Fake certificates on ebay?

[mathieu valde]

Look, those "certificates" are going viral, at least on ebay. funny - at first it is certificate (in ebay item tittle), than it is something else in a "certificate" itself, and finaly at the end it is not a certificate and not a legal document (as german says - kleingedruckte). Or is it ok to make papers like that?

(it is listed together as pictures). 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leon-Bernardel-Violin-circa-1949/302574328714?hash=item4672d5db8a:g:2F8AAOSwsBtaPatr

[jacobsaunders]

One can't help but notice that English Certificates often have texts like “In our/my opinion”, which in a way only describes the obvious, since one was hardly an eye witness when a particular instrument was made. German (or in my case, Austrian) ones, by contrast certify that as instrument IS this that or the other. This is not an increment of surety but an expression of the law, since here this is conclusively regulated by paragraph 1299 of the Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1299
which stipulates that anyone with the audacity to offer an opinion is responsible for said opinion (er muß daher den Mangel derselben vertreten). So, along the principal, „in for a penny, in for a pound“, one might as well say it IS, since if one is wrong, it doesn't make any difference anyway.

 

The ebay listing one, is just the usual Ebay mishpocha attemt to leave himself a door open, although, however hard he tries, would not help him in court, although it would most probably be extensively used to try to fob you off.

 

 

[mathieu valde]

2 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

The ebay listing one, is just the usual Ebay mishpocha attemt to leave himself a door open, although, however hard he tries, would not help him in court, although it would most probably be extensively used to try to fob you off.

In " my opinion", that particular seller is trying to sell on ebay violins he already  bought on ebay.

 

 

[puckfandan]

Notice that his user name is really close to one of the sellers in the South of France.....blocks in the wall in the background sure look familiar. Says the seller is in the US but I am speculating that they are just trying to reach buyers that are not set up to get European listings. The seller has a lot of instruments listed, must be the same person.

[mathieu valde]

11 hours ago, puckfandan said:

Notice that his user name is really close to one of the sellers in the South of France.....blocks in the wall in the background sure look familiar. Says the seller is in the US but I am speculating that they are just trying to reach buyers that are not set up to get European listings. The seller has a lot of instruments listed, must be the same person.

That was my first idea  -  probably Ames Anciennes got crazy....  But  I do not think so - I made a little research  - seller fricfrac or some other his profiles are USA California based, probably San Diego. Probably he is trying to imitate their profile but in very  hysterical way. 

[Delabo]

17 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

One can't help but notice that English Certificates often have texts like “In our/my opinion”, which in a way only describes the obvious, since one was hardly an eye witness when a particular instrument was made. German (or in my case, Austrian) ones, by contrast certify that as instrument IS this that or the other. This is not an increment of surety but an expression of the law, since here this is conclusively regulated by paragraph 1299 of the Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1299
which stipulates that anyone with the audacity to offer an opinion is responsible for said opinion (er muß daher den Mangel derselben vertreten). So, along the principal, „in for a penny, in for a pound“, one might as well say it IS, since if one is wrong, it doesn't make any difference anyway.

 

The ebay listing one, is just the usual Ebay mishpocha attemt to leave himself a door open, although, however hard he tries, would not help him in court, although it would most probably be extensively used to try to fob you off.

 

 

So when you attend court in your professional capacity as a violin expert you have to be very careful when you express an opinion on the provenance of a violin.

Which raises the question of whether any  violins provenance can ever be proven beyond question.

Its lineage would have to be known from when it was made to the present day.

For that to happen It would need to have beeen  in a glass case  and on daily public display  in a Palace.

And even then Tom Cruise may have swapped it in a Mission Impossible venture !

 

[jacobsaunders]

58 minutes ago, Delabo said:

So when you attend court in your professional capacity as a violin expert you have to be very careful when you express an opinion on the provenance of a violin.

 

 

You certainly have to be prepared to substantiate, and logically explain your opinion, even supply documented comparison. If you don't (or if someone alleges you haven't) you could get sued for damages. In such cases, I get pretty bored of having some aggressive attorney, read out tendentiously translated excerpts of some flippant, and taken out of context comment I might have made on Maestronet.

