A violin Tragedy

[Walking Man]

Please help me understand the logic.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/ar ... roy-violin

 

[killdeer43]

Please help me understand the logic.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/ar ... roy-violin

Sorry, Mike. There is no logic here that I can see. :?

Joe

 

[Brad Little]

Another reason for all those sellers of counterfeit Guilds to be wary, they may be out both the guitar and the ill-gained lucre when Paypal determines it to be counterfeit and must be destroyed.
Brad

 

[dreadnut]

Sounds like an overzealous Paypal employee who didn't know his violins from a hole in the ground.

 

[Bing k]

The violin in question may still exist. If the one destroyed beyond recognition is a "stand in" and cannot be identified because of its condition someone ended up with a prewar violin for $00
Quote Paypal:
“While we cannot talk about this particular case due to PayPal’s privacy policy, we carefully review each case, and in general we may ask a buyer to destroy counterfeit goods if they supply signed evidence from a knowledgeable third party that the goods are indeed counterfeit.”

My question is: Was the "knowledgeable third party" complicit or was the "stand in" the one evaluated on the buyers end?

IMHO Paypal "may" owe Erica $2500 assuming it's ever "all said and done" which I doubt it will ever be.

 

[Bing k]

Please help me understand the logic.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/ar ... roy-violin

Sorry, Mike. There is no logic here that I can see. :?

Joe

You're right there Joe.

 

[fronobulax]

"we may ask a buyer to destroy counterfeit goods"

I'd be interested in what happens of the buyer doesn't.

 

[adorshki]

"we may ask a buyer to destroy counterfeit goods"
I'd be interested in what happens of the buyer doesn't.

I suspect they may be holding the funds pending final resolution. Did you notice why they advise destruction instead of return: because it's illegal to mail counterfeit goods in some countries..
Very interesting. I didn't know that but it makes sense.
It does tend to make Paypal look like "the good guys" compared to a couple of reports we've had from members here who were disatisfied with how their claims were handled.

 

[Walking Man]

"we may ask a buyer to destroy counterfeit goods"
I'd be interested in what happens of the buyer doesn't.

I suspect they may be holding the funds pending final resolution. Did you notice why they advise destruction instead of return: because it's illegal to mail counterfeit goods in some countries..
Very interesting. I didn't know that but it makes sense.
It does tend to make Paypal look like "the good guys" compared to a couple of reports we've had from members here who were disatisfied with how their claims were handled.

Al,
I'm concerned about Pay Pal being judge, jury and executioner.
The seller said yes, the buyer said no. Solomon, in this case Pay Pal, had the baby cut in half.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if this happened to a Guild.
I know nothing about violins, but these are the lines that caught my eye...

Erica says on the blog she had its authenticity confirmed before selling it, but the buyer disputed its provenance.
...He says mistakes have been made before on the origins of violins...
On the blog, Erica said violin authenticity is always an issue and that, regardless of the label, the instrument was of high quality.
“In the violin market, labels often mean little and there is often disagreement over them . . . I am now out of a violin that made it through WWII as well as $2,500. This is upsetting, but my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins and other antiquities that they know nothing about.”

 

[adorshki]

Al,
I'm concerned about Pay Pal being judge, jury and executioner.

Believe me, I share your reservations. I was just trying to present a "non-prejudicial" observation for those who might want to do some searching for themselves, and make up their own minds.
We had a thread about a counterfeit Guild D50 recently which pretty much ripped the subject to shreds (my way of saying I don't think there was any aspect we didn't cover):
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25586&p=288935#p288935
Well, for me, 6 months ago was recently , but this was a case in which eBay denied a buyer's claim and Paypal was no help either, and guess what? Ebay owns Paypal now.....my post at the bottom of page 3 of that thread supports your concerns.
I have become a little wiser about the legal vs ethical responsibilities of sellers since then, however. It seems to be kind of a "If they don't ask, I don't have to tell" scenario, legally.
For the record, I do have sympathy for the seller of the violin in this thread. Something about the info I've seen posted is credible.
Also for the record, the last post in that thread seems to indicate that there might have still been a possiblity of opening a Paypal claim, but the eBay claim had to be "closed" first. We still don't know if a Paypal claim was ever opened or resolved.

 

[AlohaJoe]

The violin in question may still exist. If the one destroyed beyond recognition is a "stand in" and cannot be identified because of its condition someone ended up with a prewar violin for $00... My question is: Was the "knowledgeable third party" complicit or was the "stand in" the one evaluated on the buyers end?

That's an interesting perspective... a clever scam by a buyer is certainly a possibility. As I understand it, no one person saw the violin on both ends of the deal so how can you verify it was the same violin? The "knowledgeable 3rd party" wouldn't even need to be complicit, just shown the 'stand-in' violin which was then broken up and photographed. If the buyer then tossed the pieces it would be close to impossible to prove fraud unless the original shows up again later.

 

[adorshki]

The violin in question may still exist. If the one destroyed beyond recognition is a "stand in" and cannot be identified because of its condition someone ended up with a prewar violin for $00... My question is: Was the "knowledgeable third party" complicit or was the "stand in" the one evaluated on the buyers end?

That's an interesting perspective... a clever scam by a buyer is certainly a possibility.

True, but I suspect Paypal has or had some kind of verification method(s). Also, going into those kind of details kind of reduces the "shock value" of the article, and that just don't sell newspapers. :lol:
Gosh these unanswered questions are gonna haunt me for months now. :lol: