Sign in to follow this  
Dani Tsui

New Padah's Roth

Recommended Posts

A website for oriental rug enthusiasts, www.turkotek.com, solves this problem by banning any discussion of value or ad hominem attacks whatsoever. Items currently offered for sale are off the table for discussion unless their images are used to illustrate another point. They are absolutely rigid on this issue, and the result is that the discussions are focused on the rugs. Maestronet could do the same, and using the kerfuffle of the "1929 Roth" as an example, any conversation would be on the issue of verifying the certificates, examining the violin itself, discussing the EH Roth operation, etc., although discussion while the item is offered for sale would be banned. I don't know that much was accomplished here while it was being offered for sale, to be honest. Check it out, and see if you prefer that sort of forum...

Regards, Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We do not permit posting anonymously or under a pseudonym, ad hominem remarks, commercial promotion, comments bearing on the value of any item currently on the market or on the reputation of any seller"

Paul, it looks very civilized. However, I suppose we need some latitude when it comes to "comments bearing on the value", since pretty much any observation has a bearing on the value. Otherwise, I'm in .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having a bit of a problem with all of this. First, we're dealing with auction sales and listings. Historically, this type of sale is surrounded by controversy. Those who do a better job at representation are to be commended... but recent threads tend to show that most all of these venues are not without their faults. A buyer without much experience would be well advised to consult someone knowledgeable, and preferably in private, before dropping a serious amount of money at auction, in my opinion.

Second, I don't mean to sound elitist, but more that 25 pages over the last week concern Roth instruments. I know many like them, and I even have a couple stowed away that I thought were pretty... but gosh... we're not even dealing with what I'd consider a rare commodity here.

Third, this board is not useful when filled with venom and flames. If one has a serious problem with a specific seller, poster, or personality, I strongly advise that it be dealt with off this board... and not by using the PM feature. Name calling and flaming are AGAINST THE BOARD RULES. If you disagree with somone and wish to air it here, do so with some restraint and dignity. Presenting good information, and discussion, is what this board is for... not brawling.

Forth, I honestly see some very apparent ebay seller "competition" occurring here periodically; within the threads, by the frequency some of these sellers listings are presented, and what some sellers listings are compared to. Not cool.

Fifth, Greed is not a motive that only dealers and auction sellers are susceptible to. Buyers are as well... otherwise they wouldn't be looking to score a fine Italian instrument for $1.98 on ebay. Just remember, if someone wins in this manner, another loses.

If you all can't follow the rules of the board, I WILL suggest the auction portion be modified (all posts previewed), the section of the forum removed and/or that admin. finds someone else who is willing to spend the hours it takes to monitor and clean up these messes.

You're going to have to show me how an auction exempts the seller or an auction agent from good faith. Whether it's a Roth or Strad is immaterial.

Jason Price wasn't too proud to correct a Tarisio listing when errors were pointed out:

http://www.maestrone...-venice-c-1900/

I thought the Machold case was instructive. But that's nothing compared to the real education of acceptable trade practices that I'm getting right now. I'm genuinely puzzled why dealers such as yourself condone lack of good faith behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I think you should read the original thread, as you seem to have picked up a lot of false information : http://www.maestrone...7-pahdahs-roth/.

It's not by any means strange for an instrument from 1929 or 1960 to be pristine. In this case the varnish treatment gives a good ballpark "latest date".

The Roth firm are responsible for the contradictions in this violin, but they are very unlikely to admit to this. A second EH Roth certificate would most likely back up the contents of the first one.

Flyboy gets very hot under the collar and likes to threaten people with legal trouble. If his interpretation of fair practice was observed, you would have to put half the violin dealers in the world in jail and half the violins in the world into landfill.

The main thing I've learnt from all of this is that maestronet has become deeply unpleasant.

Categorical statements and insults don't lead to the widening of our knowledge base!

As I stated earlier I'm not in the trade. Nor have I ever sold or bought fiddles on ebay.

Here's what you stated earlier on the other 19 page thread, post #261 (emphasis mine):

"It's not fair to ask someone like Jesse (or me) to have massively detailed knowledge about more than one small area of violin history. I feel he has acted in good faith, and I hope he'll forgive me if I've trodden on his toes in any way."

I'm certainly not suggesting we dispose Pahdah_hound's fiddle in the trash. I have no idea where you got that notion from.

This debate is over good faith and responsible listings/descriptions.

I'd like to see some evidence of the following. From what has been presented in the 19 page thread and various Pahdah_hound threads so far, I don't get to that conclusion.

"The Roth firm are responsible for the contradictions in this violin..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We do not permit posting anonymously or under a pseudonym, ad hominem remarks, commercial promotion, comments bearing on the value of any item currently on the market or on the reputation of any seller"

Paul, it looks very civilized. However, I suppose we need some latitude when it comes to "comments bearing on the value", since pretty much any observation has a bearing on the value. Otherwise, I'm in .....

