Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Fake certificates on ebay?


mathieu valde
 Share

Recommended Posts

I very much doubt whether these documents are confidential: generally a judgment is a public document as a matter of principal. However, I can understand that a court expert may be hesitant about discussing one of their cases publicly. In the English system experts rarely get to see the judgment unless they seek it out, and are often not even given the benefit of being notified of the outcome of a case.

From the buyer's side of the fence it is a reminder that certificates are made of paper, authenticity is treacherous, and like the expert who evaluates a violin before looking at the label, you have to decide what you would pay for an instrument or bow before looking at the price tag, and before asking whether it is 18th century Cremona or 21st century Taiwan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, John_London said:

 In the English system experts rarely get to see the judgment unless they seek it out, and are often not even given the benefit of being notified of the outcome of a case.

 

You are absolutely right. In a case where one might be appointed „court expert“, one delivers ones „expertise“, and as a rule never hears anything about it ever again. In this case I did such, and months later was sued for damages by the loosing party, for (his assertion) delivering a faulty expertise, which cost him the original case and hence a (large) sum of money.(I receive this judgement, since I am the sued party). I dispute this. Never the less it leaves one wondering if the task of „court expert“ is something that any prudent person should sensibly take upon himself.

 

Your assessment that the liability of a non-court expert could be much different, rather contradicts the cited §1299 of the Civil code, https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1299 which you might like to run through google.

 

The relevance to this thread comes from the courts assessment that one is liable for any „faulty“ expertise, to the extent that the ramifications differ to what would have happened, had one supplied a „correct“ expertise.

 

We agree that such disclaimers as „in my opinion“ are of little or no significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

. In this case I did such, and months later was sued for damages by the loosing party, for (his assertion) delivering a faulty expertise, which cost him the original case and hence a (large) sum of money.(I receive this judgement, since I am the sued party). I dispute this. Never the less it leaves one wondering if the task of „court expert“ is something that any prudent person should sensibly take upon himself.

 

Sorry to hear about this, what a worry for you, I hope it works out in your favour if it is still ongoing.

Mind you, where does this person hope to find a better expert than yourself to prove their assertion that your expertise was faulty ?

It can be amazing how much money some people end up losing in  courts fees and  legal profession expenses when they refuse to give up on a lost cause.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

1.   I dispute this. Never the less it leaves one wondering if the task of „court expert“ is something that any prudent person should sensibly take upon himself.

 

2.  Your assessment that the liability of a non-court expert could be much different, rather contradicts the cited §1299 of the Civil code, https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1299 which you might like to run through google.

 

3.  The relevance to this thread comes from the courts assessment that one is liable for any „faulty“ expertise, to the extent that the ramifications differ to what would have happened, had one supplied a „correct“ expertise.

 

4.  We agree that such disclaimers as „in my opinion“ are of little or no significance.

1.  For the love of violins yes, do so.   Confidence will be key, no second guessing one's self. 

2.  It appears someone will be trying to discredit another.   In the last sentence I think the word "latter" needs more definition.

3.  I'm assuming here that before you supplied a correct expertise.  Is there more than one "correct expertise"?  In your case will more than one correct expertise be needed.  It appears the first time around your words were good enough for the presiding judge at the time along with the possible jury personnel present?  

4.  For the presiding judge, "in my opinion" from an opinion of an expert  surely has a bearing on the judges final rule.   One is there to tell the truth, not lie.

  This second time around in court some will be present to discredit ones expertised opinions - my best advice is when it's court appearance time is to expect the best outcome firstly while on the other hand be prepared for the worst scenario, assuming one can think that far ahead.          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

You are absolutely right. In a case where one might be appointed „court expert“, one delivers ones „expertise“, and as a rule never hears anything about it ever again. In this case I did such, and months later was sued for damages by the loosing party, for (his assertion) delivering a faulty expertise, which cost him the original case and hence a (large) sum of money.(I receive this judgement, since I am the sued party). I dispute this. Never the less it leaves one wondering if the task of „court expert“ is something that any prudent person should sensibly take upon himself.

 

Your assessment that the liability of a non-court expert could be much different, rather contradicts the cited §1299 of the Civil code, https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1299 which you might like to run through google.

 

The relevance to this thread comes from the courts assessment that one is liable for any „faulty“ expertise, to the extent that the ramifications differ to what would have happened, had one supplied a „correct“ expertise.

 

We agree that such disclaimers as „in my opinion“ are of little or no significance.

My own personal experiences in this area came in being subpoenaed to defend my professional conclusions given in technical reports that became peripherally entangled in liability suits (having nothing to do with violins, though in the Stradivarius price range).  I'm pleased to say that I've never been on the losing side, but the experience is hair-raising.  Having to defend one's work from highly-paid professional liars and have the result decided by a jury less than clear on the concepts being argued is like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel.