[Violadamore]

2 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

You certainly have to be prepared to substantiate, and logically explain your opinion, even supply documented comparison. If you don't (or if someone alleges you haven't) you could get sued for damages. In such cases, I get pretty bored of having some aggressive attorney, read out tendentiously translated excerpts of some flippant, and taken out of context comment I might have made on Maestronet.

Wow!  That's scary (and probably reads like a Monty Python sketch).  Post some transcripts? 

[Violadamore]

3 hours ago, Delabo said:

So when you attend court in your professional capacity as a violin expert you have to be very careful when you express an opinion on the provenance of a violin.

Which raises the question of whether any  violins provenance can ever be proven beyond question.

Its lineage would have to be known from when it was made to the present day.

For that to happen It would need to have beeen  in a glass case  and on daily public display  in a Palace.

And even then Tom Cruise may have swapped it in a Mission Impossible venture !

 

IMHO, the problem with violin attributions is that the amounts of money involved in the upper ranges of the market attracts lawyers like ripe carcasses attract flies and vultures.  This is going to have an oppressive effect on expertise.  I know from some other collectibles, which I have studied rather deeply, that, without a well-attested, unbroken chain of custody from the maker's shop to the current owner, any provenance of anything is nothing more than an artistically and scientifically informed best guess.  Expertise in identification can always be challenged by obscurity of origin and expertise of fakers.

Like Swift on another contentious question, I have a modest proposal.  Let's have an international treaty supported with enabling legislation in all of the signatory countries to permanently cap the price of any and all violins at $50K.  Just run the market over with a levelling bulldozer and say the Hell with it.  Might be good to do for all other objets d'art as well.  Whaddya say?

[Delabo]

7 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

  Let's have an international treaty supported with enabling legislation in all of the signatory countries to permanently cap the price of any and all violins at $50K.

Yeah, and knowing my luck, the day after the law takes affect I find a genuine mint  Guadagnini at a flea market !

[Delabo]

28 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

  I know from some other collectibles, which I have studied rather deeply, that, without a well-attested, unbroken chain of custody from the maker's shop to the current owner, any provenance of anything is nothing more than an artistically and scientifically informed best guess. 

It is not unusual that an English country house which has been in the same family for hundreds of years, has a Chippendale commode or the like,standing in the exact same spot it was placed all those years ago. And the Lord and Lady of the house, after a little prodding,will produce the original signed receipt, and show its entry  in a ledger book, along with carefully entered  notes about all of the other house inventory. Much of which itself is still often exant, minus the inevitable  china breakage.

Thats provenance.

[Violadamore]

1 minute ago, Delabo said:

It is not unusual that an English country house which has been in the same family for hundreds of years, has a Chippendale commode or the like,standing in the exact same spot it was placed all those years ago. And the Lord and Lady of the house, after a little prodding,will produce the original signed receipt, and show its entry  in a ledger book, along with carefully entered  notes about all of the other house inventory, which itself is still often exant, minus the inevitable  china breakage.

Thats provenance.

Yup.  For sure.

[jacobsaunders]

1 hour ago, Violadamore said:

  Let's have an international treaty supported with enabling legislation in all of the signatory countries to permanently cap the price of any and all violins at $50K.  Just run the market over with a levelling bulldozer and say the Hell with it.  Might be good to do for all other objets d'art as well.  Whaddya say?

I suppose that that is one of those nurture rather than nature questions.

 

To go off at a tangent, I have always found it peculiar that American football(?) has a so-called draught, where players are simply allocated to different teams hocus pocus, which would seem somewhere between communism and abject serfdom for the players, viewed from here, whereas in the proper football played everywhere else, each player can sign for whoever offers him the best pay and conditions (called market capitalism, I think). Mind you, if that is how you have been brought up, I can understand that you might imagine a possible post as Violin commissar worth striving for.

[Violadamore]

34 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

I suppose that that is one of those nurture rather than nature questions.

