Sign in to follow this  
GoldenPlate

Pahdah's Roth

Recommended Posts

Flyboy,

I know this thread has reached a level of verbiage which makes it difficult for anyone to focus on details or the original issue, but if you read my "explanation" of this violin again, I consider it highly likely that EH Roth records will reveal that this violin is ....... a 1929 X1R!

I can't say this with 100% certainty, but it's what I would expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyboy,

I know this thread has reached a level of verbiage which makes it difficult for anyone to focus on details or the original issue, but if you read my "explanation" of this violin again, I consider it highly likely that EH Roth records will reveal that this violin is ....... a 1929 X1R!

I can't say this with 100% certainty, but it's what I would expect.

If you're referring to what I call the "1929 Commemorative Edition" theory and your auctiva photo gallery link, I certainly haven't forgotten it. I have my own reservations about lumping that in right now, not the least of which is Occam's Razor and Markov chains Monte Carlo (don't worry if you don't know what this means).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized I'd left out Gerald Stephen's response to pahdah_hound. Another contradiction. See post #139 for full context, quoting isn't working properly.

In the hopes of keeping this a factual E.H Roth thread and free of uninformed opinions, I don't believe this is accurate in any way. The instrument Lyndon referenced is serial number 76X and there is NO 76 Roth model...I also have a 1926 Strad model here with serial number A 80X, and of course 80 is NOT a Roth model. My Modern Roth's (made in the 2000's) are serial numbers G3 02XX and G3 05XX.

Do NOT try to determine anything from a Roth serial number and model comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I devote considerable time to selling violins, it is not my primary occupation. And fortunately, I have ample evidence in the public domain, on Maestronet forums, that would challenge any assertion by a plaintiff that I am an expert. For a consumer action treble damages judgement to be awarded, the plaintiff must prove not only fraud but expertise upon the seller, who "should have known better."

I'm going to explain how you tripped up under the reasonable care standard. Even the dumbest lawyer in NH (presumably where you live) will be able to successfully argue you were expert enough "to have known better" to a judge.

1. You were expert enough to realize that there was an anachronism between the interior brand and the label.

2. You wove a romantic story regarding how this was a pre-war fiddle that wasn't sold until after the war, with zero evidence to back it up. You admitted on this board this was speculation and not based on any evidence. Good luck showing expert consensus supporting your description to a judge (cf. Coleridge Chain). This is fraudulent misrepresentation.

3. Normally verbiage like "I believe..." would not be considered factual statements (i.e. generally considered opinion) but because of (1) that verbiage is not going to shield you.

4. In NH fraudulent misrepresentation for consumer goods definitely carries treble damages and lawyer's fees, regardless of expertise, to be awarded to the prevailing party.

5. Your "day job" is irrelevant in this case, nor any other (violin) non-expertise that you may have exhibited on this board, because of (1) & (2).

As Matt Damon's character said in "Good will Hunting," "How do you like them apples?" Research it if you don't believe me.

Stick to playing a lawyer on TV/stage because you don't know how the laws really work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Lyndon contact the Roth firm that told him it was common practice to "anti-date" certificate for instruments that were indeed made before the WW2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is very clear that in this case there is no universal agreement among the "experts" other than it is a Roth violin.

The problem with this violin is not simply that various stamps/labels/papers etc. may or may not be original to the violin when made, but that they contradict each other. I do not personally know anybody who can distinguish if a Bubenreuth violin is made in the Müllerstrasse or the Maierstrasse there (or who is even bothered much).

Indeed, I have a viola in for repair right now with Forberger Zwittau 1928 (presumably correct) label, which would be just as suitable for stamping up as a Roth. For the few on this forum who occasionally (however much I cringe) think I could be an expert, I am not necessarily part of the “universal agreement” that Mr Hound asserts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyboy made the following promise and repeated it several times. Well, Flyboy, its been well over 8 hours and you have produced nothing, nada, except more vitriol and falsehoods.

"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." (post 299-9.5 hours ago)

"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." (post 301)

"In about 8 hrs the only person that will be backpedalling is you, Jesse." (Post 308)

"My "Jais" citations are still coming." (Post 314)

"The "Jais" links are still coming." (post 318)

You have produced nothing to prove that your quote was accurate. You continue to change the subject and backpedal from your original quote by claiming it was shorthand, a distillation, not directed at me (although you use my name and put it in quotes in a thread with my name in the title and as a basis for your accusations) and trying deperately to change the subject. You further accuse me of consumer fraud without evidence and with additional misinformation. You now need to retract your false statements and apologize.

Seems like you had plenty of time to post additional slander and falsehood when you were too busy to find any posts that could back up your misquoting me; as you promised repeatedly that you would do.

Put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pahdah at some time in the past as i remember it, when questioned about the attributions in his ads, has replied, and this is not a quote; well, they offer a 14 day return (if there is any thing wrong in the description)

what flyboy did wrong was to pharaphrase the quotes, put quotation marks on them, and include me and martin in the allegations, as i have never said that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We've been through this already. Descriptions cannot be edited after the first bid. Enough of this poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then he should relist it and edit with a more accurate description.

It's that simple.

We've been through this already. Descriptions cannot be edited after the first bid. Enough of this poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been through this already. Descriptions cannot be edited after the first bid. Enough of this poison.

You can append to descriptions, which can serve as errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyboy made the following promise and repeated it several times. Well, Flyboy, its been well over 8 hours and you have produced nothing, nada, except more vitriol and falsehoods.