Several people (not just Martin) have accused me of "ad hominem" remarks. I suggest these people look up what it means:

http://www.merriam-w...nary/ad hominem

I have only relied on Pahdah_hound's own listing, the fiddle, the cert, and his own statements on the 19 page thread when making the case.

http://www.maestrone...320#entry564098

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether jesse has any thing to do with it or not, his violins are getting a lot of free exposure or "advertising" here on maestronet(largely because of caspace), am i alone in thinking ebay sellers who get free exposure on maestronet should meet certain standards for attributions and appraisals if theyre going to get free press here

what may be common practice in the trade in general, isnt necessarily good enough for maestronet, just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all can't follow the rules of the board, I WILL suggest the auction portion be modified (all posts previewed), the section of the forum removed and/or that admin. finds someone else who is willing to spend the hours it takes to monitor and clean up these messes.

I like the first suggestion, but I suspect you might not. I'd hate to see the section disappear. And I'd hate to lose you as moderator. I like Palousian's suggestion. I would suggest an explicit exception for discussing outright fraud, although I suspect some would stretch the definition beyond recognition.

Outright thread closing, suspensions and bans might work if applied promptly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I can't help but point out is that we all ought to be most concerned for the buyer. Sure, some buyers are greedy (and maybe even be other dealers :-) ); but many are just poor slobs who need a violin just to get a job, or parents who are trying to help their children.

Buyers have no obligation to know anything. Sellers bear a great responsibility, unless they present an instrument without comment. I think Flyboy is trying to make some of us aware that ignorance when presenting oneself as having a certain level of expertise ought to require more diligence than some seem to show; and this ignorance is not a legal protection to a seller. Seems fair and simple enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to have to show me how an auction exempts the seller or an auction agent from good faith. Whether it's a Roth or Strad is immaterial.

You're going to have to show me where I said anything like that. What I did say was:

"Historically, this type of sale is surrounded by controversy. Those who do a better job at representation are to be commended... but recent threads tend to show that most all of these venues are not without their faults. A buyer without much experience would be well advised to consult someone knowledgeable, and preferably in private, before dropping a serious amount of money at auction, in my opinion."

I have only referred to Pahdah_hound's own listing, the fiddle, the cert, and his own statements on the 19 page thread when making the case.

http://www.maestrone...320#entry564098

I have no difficulty with the subject of discussion, as I do feel too few sellers solve the problems of history and attribution before things "hit the streets". The problem I have is in the message around the point (how you and others present certain information; the added "digs" that I don't thing are necessary to prove your point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to have to show me where I said anything like that. What I did say was:

"Historically, this type of sale is surrounded by controversy. Those who do a better job at representation are to be commended... but recent threads tend to show that most all of these venues are not without their faults. A buyer without much experience would be well advised to consult someone knowledgeable, and preferably in private, before dropping a serious amount of money at auction, in my opinion."

While I certainly don't disagree with you that "a buyer... should consult someone knowledgeable...," we're not discussing the buyer's responsibilities here, but the seller's under the law. (There are also business ethics issues but we can leave that until another day.)

Since you were at VSA last week, I do have some question whether you've _carefully_ read the 19 page thread and are fully aware of the salient issues being discussed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) While I certainly don't disagree with you that "a buyer... should consult someone knowledgeable...," we're not discussing the buyer's responsibilities here, but the seller's under the law." (There are also business ethics issues but we can leave that until another day.)

2) Since you were at VSA last week, I do have some question whether you've _carefully_ read the 19 page thread and are fully aware of the salient issues being discussed?

1) I didn't know the discussion was being limited to only one aspect of the landscape. I find the two views (yours and my own) stand quite well on their own, with little to no conflict.

I doubt we'd disagree much concerning the ethics issues involved here. We might disagree how those issues should be presented/challenged.

My point was (in my original statement), that it's a good idea for the buyer to understand, at least the basics, of the market they are accessing. Do you expect the same level of knowledge and disclosure at a flee market you do at a posh shop? I'm not excusing anyone... especially someone who makes a claim as a knowledgeable seller or an "expert"... but I do believe the expectations of various markets are different.

2) I'd have to answer "no" to the _carefully_ portion of the question. I did follow it as I was able. I did not study it as well as I might have at home. I did lock it. I do feel some very good points were made. I do feel that, more than once, contributors made critical assumptions that may or may not be/have been correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that nobody is giving credit to the buyer to be as clever or knowledgeable that some people here, to be able to weight the pro and against of buying the violin since this buyer could well see the potential discrepancies as some people did here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I didn't know the discussion was being limited to only one aspect of the landscape. I find the two views (yours and my own) stand quite well on their own, with little to no conflict.

...

My point was (in my original statement), that it's a good idea for the buyer to understand, at least the basics, of the market they are accessing. Do you expect the same level of knowledge and disclosure at a flee market you do at a posh shop?

...

