When an item isn't as described from a large auction house?

[sbfinley]

My response would be completely predicated on how the item was described and visualized in the auction. (Which isn't provided.) It's extremely common for high dollar items to be auctioned in cheap old frames because there is no telling how a century old item has been stored over the years. The last thing a house wants to do is destroy or damaged something consigned before the auction. For this reason I always bid knowing that underneath the frame is a mystery that could be a disaster. Now if the item was described as "pristine", "flawless", or another adjective hinting that it would have zero issues underneath that would be another thing. I would also have an issue, as in a previous thread, where an item was cropped and edited to remove creases and damages. If one of these two things occurred, then yes I believe the auction house should provide some type of recourse. If not, and the damage was hidden behind the frame I'd say the house's provided amendments constitute a fair response. The issue is that A) our treasures are usually just another family's ephemera and are treated as such (the gigantic Nat Fein print in REA has an opening bid of $10k I think - it's spent the past 50 years tacked to a family's wall) and B) that auction houses assess an added liability if they re-framed and inspected every high ticket that came in a crappy 80 year old frame. I've never been burned buying a framed item, but I've also approached each one I've bid on as "buyer beware" as I'm well aware of what could be lurking underneath.

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

IIRC -- Ryan C had a similar situation with a big auction house.

Ryan, would you like to link to that thread

Rich

I wouldn't compare Ryan's experience to this one with the limited information given. Ryan's was a clear case of edited scans/photos while this one seems to be damage hidden underneath.

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

My response would be completely predicated on how the item was described and visualized in the auction. (Which isn't provided.)

Agreed. It's difficult to determine if the AH is at fault when we don't even know how the item was described/presented in the auction.

All we have at this point is the OP's side of the story.

[Bugsy]

I appreciate the responses. First off, while I understand why a listing could be inaccurate in this situation and because of time constraints, an auction house isn't able to open a framed piece to check for damage, that really isn't the issue. I contacted the house immediately upon receipt of the item. I am sure they had not issued payment to the consignor yet. Why am I stuck with the issue and not the person who consigned it? Why couldn't the sale be cancelled? The house still had the money. This isn't only short-sighted, but it oozes of dishonesty to push the problem onto the buyer instead of the person who consigned the piece in the first place. Of course, I was offered a deal if I wanted to re-consign the piece. Nice, huh? Kick the can down the road one more time. Stick someone else with the problem instead? Nice suggestion.