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.
Quote:
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.