66 replies to this topic

[Euro Vintage]

1351881097[/url]' post='20092']

1351880836[/url]' post='20091']
I can't say that I really know this seller personally, but I have purchased several pens from him over the years, and have always been happy with the results. The last pen I purchased from him, a little over a year ago, was an Eversharp Coronet with Dubonnet inserts. Knowing he has purchased from the Korean faker, however, I will be more hesitant to deal with him in the future.

But do we know that he purchased from the Korean faker? I would like more evidence of this and that this particular pen is a fake before damning the person, whoever he is.

John
In my OP I attached the link to the Korean's feedbacks which contained one from this seller.
Further, I also stated that he chose not to reply / acknowledge to my multiple warnings sent to him by eBay message system.
That he chose not to even acknowledge the existence of the faker is the very essence of my post on this occasion.
I did not, and will never, have a wholesale suspicion to "good Duofolds"
Before this post I sent him an eBay query on this item reminding him that he bought from the faker before and because of that, how could I be sure this item is genuine.
I am yet to receive a reply.
Tri

[Euro Vintage]

1351886454[/url]' post='20096']
The seller of the red Duofold did buy a Parker Duofold in Mandarin yellow from the Korean faker previously, as Tri indicated in the feedback link. Of course, that doesn't really say anything about the red Duofold.

Precisely
My OP asked for your views on this Big Red itself with the seller's buying background in the equation.
I had never advocated a 'shotgun approach' at all.
"It may well be a genuine item" as stated in my post
The tricky part is how to geld the seller's attitude to fakes with his offerings.
That's where the chat should be going.
Thanks
Tri

[Hugh]

Little doubt demand for reproduction parts will increase over time as more old pens fall victim to age related issues. Whether it's good or bad isn't so much an issue imo as it's already a fact of life in the "hobby" with a variety of reproduction parts available nor do I accept that making an "exact copy" ( or fake if you prefer) is all bad , you break the cap on grand dads "big red" you inherited you don't want a reproduced cap marked as such you want one that's an exact copy . Of course the fraud aspect will always be a problem but again when there's money involved there's always a few shady characters around.
In the old car hobby reproduction parts are readily accepted because there's no other option nor does it greatly affect the value, you can buy cars that are exact copies with no original parts!! ( think Jaguar C type as an example). I guess what I'm thinking is the "horse has already bolted"and it may well become accepted practise to use reproduced parts in the restoration of pens in the future.
I think the issue with the Korean was not the product as such ( and Parker would never bother with the trademark issue) but the failure to disclose the true nature of his pens( yes, I would prefer to see it marked as a replica) , that's fraud. Now he sells parts and states their reproductions there's no fraud on his part, down the line others may well use those parts to defraud buyers , others may simply use them to replace broken parts. If reproduction parts are to become a part of the hobby then well made parts of high quality are better than low grade parts!!

Regards
Hugh

[John Danza]

John
In my OP I attached the link to the Korean's feedbacks which contained one from this seller.

Thanks Tri. I missed the link to the feedback with this current seller listed as a buyer. As noted by someone else, this is for a Mandarin and not a RHR, but it's certainly within the realm of reason that a direct purchase could have transpired.

[Euro Vintage]

John
In my OP I attached the link to the Korean's feedbacks which contained one from this seller.

Thanks Tri. I missed the link to the feedback with this current seller listed as a buyer. As noted by someone else, this is for a Mandarin and not a RHR, but it's certainly within the realm of reason that a direct purchase could have transpired.

John

What worried me (and prompted the discussion) is why would someone professing to be a pen collector / seller who then refuses to acknowledge that he / she had had dealings with a known forger.

Now, everyone and anyone could have made an error buying fake items from this chap (yours truly included) but one should have the gumption to respond to that misdeed by at least acknowledging it.

By not acknowledging it, one is left with a possible inference that somehow the fraudulent transaction(s) were / are acceptable.

Like PROCYON said, I would be hesitant to deal with any such characters in the future knowing that the above inference remains to be excised.

That is the gist of my comments which I invite your views.

Regards

Tri

PS: I have been careful by not listing his eBay name in the postings as there is no conclusive proof that this Big Red is a fake.

[John Danza]

John

What worried me (and prompted the discussion) is why would someone professing to be a pen collector / seller who then refuses to acknowledge that he / she had had dealings with a known forger.

Now, everyone and anyone could have made an error buying fake items from this chap (yours truly included) but one should have the gumption to respond to that misdeed by at least acknowledging it.

By not acknowledging it, one is left with a possible inference that somehow the fraudulent transaction(s) were / are acceptable.

Like PROCYON said, I would be hesitant to deal with any such characters in the future knowing that the above inference remains to be excised.

That is the gist of my comments which I invite your views.

Regards

Tri

PS: I have been careful by not listing his eBay name in the postings as there is no conclusive proof that this Big Red is a fake.

While I've not purchased from that seller, I've seen his auctions out there for years and all have seemed legit. Others have noted dealing with him in a satisfactory way.

Why would he not admit to the transaction? Could be as simple as ego, having to admit to being taken by a con man after spending years professing to being somewhat of an advanced collector (i.e. expert). We have some of that in this hobby.

So in the case of this pen, and this seller, it's caveat emptor I guess.

[Euro Vintage]

John

What worried me (and prompted the discussion) is why would someone professing to be a pen collector / seller who then refuses to acknowledge that he / she had had dealings with a known forger.

Now, everyone and anyone could have made an error buying fake items from this chap (yours truly included) but one should have the gumption to respond to that misdeed by at least acknowledging it.

By not acknowledging it, one is left with a possible inference that somehow the fraudulent transaction(s) were / are acceptable.

Like PROCYON said, I would be hesitant to deal with any such characters in the future knowing that the above inference remains to be excised.

That is the gist of my comments which I invite your views.

Regards

Tri

PS: I have been careful by not listing his eBay name in the postings as there is no conclusive proof that this Big Red is a fake.

While I've not purchased from that seller, I've seen his auctions out there for years and all have seemed legit. Others have noted dealing with him in a satisfactory way.

Why would he not admit to the transaction? Could be as simple as ego, having to admit to being taken by a con man after spending years professing to being somewhat of an advanced collector (i.e. expert). We have some of that in this hobby.

So in the case of this pen, and this seller, it's caveat emptor I guess.

I hope your explanation is the right one.

For me, my antenna is activated.

Tri