In my initial post I mentioned two examples of what I believe could be construed as misrepresentation:-
1) material that is not silver presented as silver
2) material that in no way could be considered to be gems presented as gems.
this is the point I am trying to drive home.
I did not mention incorrect descriptions of type or style, I did not mention opinions. I mentioned material of little worth presented as material of worth. In other words misrepresentation.
Of course we need to have an understanding of the items that we may bid on, of course we need to assess quality as best we can from photographs that are very often completely inadequate. All this is a given, and it is not at all what I was writing about.
But how is it possible to know if one is looking at silver or polished mamas or silver plate from a photo, if experienced people need to test the material when they have it in their hands in order to know with certainty what it is?
How is it possible to differentiate between cubic zirconia and diamond when all you have to go on is a bad photograph?
This is what I'm talking about. Plain, pure, old fashioned lies.
Nothing at all to do with quality or "knowing what you buy", or incorrect general descriptions, however, when a considerable part of the value of the item that you expect to bid upon is tied up in the material from which it is made, then any naming of that material must be accurate.
If you buy from a photograph and a description that description needs to be accurate, and all the disavowals in the world that can be found the Terms section of an auction catalogue do not replace honesty and care.
In fact, it is many years since I purchased anything that I could not either handle, or that was not offered to me by an experienced person whom I trusted.
|