Yeh, I would reserve my audacity till the huge bidding war in the final minutes of auction, ha ha. If he only gets $15 for it, then no one was fooled. :
:
:Extremely Rare Dunhill.... or not....
- Thread starter donjgiles
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I have an Ebay search set for Ashton pipes. 99% of the listed items using Ashton in the title are anything but. Such is ebay, they seem to have no inclination on changing.
My wife is selling her rare ceramic chicken collection. Ha ha, I know I know, why let go of such awesome... things. Anyways, she was getting all steamed and sending angry emails to folks on ebay about claiming to be whatever the trademarked name is for whomever it is that makes the rarest ceramic chickens. I told her to just let it go. Really who cares about ceramic chickens?
I imagine someone is out there saying, who cares about pipes? Who smokes those thing anymore anyways?
I have seen a brass letter "P" on a keychain being sold as a "Porsche Emblem" on there. Sometimes you just have to laugh. ::
I imagine someone is out there saying, who cares about pipes? Who smokes those thing anymore anyways?
I have seen a brass letter "P" on a keychain being sold as a "Porsche Emblem" on there. Sometimes you just have to laugh. :
:
Crash, she has them at a local antique emporium. She used ebay to get an idea of average pricing. Well... she may have an ebay... I'll have to ask her. You looking for some chickens? I can hook you up. ::
We had so many at one time that it would take her several days to just dust them.
:We had so many at one time that it would take her several days to just dust them.
I am very interested in seeing some of these chickens. My wife used to collect chickens and seems to have stopped, but I am always interested in looking into more. Ha.
So I see that this thread has generated continued interest and that in turn generates some interest for me. It's not like mislabeled items up for sale on eBay are a rarity. Then I read the transcript of the exchange between Craig and the melodiously named Starfish378.
And thus the subject has turned from a matter of mistaken attribution to a matter of core ethicality. This is indeed a weighty matter for this august forum and it's learned members to offer their reflection.
Is Starfish378, of Posie's Uniques, indeed an "honest seller"? Or is she a base villain. And, are there other options somewhere in between?
I have read through the treatises put forth by the learned forum members and given them deep consideration, as well as the recorded writing of Starfish378. And it raises some interesting points.
In her first response, Starfish378 (my goodness what a lovely alias to have created) demonstrates her remarkable mental faculty for storing deep wells of knowledge on the objects that she is selling, as well as her equally deep commitment to scholarship and research.
In her response to Craig's most learned and reasonable suggestion that other possible attributions might be made, the lovely Starfish378 response indicates her keen interest in addressing this issue.
Unfortunately, the dialogue quickly descends into conflict with the melodiously named starfish378, lower lip undoubtedly trembling with injury, defiantly casting aspersions on her accuser.
So what to make of this? Is Starfish378 a base villain, or merely misunderstood? Is she indeed an "honest seller" being unjustly hounded by Craig? These are deep matters.
But in the end, I have to weigh the evidence before me and suggest that the melodiously named Starfish378 is not an "honest seller", for it was a small matter to check out the references that Craig provided. That Starfish278 declined to do so shows me that truthfulness doesn't matter to her. She knows there is such a thing as a Dunhill pipe and that is good enough.
Therefore her action belies her claim to be an "honest seller" and therefore Starfish378 of Posie's Uniques is clearly not an honest seller.
So is she a base villain? Well, to come to any sort of decision I would have to looks at Starfish378's actions within a greater context. She hasn't, as far as my researches can find, caused massive loss of life, nor has she been tied to any major catastrophes or cataclysmic events.
Thus I come to the conclusion that Starfish378 is not a "honest seller" but rather a garden variety eBay snake, possessed of a casual honesty. Posie's Uniques will not likely be one of my shopping destinations.
I hope that it has been as rewarding for you to read this as it was for me to write it.
I thank you. :mrgreen:
And thus the subject has turned from a matter of mistaken attribution to a matter of core ethicality. This is indeed a weighty matter for this august forum and it's learned members to offer their reflection.
Is Starfish378, of Posie's Uniques, indeed an "honest seller"? Or is she a base villain. And, are there other options somewhere in between?
I have read through the treatises put forth by the learned forum members and given them deep consideration, as well as the recorded writing of Starfish378. And it raises some interesting points.
