Posts: 199
From: NSW Australia
Registered: Jan 2011

Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 12-03-2012 06:36 AM               

---

Not good.

There is also the guy who is selling forgeries as forgeries and including the forensic COA they originally came with. He's whitewashing them as "novelties."

But what he's really trying to do is extract a few bucks from them and hope he finds a buyer who may have an idea to sell as authentic in another venue.

If you have a fake there is one good option - destroy it. Fakes should not survive to be recycled.

Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010

posted 12-03-2012 09:17 AM               

---

I hate to disagree with Steve, but a fake does not have to be destroyed. They can be worth money or other value to someone. Look at the art world. Forgeries of masters paintings now fetch high prices because they were well done.

I do think it is incumbent on a collector if he has a fake to have it clearly labeled as such. On the back of a letter such as this it should have a stamp saying reproduction/not genuine in indelible ink or some other method of marking it so that it can not be foisted off on an unsuspecting buyer. The item itself needs to be marked as such, not come (only) with a COA that attests to it being a fake as the COA can easily be detached from the fake.

Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 12-03-2012 10:23 AM               

---

I think it's a bit of a stretch that these will ever be considered art or anything beyond ghastly fakes.

Yet they are for sale on eBay now as $299 "conversation pieces" as the seller states.

So why would anyone pay $299 for lousy fakes? In my mind, the only logical conclusion is someone looking to resell them as real. They would re-appear in a small local auction or antique shop as authentic. And the seller is willing to be a party to this because he is trying to recoup some of the cash he lost on buying this rubbish.

That's why I would argue they need to be destroyed. Everything from counterfeit money, handbags, DVDs, etc., etc. are all destroyed. For reference purposes, high res scans will suffice.

Posts: 199
From: NSW Australia
Registered: Jan 2011

posted 12-03-2012 11:30 AM               

---

Fred, by providing a copy of a certificate means to me only one thing, that is in agreeing with Steve the seller is facilitating the on sell of this item as a fake. Why would you need it otherwise?

I understand people who can't afford a real Alan Bean painting by a print, but it doesn't come with a copy of a letter saying its real. If these sort of things are allowed then one day you may have an original that people will question. I don't want to be one of those poor souls and I'm sure you don't either.

Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010

posted 12-03-2012 12:09 PM               

---

The COA is to state clearly it is a fake. The item would also have to be labeled on the item itself as a reproduction or forgery to avoid it being resold as a real item.

To answer Steve, I have no idea why anyone would want in of your examples, but if they do, then I do not have a problem with it, again, as long as it is clearly identified on the ITEM (not just a COA or letter saying it is fake) as being a fake.

I do agree that most forgeries be destroyed but otherwise it has to be clearly labeled as not real. As to the Ed White letter that started this thread, it should be marked on the reverse as a reproduction to prevent it from being resold as genuine.