An update to our Roycroft Pottery thread the other day – it seems that Ebay seller (redacted) is now offering a 9-inch dragonfly vase, available from the artist herself for $100, for a buy-it-now price of $250. This is not illegal or even a violation of Ebay rules, but certainly seems unethical to me – not the selling of something for more than it costs or is available elsewhere, of course, but specifically withholding the fact that it could be bought directly from the artist for far less. I have tried to have some sort of dialogue with this person, and got back a reply that I thought seemed to sidestep the issue and simply noted that ‘this is my vase and I will sell it for whatever I want’ – certainly true, and the dealer certainly does have that right. But with every right comes a responsibility: in this case to educate would-be buyers a bit in this forum or in ebay descriptions. This particular seller was responsible, though, and updated the auction description quite substantially to give credit to the creator. However, other sellers – and even some legitimate antique dealers – misrepresent the provenance of items, and continue to withhold information about items which they should share with prospective buyers, in spite of explicit professional guidelines to be completely forthright. Buyer beware!
[note: article edited 04.03.06]
Note also that this particular seller has now made the auction private, so that nobody can give the buyers a heads-up and let them know that they are being ripped off.
Misrepresentation is rampant on eBay. There are several sellers that walk the line with fraud in how they describe their Arts & Crafts goods. Poor Gus Stickley gets abused quite a bit, but sellers even see merit in falsely associating goods with second tier makers, because even these get top dollar for authentic pieces, and maybe its getting a little too obvious using Stickley and Roycroft ‘style’ in the description. Did you see the guy recently with photocopied shop marks glued to his furniture and his ‘unused’ Gus tags set in a frame – YIKES. The flip side of course are sellers who don’t know what they have and don’t describe it right and nobody picks up on it and you catch the piece for a bargain price. Buyer beware – absolutely. Knowledge is power – ditto.
“jlt” has completely misrepresented my auction for the Roycroft Potters Vase on Ebay. The original posting gave full credit to the artist and even decribed the glaze properly! This vase was not represented to be old or misrepresented in any way, shape or form – as other sellers have clearly have done in a very crafty manner. My auction was not revised in any way, shape or form as “jlt” has misrepresented. Enough information was provided (and search engine key words) so that anyone comparison shopping with the other grossly misrepresented vases would figure out the other auctions were in fact gross misrepresentations. Unfortunately that did not stop someone for paying $257 for a 6 inch version of the vase. My ad could NOT slander the other ads as this could be construed as “bidding interference” by Ebay – which does have consequences. The best I could safely do to educate was to post an honest description of the vase that would not result in the other sellers lodging complaints. My vase did not sell by the way – which I expected. The auction was designated as private when the auction was listed ( not revised to be this way after the fact as “jlt” has misrepresented and since it was a “Buy it Now” auction there could only be one bidder/winner) so that that I could explain to the unlucky winner the real scoop without being slandered by people like “jlt”. Yes I would have allowed the “winner” to back out of the deal. Why didn’t “jlt” focus on the misrepresented content of the other auctions? An analysis of how they just barely lied about the product would have been more useful than misrepresenting my auction. Perhaps it is too easy to pick on an honestly described auction and lie about it.
Apparently “jlt” would like people to believe that he/she can control the actions of others by his/her attempt to create dialoge which really was baiting with distorted “reporting”. Shame on “jlt” for assuming knowledge of the artist’s feelings about this. I have discussed this Ebay issue with the artist a few years ago. I have an opinion regarding her feelings based on my memory of her reaction and our dialoge, but since I am not her I am not going to claim to know what she feels! It would be rude and disturbing to claim to know how the artist feels or to even assume that she is insulted!
I did not engage in a dialoge with “jlt” because based on her/his emails I assumed she/he was a not so bright pre-teen lacking the awarness that we live in a capitalist and (usually) free market economy. Thanks for that “buyer beware” advice! I am apprehensive about having a “dialoge” with anyone who clearly lacks this basic understanding of the US economy or even how auctions work and what the risks are. However, I am pleased that “jlt” can now spell the artist’s name correctly.