In her first response, Starfish378 (my goodness what a lovely alias to have created) demonstrates her remarkable mental faculty for storing deep wells of knowledge on the objects that she is selling, as well as her equally deep commitment to scholarship and research.
In her response to Craig's most learned and reasonable suggestion that other possible attributions might be made, the lovely Starfish378 response indicates her keen interest in addressing this issue.
Unfortunately, the dialogue quickly descends into conflict with the melodiously named starfish378, lower lip undoubtedly trembling with injury, defiantly casting aspersions on her accuser.
So what to make of this? Is Starfish378 a base villain, or merely misunderstood? Is she indeed an "honest seller" being unjustly hounded by Craig? These are deep matters.
But in the end, I have to weigh the evidence before me and suggest that the melodiously named Starfish378 is not an "honest seller", for it was a small matter to check out the references that Craig provided. That Starfish278 declined to do so shows me that truthfulness doesn't matter to her. She knows there is such a thing as a Dunhill pipe and that is good enough.
Therefore her action belies her claim to be an "honest seller" and therefore Starfish378 of Posie's Uniques is clearly not an honest seller.
So is she a base villain? Well, to come to any sort of decision I would have to looks at Starfish378's actions within a greater context. She hasn't, as far as my researches can find, caused massive loss of life, nor has she been tied to any major catastrophes or cataclysmic events.
Thus I come to the conclusion that Starfish378 is not a "honest seller" but rather a garden variety eBay snake, possessed of a casual honesty. Posie's Uniques will not likely be one of my shopping destinations.
I hope that it has been as rewarding for you to read this as it was for me to write it.
I thank you. :mrgreen:
Any dumbass that would buy that, thinking that it was a genuine Dunhill deserves what he gets..............
On the other hand what if the situation was reversed............ If the listing title read "D & R Pipe", but the pipe pictured was a pristine Patent era DUNHILL................ HHHHMMMMMMM, would you contact the seller then, or keep quiet, hoping to score? Would you argue with the seller, insisting that it wasn't a D & R pipe, but it was a dunhill? What if it was a "Buy it Now" for $14.99? Would you just hit the BUY button? The whole Ebay thing creates lots of ethical dilemmas.................... Decisions, decisions............. ::
On the other hand what if the situation was reversed............ If the listing title read "D & R Pipe", but the pipe pictured was a pristine Patent era DUNHILL................ HHHHMMMMMMM, would you contact the seller then, or keep quiet, hoping to score? Would you argue with the seller, insisting that it wasn't a D & R pipe, but it was a dunhill? What if it was a "Buy it Now" for $14.99? Would you just hit the BUY button? The whole Ebay thing creates lots of ethical dilemmas.................... Decisions, decisions............. :
:
I felt pretty good about myself reading Sable's post. And then I read Beefeater's. And now I feel bad about myself, not knowing if I would buy a mislabeled pipe of greater value. I never have, but I still doubt what I would do. I think I am going to pack it in and go home and feel bad about something that never happened.
I'm planning to do the same but I'm going to postpone it until learning of your results. Please report back to us in a day or two and let us know how that's working out.
The burning question I have now is: will whoever the fortunate soul is who acquired this beauty put it back up for sale or just cherish that inscrutable smoking instrument?
Continuing with the devious Mastermind scheme of calling it a Dunhill could, I suspect, obtain a sum north of $20 with such a specimen.
Or an even more brilliant course of action (that would no doubt result in a real landfall) would be to highlight this object's now undeniable history as a hotly debated and highly controversial pipe of mystery and consternation.
I'm just doubting whether I would have purchased an undervalued mislabeled pipe. Beefeater started a moral dilemma in my head.
This is just a very amusing thread. Given the sale price, it looks like no one got hurt in the making of it. :lol:
1) Caveat Emptor
2) Caveat Venditor
I also, had a conversation with her, though not to the level of Craig. She admitted she had no knowledge of pipes and was quick to refute my claim of the pipe's true identity. I'm left with the following: Base villain? No. Colossal moron? Quite possible.
Indubitably.
Don't feel bad. This whole thing can be summed up in 2 phrases:
1) Caveat Emptor
2) Caveat Venditor
- Status