I was hoping that you'd produce an example of one of your MN posts being read into the record, but I suppose we'll have to be content with proof of Martin's international renown. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in the US one encounters cases such as some one being sold a lowest grade Mark Neukirchen sheisseshachtel ( I think I just made up that word) as a "fine French violin"  and when they sued to recover their money the judge found in favor of the seller because he didn't understand "why it makes a difference where the instrument was made?" Only a few thousand dollars at stake but the fact that people can get rich doing this over and over with impunity is disheartening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

 

I was hoping that you'd produce an example of one of your MN posts being read into the record, but I suppose we'll have to be content with proof of Martin's international renown. :lol:

My admission that I sent Dietmar M. a Christmas card when he was in prison is a favourite, as is the one where I establish that one cannot attribute a violin from a single picture of it's A'hole. Both are, from my vantage point statements of fact, although they both lend themselves to being tendentiously taken out of context. The very thought that some lawyer spends his whole weekend, dredging through the five and a half thousand posts I have made over the last several years, does leave me somewhat incredulous though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

My admission that I sent Dietmar M. a Christmas card when he was in prison is a favourite, as is the one where I establish that one cannot attribute a violin from a single picture of it's A'hole. Both are, from my vantage point statements of fact, although they both lend themselves to being tendentiously taken out of context. The very thought that some lawyer spends his whole weekend, dredging through the five and a half thousand posts I have made over the last several years, does leave me somewhat incredulous though.

Doesn't surprise me at all.  Imagine the billable hours they charged. :lol:  What gags me is the facility with which most of them will argue either side of any dispute.  IMHO, the prize examples are criminal defense attorneys who boast in their advertisements of having previously been prosecutors.  Can you say "flexibility of principles"?  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, martin swan said:

 

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, while I agree with Jacob that an advertised asking price is not necessarily indicative of a fair market price, we don’t pick figures out of thin air.

Yes, but you're a gentleman.  I'd rather not envision where some of the sellers we often discuss on The Auction Scroll pick theirs from. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

Your assessment that the liability of a non-court expert could be much different, rather contradicts the cited §1299 of the Civil code, https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1299 which you might like to run through google.

That is not my view. I said '...the law may a bit diffrent for an expert just providing a certificate..', and I should have added 'but I doubt it.' Same princples apply.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

My admission that I sent Dietmar M. a Christmas card when he was in prison is a favourite, as is the one where I establish that one cannot attribute a violin from a single picture of it's A'hole.

Perhaps A'hole prints could be useful, if they were more common at crime scenes, and a better data base had been established. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pricing of instruments is ridiculously fluid as there really are no absolute comparibles. An authentic instrument by a particular maker may be in any state of preservation or restoration and  many makers work is extremely variable as to quality. A truly outstanding example of someone's work which has survived in perfect condition could well be priced several times higher than the run of the mill stuff by the same maker and it would not be unreasonable for some one to pay the asking price. In doing apraisals however you really have to find some actual sale records which justify your evaluation or you could wind up in real trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

In doing apraisals however you really have to find some actual sale records which justify your evaluation or you could wind up in real trouble.

Retail records must be hard to come by though unless you deal with a lot of instruments? The claimant would have been in a stronger position had Mr. Swan disclosed to him the price paid for the bow advertised for a higher price--but why would or should any dealer do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John_London said:

Retail records must be hard to come by though unless you deal with a lot of instruments? The claimant would have been in a stronger position had Mr. Swan disclosed to him the price paid for the bow advertised for a higher price--but why would or should any dealer do that?

I should perhaps point out, that Martin's role in the Austrian court case, is that of a hapless innocent bystander. Somebody justified the price of their bow, by citing an, in their opinion similar (Martin would possibly dispute that) bow on his web site. The court commented on that (to use your translation) thus:

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

i.e. saw an actually executed sale as a proof that could be taken into consideration, but not a simply advertised price in some random web site.

I suppose, should one operate a web site, accessible to all, one might expect to be cited by anybody anywhere, regardless of weather one agrees or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This cert reminds me of the plaque that amusingly says:  LET'S EAT GRANDMA/ LET'S EAT, GRANDMA.  WHAT A DIFFERENCE A COMMA MAKES.

"..., in our opinion only..."  Is that to mean we are the only experts who think this is a Bernardel or does it mean it is ONLY our opinion?  I like that they "...BELIEVE...it is their opinion only..."  Kinda oily, no?

At any rate, it is the most pretentious and poorly written form I can remember.  It is—or WAS— ONLY IN MY OPINION ONLY:  worthless except for the provided amusement.