"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." (post 299-9.5 hours ago)

"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." (post 301)

"In about 8 hrs the only person that will be backpedalling is you, Jesse." (Post 308)

"My "Jais" citations are still coming." (Post 314)

"The "Jais" links are still coming." (post 318)

You have produced nothing to prove that your quote was accurate. You continue to change the subject and backpedal from your original quote by claiming it was shorthand, a distillation, not directed at me (although you use my name and put it in quotes in a thread with my name in the title and as a basis for your accusations) and trying deperately to change the subject. You further accuse me of consumer fraud without evidence and with additional misinformation. You now need to retract your false statements and apologize.

Seems like you had plenty of time to post additional slander and falsehood when you were too busy to find any posts that could back up your misquoting me; as you promised repeatedly that you would do.

Put up or shut up.

One has to wonder if you're firing on all cylinders. See posts #314 and #318 (where I revised, quoted, & addressed you specifically). #318 was timestamped (with my profile settings) at 6:52 PM yesterday. Please tell me how I might have misquoted you in post #318.

"Jais" & "Klotz": Post #323

If you want to play dodgeball that's fine by me. Your fraudulent misrepresentations, shoddy due diligence, lack of good faith, & innumerable factual errors in your "Roth 1929" listing have been well-documented on this thread; that's all I really set out to achieve. I understand it would be difficult for you to address the substantive material and legal issues. No skin off my back if you respond or not.

Your warranty/return option mean jack zip if you lack good faith. By now I imagine most participants of this forum have figured this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reinject a lighter note, while checking the bidding on "The Roth of Pahdah", I was assured that "other people" were watching this:

CLOSEOUT NEW 4/4 FULL SIZE GERMAN VIOLIN FIDDLE- CASE & BOW INCLUDED

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CLOSEOUT-NEW-4-4-FULL-SIZE-GERMAN-VIOLIN-FIDDLE-CASE-BOW-INCLUDED-/300810562127?_trksid=p2047675.m2109&_trkparms=aid%3D555001%26algo%3DPW.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D76%26meid%3D3502526754601362581%26pid%3D100010%26prg%3D1049%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D330824982072%26

I will note that while the controversy has been swirling here, these folks have sold 38 of theirs. Anyone who can't afford a crack at the Roth might go take a look :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reinject a lighter note, while checking the bidding on "The Roth of Pahdah", I was assured that "other people" were watching this:

CLOSEOUT NEW 4/4 FULL SIZE GERMAN VIOLIN FIDDLE- CASE & BOW INCLUDED

http://www.ebay.com/...d=330824982072

I will note that while the controversy has been swirling here, these folks have sold 38 of theirs. Anyone who can't afford a crack at the Roth might go take a look :D

Does anybody knows if really the retail price of these violins are $850? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been through this already. Descriptions cannot be edited after the first bid. Enough of this poison.

depends on your definition of poisin, la folia, is it poisin to criticize an ad with dodgy attributions, or poisin to advertise and sell a violin with dodgy attributions in the first place???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody knows if really the retail price of these violins are $850? :blink:

Oh dear!!

roflrofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyboy,

You keep changing the subject to personally attack me to deflect attention from your committment to provide citations to back up your misquote upon which you base your arguement..

Here is what you committed to do (accurately quoted, my emphasis added)

"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." (post 299-12+ hours ago)

"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." (post 301)

"In about 8 hrs the only person that will be backpedalling is you, Jesse." (Post 308)

"My "Jais" citations are still coming." (Post 314)

"The "Jais" links are still coming." (post 318)

You claim in each of these statements that you will provide the proof that I said, and I quote you (my emphasis), "Several Ebay sellers, Pahdah_hound, Lyndon, Martin, have asked: "Since there is a return policy, what's the problem?"" That is false: I never said that, would not say that, do not believe it, and it is not my policy, whether or not you consider it shorthand, distillation or whatever other foggy notion you decide fits your agenda.

You claim repeatedly that you can provide citation. I asked you to do what you claim. You have not responded with anything other than red herrings and change of subject repeatedly while claiming you have no time. Now more than 12 hours have passed. I will not respond to anything you write until you have either provided proof of the quote you attributed to me or admit you were wrong, retract it and apologize. I will not engage liars like you, unless you can prove that you do not lie.

Until then, you have no credibility and everyone can see your remarks for what they are-a false and vitriolic personal attack that stems from jealousy. By the way, I have sold 1500+ violins on ebay and have never been sued, nor have I had an unsatisfied customer (as far as I am aware). The one person who left me a negative feedback many years ago, has apologized, and continues to bid on and buy my offerings (he even bid on this Roth recently).

It is well past the time for you do come up with the citations you claim you have to back up the words you incorrectly put in my mouth. You attack me for describing things inaccurately but have no proof to offer other than making up inaccurate "facts" that you are pathetically unable to substantiate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is nothing but blatant ad hominem attacks now. I guess when the moderator's away, the rats will play. Yes, I think poison is the word to describe it.

I always thought ad-hominem attacks would get you into trouble because it destroys the forum. I have enjoyed lurking on this forum until now, but I'm flushing some of you trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is nothing but blatant ad hominem attacks now. I guess when the moderator's away, the rats will play. Yes, I think poison is the word to describe it.

I always thought ad-hominem attacks would get you into trouble because it destroys the forum. I have enjoyed lurking on this forum until now, but I'm flushing some of you trolls.

Yeah. You guys are gonna get it when dad gets home. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, which I'm sure isn't much, I find it repulsive to watch a few people gather around someone with a sack of rocks to enjoy a good old-fashioned stoning. It doesn't make it okay that the rocks are allegations rather than cobblestones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.