Seller sues dealer/buyer for a high flip

[packs]

After reading the article and knowing nothing else about what happened, it didn't really sound like the dealer knew what they had either. More like the dealer had a feeling there might be something there. I don't think they could have guessed the true origin. Without knowing anything more about the dealer it's hard to say they could know the outcome when they made the purchase.

[JollyElm]

1042. Gramboozled (or Widowhoodwinked)
When a little old lady selling her dear, late husband’s collection gets absolutely ripped off without even knowing it.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

After reading the article and knowing nothing else about what happened, it didn't really sound like the dealer knew what they had either. More like the dealer had a feeling there might be something there. I don't think they could have guessed the true origin. Without knowing anything more about the dealer it's hard to say they could know the outcome when they made the purchase.

Your comment made me think of the "Americana / Folk Art" stuff that occasionally pops up on Antique Roadshow for ridiculous prices. If I was at a garage sale, and I saw an item that fits into the Americana category, I might be willing to take a risk that it could be worth me. And I don't know anything about Americana!

If I'm the seller in this article, and I'm paying for appraisals, and then carbon dating, I'm not sure how willing I would be to split money with the seller. He forked over some real cash for carbon dating. That ain't cheap.

But I agree with others. At some point, the ROI becomes too much, and throwing a bone back to the original seller is the right thing to do. I thought $300k was certainly a nice finder's fee.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by todeen

I thought $300k was certainly a nice finder's fee.

The problem is that offering a substantial amount like that often does nothing more than encourage more piggish behavior. Unless there is a strategic reason to make the offer, like a statutory mechanism that punishes a plaintiff for not accepting a reasonable offer, even an offer made in good faith like that is often interpreted by plaintiffs to be show of doubt. There is also a very fine line you have to walk in a case so as not to encourage the plaintiff's counsel. Once lawyers smells blood, they expect a feast.

In this situation, where the outcome is likely to be a total victory on one side or the other, not a court splitting the baby, the idea of compromise is more elusive.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by todeen

Your comment made me think of the "Americana / Folk Art" stuff that occasionally pops up on Antique Roadshow for ridiculous prices. If I was at a garage sale, and I saw an item that fits into the Americana category, I might be willing to take a risk that it could be worth me. And I don't know anything about Americana!

If I'm the seller in this article, and I'm paying for appraisals, and then carbon dating, I'm not sure how willing I would be to split money with the seller. He forked over some real cash for carbon dating. That ain't cheap.

But I agree with others. At some point, the ROI becomes too much, and throwing a bone back to the original seller is the right thing to do. I thought $300k was certainly a nice finder's fee.

Compared to the end result, caron dating isn't all that expensive.

https://www.directams.com/price-list

Cultural artifact - under 500 if waiting is ok, and under 600 if you're in a rush.

Just one of the first I found on a google search. I'd expect some higher and some lower.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by steve B

Compared to the end result, caron dating isn't all that expensive.

https://www.directams.com/price-list

Cultural artifact - under 500 if waiting is ok, and under 600 if you're in a rush.

Just one of the first I found on a google search. I'd expect some higher and some lower.

That's interesting. But I wonder if the carbon dating was messed up by collecting dust from other sources due to being displayed etc. Plus, doesn't carbon dating an item give you a range of dates +/- fifty years. You would think for an item this "young" that carbon dating would not be helpful and could be called into question.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by todeen

That's interesting. But I wonder if the carbon dating was messed up by collecting dust from other sources due to being displayed etc. Plus, doesn't carbon dating an item give you a range of dates +/- fifty years. You would think for an item this "young" that carbon dating would not be helpful and could be called into question.

I think the mask was old enough, but I'm not sure. The technology has changed for the better apparently.

I just learned of a different way of describing dates. BP, which is "before present" referring to dates before January 1, 1950. Somewhat randomly chosen, but tied to both the beginning of carbon dating, and the proliferation of nuclear testing which altered the radioactive carbon available enough that it has to be accounted for.