Also reminds me of the framed cert that Wurlitzer had on their wall from some self-styled expert in Oklahoma in the '50s:  "I am the only one with the God given knowledge to recognize the violins of Stradivarius and Guarius [sic] and this violin IS a Guarius." 

PS, if anyone has a Guarius,  I'm willing to pay top dollar, since I'd like to see one;  in my whole life I have unfortunately only seen Guarnerius and feel I have been cheated in life's lottery. :)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

I should perhaps point out, that Martin's role in the Austrian court case, is that of a hapless innocent bystander.

 

Yes, that is clear. However, the claimaint might have asked Mr Swan how much he sold the bow for, so the cliamant could use that in their case against the court expert, supposing the court would accept such evidence. Many dealers when asked the question would probably decline to answer.

The instict of English judges is to use auction values as a guide, so in a bankdruptcy or other forced sale, assets can be valued disappointingly low from the seller's perspective. However, in an insurance case the court might need to know the retail value of an item if that is what it is insured for.

I spent some years doing journalism about litigation, and often picked stories where I could unpick why a case had spiralled out of control. They are often sad for those involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5.2.2018 at 10:19 AM, jacobsaunders said:

 

I suppose, should one operate a web site, accessible to all, one might expect to be cited by anybody anywhere, regardless of weather one agrees or not.

 

It should be repeated, that, in case anybody is writing a comment at a frequently visited website, it can be cited by any unauthorized person, too. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Will L said:

PS, if anyone has a Guarius,  I'm willing to pay top dollar, since I'd like to see one;  in my whole life I have unfortunately only seen Guarnerius and feel I have been cheated in life's lottery. :)   

Folks on aliexpress will supply you with boatload of geenuwine Guariuses if you wish :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The certifcate, though, which started this thread, does not look fake. It is probably a genuine certificate, bearing no postal address, and a URL of a website which operates outside the law. In particular the lack of postal address on the website, and its registration in the name of 'anonymous' and without an address (just a Paris post code) https://who.is/whois/violonsanciens.com are wrong (under French law rather more than a bare address is required https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31228). To be fair, this particular ebayer is not routinely offering suspect certificates, and is in my view right to pass on all documents, even questionable ones, with instruments he or she sells and which may shed light on the instrument's history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John_London said:

The certifcate, though, which started this thread, does not look fake. It is probably a genuine certificate, bearing no postal address, and a URL of a website which operates outside the law. In particular the lack of postal address on the website, and its registration in the name of 'anonymous' and without an address (just a Paris post code) https://who.is/whois/violonsanciens.com are wrong (under French law rather more than a bare address is required https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31228). To be fair, this particular ebayer is not routinely offering suspect certificates, and is in my view right to pass on all documents, even questionable ones, with instruments he or she sells and which may shed light on the instrument's history.

He is offering "certified" violins.  He is selling from San Diego (also violonsanciens.com are USA based, probably his alias) pretending to sell violins "certificated" by "french expert" . Fraud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mathieu valde said:

He is offering "certified" violins.  He is selling from San Diego (also violonsanciens.com are USA based, probably his alias) pretending to sell violins "certificated" by "french expert" . Fraud. 

I wondered if it is the same guy. If so, it is calculated fraud.

Some of this Ebayer's claims about the how a violin 'plays' or the bow which 'draws a Hill & Sons like lagato [sic]', may be misleading: I fear were I to buy that bow it would fail to draw a Hill & Sons like legato :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 5, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Will L said:

This cert reminds me of the plaque that amusingly says:  LET'S EAT GRANDMA/ LET'S EAT, GRANDMA.  WHAT A DIFFERENCE A COMMA MAKES.

"..., in our opinion only..."  Is that to mean we are the only experts who think this is a Bernardel or does it mean it is ONLY our opinion?  I like that they "...BELIEVE...it is their opinion only..."  Kinda oily, no?

At any rate, it is the most pretentious and poorly written form I can remember.  It is—or WAS— ONLY IN MY OPINION ONLY:  worthless except for the provided amusement.

Also reminds me of the framed cert that Wurlitzer had on their wall from some self-styled expert in Oklahoma in the '50s:  "I am the only one with the God given knowledge to recognize the violins of Stradivarius and Guarius [sic] and this violin IS a Guarius." 

PS, if anyone has a Guarius,  I'm willing to pay top dollar, since I'd like to see one;  in my whole life I have unfortunately only seen Guarnerius and feel I have been cheated in life's lottery. :)   

When I was at the Smithsonian Institution there was a folder referred to as the "Stradivarius file" which would be hauled out and individual letters read out loud during dull days. My favorite was the fellow from Kentucky who assured us he had a "genuine Strattlebarrier violin" which he was willing to part with for the appropriate price.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...