I also stand by my comment that I would not sell my vase for less than $250.00! I love it and would nor sell it for anything less! Also, if it matters, I own about 50 pieces of pottery by Roycroft Potters which I have purchased directly from the artist and on Ebay from auction descriptions that were as accurate and honest as mine. I have no complaints even though I know in many instances I paid the Ebay seller more than the Ebay seller paid Roycroft Potters. I really would pay $257.00 for trapeziod dragonfly vase is it had a glaze I valued. Had I sold my vase to someone that wanted it for $250.00 I would have bought another one directly from Ms. McDuffie and other pieces as well and I am certain that I would not be forced to sign a contract that would prohibit me from selling her work to others at a premium!
Thanks for telling your side of the story. I appreciate your taking the time to do this.
I do have one question, though; why would you hold back from bidders the fact that they could but the item for half of your buy it now price directly from the artist?
Nobody is disputing your right to sell your property for any price you ask. I would be happy to sell you my home for eight hundred thousand dollars, although it’s only worth a bit more than half that. It would be unethical for me to suggest that eight hundred thousand was a fair price, though, and not to tell you that you could buy any other house, just as nice, in the same neighborhood, for $400,000.
I did answer your question twice already. There is a Roycroft Potters piece for sale right now on Ebay. The seller has not described his/her purchase price and I see nothing wrong with the listing. How many auctions (live or on-line) have you seen the seller’s purchase price is disclosed?
It is not unethical for you to ask even 2 million dollars for your house. It may be unreasonable but not unethical and it is unlikely you will get a buyer at that price. Does this sound familiar?
You still have not apologized or removed the slanderous and fabricated statements about my auction listing. This is unethical.
deleted due to fraud
I’m going to have to side with the article’s author here. I think there’s a huge, enormous difference between what your “rights” are and what an ethical human being should do. They are very often not the same thing, and sometimes they are.
If the artist is indeed still making the same item (not sure?) and selling it for less, it’s MORE ethical to steer buyers toward the artist, or at least not to actively DENY them information that would lead them to her (web site, email or phone etcet.) because then the artist is actively benefiting. The person who bought it does have a right to benefit from the natural increase in value of the item, but not at the expense of the original maker, who has even more right.
thanks for the great site and for showing us that conscience does matter!
deleted due to fraud
I think there’s a big difference between the inherent valuation and pricing of normal goods and works of art/craft. Simply reselling the item itself is not (IMHO) “unethical” or “wrong” – it’s how the seller handles the transaction that introduces the ethical problem.
The only thing in that situation that would be unethical would be keeping the fact that the artist is alive and producing the item – and the fact that the artist is trying very hard to sell them – a SECRET. If you know that and WITHHOLD it from the buyer, that is simply unethical, but of course legal and inherently necessary to a capitalist system. Just another small facet of capitalism that is inherently unjust. That buyer and reseller has not put any more “work” into the item, they haven’t added anything to it – so why should the item be “worth” any more outside of a rarity situation?
purposely divorcing the item from its provenance is where the conflict starts. Not the selling of the item.
Montana, sounds like you’re referring to Marx’s alienation of labor, which was a very important concept in the establishment of the Arts & Crafts movement. Certainly there would be no A&C movement if not for the early English socialists; I’ve been hoping to have someone write an article on the intersection of craft ethics and this cornerstone of the movement for a long time – would you be interested? Please email me if so.
I found a vase on ebay that you are talking about. It sold for 255$’s. I did not see anything unethical about the add. The owner said it wa a “Authentic (i presume he is indicating that it was not o fake) Roycroft Pottery Dragonfly Vase” made by a famous potter.And went on to describe its structure.Maybe the owner had it for some time, and wanted to get ride of it so he/she put it on ebay. The starting price was 49$’s..well below the cost..so what if the owner got more than he/she paid…some one wanted it for that price…its an auction..heck, maybe the potter should use ebay. free enterprise works!!!
good luck
deleted due to fraud
What country do you live in where 95% of your tax bill goes to social services? Maybe Sweden or someplace like that with very little poverty because of it? In my country, it’s 64% to the military, 12% covers tax breaks for the richest .03%, and only 4% goes to social services. We have much more need of that kind of thing in the US.