 

To go off at a tangent, I have always found it peculiar that American football(?) has a so-called draught, where players are simply allocated to different teams hocus pocus, which would seem somewhere between communism and abject serfdom for the players, viewed from here, whereas in the proper football played everywhere else, each player can sign for whoever offers him the best pay and conditions (called market capitalism, I think). Mind you, if that is how you have been brought up, I can understand that you might imagine a possible post as Violin commissar worth striving for.

Human rights for football players, what a novel concept.  Next you'll be arguing against guilds.  Nice diversion tactic, BTW..  Let's see some of those trial transcripts, VAT-man. 

[David Burgess]

1 hour ago, jacobsaunders said:

To go off at a tangent, I have always found it peculiar that American football(?) has a so-called draught, where players are simply allocated to different teams hocus pocus, which would seem somewhere between communism and abject serfdom for the players,

A NFL "football" player here makes an average of close to two million dollars per year, so I'd suggest that "serfdom" might not be the ideal description.

[jacobsaunders]

27 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

A NFL "football" player here makes an average of close to two million dollars per year, so I'd suggest that "serfdom" might not be the ideal description.

Of course it is serfdom, should he have no choice for which oligarch he is obliged to work for

[David Burgess]

21 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

Of course it is serfdom, should he have no choice for which oligarch he is obliged to work for

Certainly there is choice! They have complete freedom to work at McDonald's, Burger King or Kentucky Fried  Chicken instead if they wish.

Average pay might be slightly lower, but nobody cares about stuff like that, right?

[l33tplaya]

On 2/1/2018 at 7:26 AM, mathieu valde said:

Look, those "certificates" are going viral, at least on ebay. funny - at first it is certificate (in ebay item tittle), than it is something else in a "certificate" itself, and finaly at the end it is not a certificate and not a legal document (as german says - kleingedruckte). Or is it ok to make papers like that?

(it is listed together as pictures). 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leon-Bernardel-Violin-circa-1949/302574328714?hash=item4672d5db8a:g:2F8AAOSwsBtaPatr

The violin certificate describes it as golden amber...The violin is clearly "Bernadel red" or French red.  Or someone does not know how to photograph. A different violin, even if the certificate is fake. 

[jacobsaunders]

14 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Nice diversion tactic, BTW..  Let's see some of those trial transcripts, VAT-man. 

I am not sure, to what extent I am permitted to re-publish trial transcripts here, or to what extent they are to be considered confidential. Further they tend to be quite long (10 to 20 pages is not unusual), and written in legalistic German, which is, to put it mildly, an acquired taste. I think however I could provide a short excerpt from a recent Judgement pertaining to the question, which responsibility any expert testimony is exposed too, and see if your German skills permit you to tell me if the judgement was in my favour or not:

 

Rechtlich folgt daraus:

 

Ein vom Gericht bestellter Sachverständiger, der im Zivilprozess ein unrichtiges Gutachten

abgibt, haftet den Parteien gegenüber persönlich und unmittelbar nach §§ 1295, 1299 ABGB

für den dadurch verursachten Schaden (RIS-Justiz RS0026319 T5). Ob einer Prozesspartei

durch ein solches schuldhaftes Fehlverhalten des Sachverständigen ein Schaden entstanden

ist, ist danach zu beurteilen, ob die Entscheidung im Vorprozess für sie günstiger ausgefallen

wäre, wenn der Sachverständige dort ein in allen von ihm begutachteten Fragen richtiges

Gutachten abgegeben hätte (RIS-Justiz RS0026360).

 

Der Kläger konnte im gegenständlichen Verfahren nicht darlegen, welches Fehlverhalten dem

Beklagten angelastet werden kann und worin die Unrichtigkeit des Gutachtens im Vorprozess

besteht. Dass der Beklagte den Verkehrswert des Violinbogens zu niedrig ansetzte, kann nicht

– wie vom Kläger behauptet - allein aus der Tatsache geschlossen werden, dass Martin Swan

auf seiner Website einen vergleichbaren, qualitativ aber nicht ganz an den Bogen des Klägers

heranreichenden Bogen um umgerechnet 10.165,- Euro anbot. Zum einen ist dem

entgegenzuhalten, dass ein Angebot alleine noch nicht ausreichend ist, um den Verkehrswert

einer Sache zu begründen. Ein reines Angebot lässt nämlich die Frage offen, ob der