No, I certainly did not imply that the discussion should be limited to only one aspect. I was only pointing out you made no attempt in your earlier response to address the responsibilities of the seller under the law.

I certainly don't expect the same level of knowledge and disclosure at a flea market vs. a posh shop. The "due care standard" in the law recognizes it is contextual and addresses that. I've shown how Pahdah_hound tripped up under the due care standard.

At this point I have to respectfully suggest that you carefully read that 19 page thread. After you've understood all the arguments presented there I'd seriously be interested in your view of how a listing like pahdah's might be responsibly presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outright thread closing, suspensions and bans might work if applied promptly.

Yup. Been there. Done that. Works for a while, but membership changes here and crosses several time zones... I honestly don't have the time to keep up on every post 24 hours a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of this virtual name-calling, slanging, and backbiting could --and should-- be obviated by the UCC, which says that a seller had better not make any representations that won't hold up to peer scrutiny. IOW, if you're selling waterfowl, and claim that a bird on offer is a goose, you're in the gyppo if your peers say it's a duck. And if you say it's a Merganser duck, then you better hope your peers wouldn't identify it as a Mallard.

The only stay-out-of-jail-free card is if the industry is sufficiently notorious for misrepresentation in certain ways. If the majority of sellers can't tell a goose from a parrot, or swear with a straight face that the parrot they're trying to fob off on you is just pining for the fjords rather than being a defunct psittacoid, then all bets are off and the sellers can tell you the parrot is not only just resting but on awakening will lay golden eggs for you, too.

So perhaps Mnetters should take a decision on what the industry standard for truthiness is and make that the basis for posting here. If the industry is filled with fraud, then nobody has any right to catechise anyone else about their listings. Only if everyone decides that, on balance, fraud is rare, should people be allowed to be obnoxiously critical (I name no names) in what they write.

Changing the model to be like the rugs place or violins.com (same model) would not, imo, be a good solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jeff, although I will admit to having enjoyed much of the 19 pages and had some fun with it, I do believe it broke many of the rules of this board and do agree with your post (#50), so do what you have to do to bring it up to the correct level. You have done an outstanding job all these years and I for one thank you for your time and effort, and most of all, your fairness. OT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) No, I certainly did not imply that the discussion should be limited to only one aspect. I was only pointing out you made no attempt in your earlier response to address the responsibilities of the seller under the law.

2) At this point I have to respectably suggest that you carefully read that 19 page thread. After you've understood all the arguments presented there I'd seriously be interested in your view of how a listing like pahdah's might be responsibly presented.

1) Actually, I thought several others, including yourself, covered that pretty well.

2) I will try, once I catch up (having spent a good deal of time preparing for, then attending, the VSA conference). Interesting exercise... but for me it's not just the listing. It's what happens before the listing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they forgot to mention in the skit that they have a certificate stateing the bird was born in norway in 1929, perhaps that could explain why hes rather stiff!!!

personally the bird looks like hes from schoenbach to me, perhaps jacob could comment......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether jesse has any thing to do with it or not, his violins are getting a lot of free exposure or "advertising" here on maestronet(largely because of caspace), am i alone in thinking ebay sellers who get free exposure on maestronet should meet certain standards for attributions and appraisals if theyre going to get free press here

what may be common practice in the trade in general, isnt necessarily good enough for maestronet, just my opinion

.Lyndon,I agree...But... I notice that you sell using the term 'PROFFESIONALLY SET UP'...I looked at your set ups and feel very concerned that this is not an accurate statement...I am sure you will not understand why.... Lets look at this item. http://www.ebay.com/itm/CARL-FRIEDRICH-HOPF-CIRCA-1870-MINT-CONDITION-PROFESSIONALLY-SET-UP-4-4-VIOLIN-/290816816379?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b60874fb..

.whathave you done to that bridge....OK I tell you...this a sacking offense in any good workshop...

post-23531-0-33544900-1353450502_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From:

http://www.ebay.com/...tem43b60874fb..

"I showed pictures of this violin to a world renowned expert on german violins, his opinion was in this mint condition it was worth about

$2000 and probably dated from around 1870-1880."

Why verbal opinion only? You insisted on a written confirmation from the Roth firm in another thread.

etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

melvin, my bridges are just fine, just because you dont like them doesnt mean theyre not "professional", i suggest you look at violinbridges.co.uk to see the wide variation of whats professional, basically the only thing i do thats different is carve a heart at the top, and thats good for the tone

im sorry, janito, but theres no C F Hopf factory existing today to get a cert from, im selling the violin for $1200, if you knew anything about C F Hopf violins you would know thats a reasonable price, and i show a picture of the hard to fake internal brand at the bottom of the page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Oh! do I see another battle coming around the corner. Janito, are you a Priest or are you just well versed in Latin. I hope the Hound is able to laugh at this one, as I am sure you know the underlying meaning of QED. Fasten your seatbelts? OT

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.