• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Invaluable is selling fake art
0

60 posts in this topic

49 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

Getting away from this turd for a moment, I was thinking about the number of non-comic book drawings of Spider-Man that Ditko might have done.  I know that he did a drawing (or two) for an early NYC comic convention but apart from that I don't know that I've seen any others.

Has anyone seen anything beyond the convention booklet?

Yeah. He did a couple of "self"-portraits that were actually Spidey and Dr. Strange and an inkwell, but more to the point, he did one, and as far as I remember only one, small-ish piece of Spidey running at you (not that different from the big poster design) for a fan who wrote in and requested one, circa 1965.  Albert had it back in the '90s.  I had it in hand, but can't quite remember every detail. It was, as I recall, on a piece of stationery, or paper that was stationery sized, so it was probably about 5 x 8 or so?  I want to say it sold for the price of a decent action page. Can't remember how it was inscribed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contacted Jen via the Relic Vintage Facebook page and let her know that the art was fake, and gave her the link to this thread. First she said she didn’t know what I was talking about, and then she used this fallback: “do you realize the process of sending every single piece of art to be inspected and authenticated?”  And before I could reply again, she blocked me. My last message failed to go thorough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, drewincanada said:

I contacted Jen via the Relic Vintage Facebook page and let her know that the art was fake, and gave her the link to this thread. First she said she didn’t know what I was talking about, and then she used this fallback: “do you realize the process of sending every single piece of art to be inspected and authenticated?”  And before I could reply again, she blocked me. My last message failed to go thorough.

that doesnt sound suspicious at all... nope, not one bit... ¬¬

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, drewincanada said:

I contacted Jen via the Relic Vintage Facebook page and let her know that the art was fake, and gave her the link to this thread. First she said she didn’t know what I was talking about, and then she used this fallback: “do you realize the process of sending every single piece of art to be inspected and authenticated?”  And before I could reply again, she blocked me. My last message failed to go thorough.

"Jen? Jen who? Dis Wilford."

Screen Shot 2020-03-13 at 11.35.26 AM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qalyar said:

I'm not sure how much hope I'd have. Has anyone else read their auction participation terms -- and I'd like to make clear that this means "Relic Vintage" specifically, not all of Invaluable? That's some of the skeeviest fine print I have ever read. Relic Vintage offers absolutely no guarantees of any sort about the material they're auctioning, including no guarantee that they have legitimate title to sell it in the first place. But still no returns for any reason. They require the bidder agree that "the dispute resolution specified in the foregoing paragraph as the bidder's sole means to resolve any and all disputes" -- that preceding paragraph, for the record, stating that there is no dispute resolution at all. And they demand that you don't complain if they screw you: "the bidder specifically agrees that they will not file a dispute or chargeback of any kind with an online venue, a credit card merchant, or any other third-parties". Finally, since they went out of the way to point out that they don't ensure they have legal title to the stuff they sell, they require their buyer "waives and releases Relic Vintage Inc. from any and all claims, of whatever nature based on alleged defect(s) in legal title".

This is bad enough boilerplate that I'm not sure it's even legally enforceable, although clearly that's not an argument anyone should get into on an internet chat forum. But yikes. No one should do business with people like this.

That contract is as laughable as the items that they auction.  I looked up their legal representative...

Groucho Marx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

That contract is as laughable as the items that they auction.  I looked up their legal representative...

Groucho Marx

The language itself may qualify as a violation of at least NJ’s Consumer Fraud law. Seems unconscionable to me to try and take away a right provided by law, and credit card co., agreements. If it comes up, consult with counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2020 at 11:16 AM, drewincanada said:

I contacted Jen via the Relic Vintage Facebook page and let her know that the art was fake, and gave her the link to this thread. First she said she didn’t know what I was talking about, and then she used this fallback: “do you realize the process of sending every single piece of art to be inspected and authenticated?”  And before I could reply again, she blocked me. My last message failed to go thorough.

You made a tremendous effort. Everything you need to know about their operation is summed up in her disdain for authentication. It’s too much trouble.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2020 at 2:16 PM, drewincanada said:

First she said she didn’t know what I was talking about, and then she used this fallback: “do you realize the process of sending every single piece of art to be inspected and authenticated?”

To which I might respond: "Do you realize the irreversible damage to your reputation and the potential loss in revenue from selling illegitimate items?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Lions Den said:

To which I might respond: "Do you realize the irreversible damage to your reputation and the potential loss in revenue from selling illegitimate items?" 

That’s pretty much what I said in my email to Invaluable. Which they ignored. 
 

I would have said the same thing to Jen and Paul Perry but (i) they blocked me before I could and (ii) they wouldn’t care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2020 at 12:20 PM, drewincanada said:

That’s pretty much what I said in my email to Invaluable. Which they ignored. 
 

I would have said the same thing to Jen and Paul Perry but (i) they blocked me before I could and (ii) they wouldn’t care.

In the long run, it's actually their loss. A reputation is a terrible thing to waste... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2020 at 2:16 PM, drewincanada said:

then she used this fallback: “do you realize the process of sending every single piece of art to be inspected and authenticated?”

Oh you mean like what an auction house might do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, joefixit2 said:

I am assuming their descriptions and terms and conditions are vague enough that a buyer couldn't sue them or anything.

That won’t necessarily provide protection under a State’s consumer fraud act (different states have different names). Something that is vague or ambiguous can still be deceptive. NJ’s version not only authorizes NJ through the Attorney General’s office to prosecute, but awards triple damages and attorneys fees won by consumers If they sue. Other states may not be that generous. 
 

For example, if you list something as by Picasso, but then on your website bury language in which you try to claim that you make no representations as to any item’s authenticity, that might be still be a violation of State law (depends on the state).

Edited by Rick2you2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0