to spend time to explain all this is the horrific part. I'm not even in the trade.

The "Jais" links are still coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the one who misquoted me and based an arguement against me on misinformation. Either retract it and apologize or proof your claims. No red herrings, no changing of the subject, just prove your statement.

The only one spreading misinformation is you. You've admitted to speculation regarding pre/post war origin in your description, and on top of that, you most likely got the button brand post-war fact wrong (CCM Roth 1944 specimen). Jacob pointed out the issues with the "original cert" (pre-dated, no overstrike on 7). Not until he pointed this out did you figure out that was a "cert" provided by dealers here in the US, not the Roth firm in Germany. Caspace and Lyndon provided photo specimens of 1920s Roth "DG 1732" from Tarisio and Amati. Internal Bubenreuth brand is an anachronism from the date on the label.

If a professional such as Jacob & amateurs (not in the derogatory sense) can spot these, it certainly brings up the issue whether you've done your due diligence, doesn't it? Even Jeffrey Holmes, who normally keeps mum on such matters once an auction is in progress, stated (emphasis mine):

If one has doubt about Jesse's listing, the time to involve the Roth family might have been better before 3 full pages of comment and any accusations of foul-play... and arguably might have best been done before the listing (I don't know how in depth Jesse's contact with the family has been). Seems to me a live family authority aided by intact business records has the potential to trump most, if not all, other sources of expertise available.

Jesse, I'm sure the participants of your auction are now sufficiently well-informed to ask you for evidence of your due diligence in all your auctions now and in the future. They are also now sufficiently well-informed to seek independent experts. That fundamentally is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pahdah is not going to change a thing in his description of the violin, because he thinks he's right.

Isn't it a bit amusing how Pahdah_hound always says he will admit to a mistake if the description is brought into question by "qualified persons" after the sale, but inevitably never does when pointed out by such "qualified persons" before the sale?

Begs the question who he considers "qualified" and whether he will admit to a mistake when it involves $$.

Exhibit 1, "Johann Jais" thread:

http://www.maestrone...favourite-word/

After Jacob Saunders disputed that listing was a Jais, and after Bruce Carlson provided photos thereof (#33); to the best of my knowledge, Pahdah_hound never changed the listing after these issues were pointed out.

Exhibit 2: "Aedigius Klotz" thread:

http://www.maestrone...aedigius-klotz/

Pahdah_hound and his due diligence posse couldn't distinguish a Saxon vs. a Mittenwald; to the best of my knowledge, Pahdah_hound never changed the listing after these issues were pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...