Otherwise, man you are right, Hubbard was a huge hypocrite! What a weird life that guy had. Just a bizarre and tragic character.
But from reading the article I don’t think the artist minds her stuff appreciating – I sure would be flattered if that happened to me! I think that the only thing all this is about is that the seller on ebay (or someplace?) purposely withheld information from a buyer.
that’s legal i am sure although i am not a lawyer, seems a bit underhanded though especially if he bought it right form that some person and knew it was available for less … isn’t that what they call “price gouging” … well maybe not … certainly everyone has a right to make money without sharing all information with the buyer … such a complex issue.
deleted due to fraud
I did my four years. This country has taken care of me when I couldn’t, so I figured I owed it the same. Sorry if I didn’t see combat, hope that doesn’t make my feelings less honest than those who did. I certainly respect them and their sacrifice, even if they do it for politicians who wield power and send our friends and family to their deaths under false pretenses.
As for being warm and belly full – I have been, at some times in my life, and I have not. Luckily, I live in a state that takes care of those who are unable to take care of themselves.
Just remember, the vast majority of welfare recipients are the richest among us – not the poorest. Your average welfare individual recipient is a single woman, left by her husband or partner, working, if she’s able to, although in a lot of communities you are stuck in a catch-22 here with regards to childcare. You lose it if you take a full-time job, even if the job doesn’t make enough to pay for childcare, so you are forced to keep taking the welfare and working only part-time if you want to be able to provide for your children.
You pay far more of your “welfare dollar” to tax cuts for the richest and freebies and pork for the big corporations and foreign interests than you do for “welfare moms,” of whom I know plenty, and almost all of whom are the hardest working and most put-upon people I have ever known.
I’m glad you love this country like I do. And I’m glad you are working to make sure that everyone has the same opportunities that you do. That was my purpose in enlisting, as well. It’s the kind of opportunities offered by a welfare state system that allow people to climb up from the poorest to actually owning a home (I recently bought one after 8 years of saving for a downpayment and with the help of a loan through the Department of Veterans Affairs!).
As for the figures I took, it was from Section 2 of the line-by-line summary of the most recent GPO-printed Summary of the Federal Budget, pages 272-284 (see summary columns at the bottom and right, and the first page of the general summary in section 3).
Hi guys. While both your ideological standpoints are certainly valid and useful, I’m not sure this is the best place to discuss them. Thanks for visiting!
I SEE SOMEONE LIKES TO BE SOMEONE ELSE THAN THEMSELVE TO POST USING BEANO ….I HAVE NO POLITICAL STAND WHATSOEVER….SO KEEP POSTING UNDER THE BEANO NAME…MY POINT IS FREE ENTERPRISE WORKS!!!! THATS IT. SO ANY POST AFTER MY COMMENTS AFTER REVIEWING THE EBAY VASE AND THIS ONE ARE FROM A WANBEEEEE BEANO….GO FOR IT MAN….PEACE TO YOU ALL….THE REAL BEANO SIGNING OFF FOR GOOD…..
GOD BLESS THE LIAR!!!
That is horrible that someone would stoop so low as to use your name like that. Please let me know how you’d like me to handle this; I can give you their IP address, if you like, or simply delete them. Let me know which are yours and which are the faker’s, and I’ll take care of this.
“jlt” still has not explained why he lied about the content of my auction. He also stated that I threatened legal action, which is not true, though, ironically, his slandering doesn’t make him any better than those other ebayers that intentionally misrepresented the Roycroft Potters items as old and did not attribute the items to the artist and her shop (which I did in the original and never revised auction!). He also sent me a strange email regarding the artist trying to contact me, which never happened. Perhaps he confused my auction with another and won’t admit the mistake and apologize. Don’t you get it yet? I am on the artist’s side!