Violinbogen tatsächlich zu dem Preis an einen Abnehmer verkauft worden ist oder zu diesem

Preis überhaupt verkauft werden kann. Zum anderen hat der Beklagte ausgehend von den

Feststellungen den von ihm im Gutachten festgesetzten Detail-Einzelhandelswert von 4.200,-

Euro mit einem konkreten Verkauf eines gleichwertigen Violinbogens um beinahe exakt

diesen Betrag untermauert. Der tatsächliche Verkauf um den gutachterlich festgesetzten

Einzelhandelswert ist ein Beweis, dass der vom Beklagten festgelegte Wert auch der

gängigen Praxis entspricht. Aus den nachvollziehbaren Schlussfolgerungen des Beklagten

zum Wert des Violinbogens im Gutachten ist weder ein Fehlverhalten des Beklagten, noch

eine Unrichtigkeit des Gutachtens zu erkennen. Aus diesem Grund war das Klagebegehren

spruchgemäß abzuweisen.

[martin swan]

Well I see my name in there but the German is beyond me.

 

 

[John_London]

My translation of the above judgement

A court-appointed expert in the civil process concerning an incorrect expert report is responsible personally and directly to the parties according to §§ 1295, 1299 ABGB for the damage he causes. Whether a party has suffered  actual damage owing to a lapse by the expert depends on whether the decision in the original / prior court process would have turned out more advantageously for him, if the expert had answered the questions put to him correctly in his report.

The claimant is unable to show in this specific procedure, which lapse by the defendant had caused damage, and what was the nature of the error in the expert report in the original court process. The fact that the defendant had set the commercial value of the violin bow too low cannot, as the claimant asserts, on its own, be determined by the fact that Martin Swan on his website offered a bow comparable in quality, though not exactly matching the claimant's bow, for about €10,165. One reply is that an offer alone is not a sufficient basis for determining the commercial value. A pure offer leaves open the question of whether the the violin bow is actually sold to a purchaser for that price, or whether it could be sold at that price at all. Besides, the defendant supported his assertion that the retail value of the bow was €4,200 by comparison with a specific sale of a comparable violin bow at almost exactly the same price. The actual sale at the level of the expert's evaluation is proof that the expert's price assessment accords with current practice. The understandable conclusion of the defendant on the value of the violin bow in the report is identifiable neither as a lapse by the defendant, nor as an error in the certificate. On this basis, the claimant's claim is rejected.

[jacobsaunders]

You are world famous, Martin

[John_London]

The judgment above relates to a court-appointed expert, so the law may a bit diffrent for an expert just providing a certificate for sale. However, on the whole I suspect the German or Austrian law may arrive at the same conclusion as the Anglo-American by a different route. An expert is negligent if they give advice that no reasonably competent expert would have given, for example in a certificate. The German legal language makes it sounds as the expert is absolutely liable if they make a mistake which any expert could make. I doubt this is what happens in practice. And by contrast, with a certificate which says 'in my opinion' may give an English expert a feeling they have an absolute defence for any error in the certificate. I do not think this is the case: surely if they misidentify a Skylark as a Strad they can still be sued successfully for damages. Ultimately in both systems an expert must give an opinion which most experts will back up as reasonable even if there is room for disagreement.

Well, that is my general impression based on some legal training: however it may be that thoses with direct experience have found there is a signficant difference in what happens on the ground in the different legal systems.

[Blank face]

The main point, in my also limited understanding, is that a "retail shop" price isn't relevant for the value of an artefact within a deal between two private persons. This would include matters like trial period, refunding, warranty, later trade in options etc. It's logical that an omnipresent online shop is regarded often as a reference point for valuation, without seeing the different context.

OTOH, it demonstrates that the job of a court trial expert has a very dangerous, potential ruinous side, to say the least.

That a catalogue price usually includes a certain span for negotiation is another factor often ignored.

[martin swan]

I am intrigued by this case and of course honoured to be mentioned!

I can’t work out who is who ... was the owner of the bow complaining that a dealer had sold it too cheaply?

They should have consigned it to me