Urban Art Association

I had a situation a while back about a car my partner at the time bought. We thought the mile-ometer had been tampered with. When we spoke to the RAC we were told that it was hard to prove and without asking the question to the seller 'Had the mile-ometer been altered?' we didn't really have a chance.

I think this is a a similar situation - if you knowingly lied about the print/framing then he/she has a point. But there has to be some responsibility on the buyer, and because a year has now elapsed I'm afraid the buyer can not now look to get his/her money back.  

If the buyer wants the print restored, then that is their responsibility and cost.

I think you're going above and beyond what's expected, and fair play to you. 

There's is a danger that this could drag on, and create nothing but ill feeling. If the framer hasn't done what he said he's done then there is an issue, but it's not an easy one to approach. Good luck with it all.

he's probably trying to get a few hundred out of you

You did everything right at the point of sale,you have been overly fair since, it was 12 months ago,not your problem matey.

 I third it !

Blimey, so the buyer wants a full refund a whole year after buying a print from you?.... I think that the buyer is expecting a lot from you considering the length of time that has passed. There aren't many situations where a buyer could expect a full refund for goods purchased 12 months ago, it's unreasonable imo. You've only got his word that no-one else has touched the print.
Maybe it's worth refunding him after all?, this print has seemingly increased in value in the last 12 months and is very much in demand right now. It might even work out better for you to re-sell it, despite the minor damage, and it does sound very minor. Have you even seen any proof of the damage, or in fact if it's even the print that you actually sold?

I bought the print in question Eelus NEISBW on here around a year ago from the OP, mgk1. It took a while to source one and eventually it was offered to me for the average price at the time. It was described to me as in ‘mint condition’. It was also described as ‘framed to conservation standards’ and that the buyer purchased it new from source. As I was keen to have this up on the wall ASAP, I agreed to the purchase the print in its current frame subject to his verbal guarantee that the condition was accurate. I also informed him that I would be having this re framed at some point by a well-known, reputable framer. He told me he would be taking the print to his local framers he used for it so it could be checked over prior to him handing it over to me. Following that inspection he contacted me to tell me it was all fine.
Subsequently we met up and the deal was done.

I returned home and the print has been loved and enjoyed by my family and myself over the last year. The meaning behind the print to us has a personal connection apart from being just a great image. Anyway, recently I hand delivered it in its frame, as was sold, to my framer to be re framed.
A few days past and I got a call from the framer to say that he had removed the print from the frame but that there was tape stuck to the back of the print and if I was aware of it. I told him that I certainly was not and that I would call the seller immediately, and in the meantime he would send me photos of the tape. The photo’s once received revealed the extent of the tape that went along the entire top inch or two of the print. In the meantime I called mgk1…I told him of the framers findings and asked if he knew of it, he said “yes I knew there was tape, I saw it at the framers but when I asked them about it they said it could be removed without a problem”. I asked “so why didn’t you tell me about it at the time of sale?” to which he repeated the framers reply. I also said, “well if it was that simple why didn’t they remove it there and then?” he said he went on their presumption that it would be fine. I also told him that he should have told me about this prior to the sale so that I could make up my own mind as to whether I was happy to proceed or not. I then told him this would have to be sorted with a reputable restorer as I had bought the print as mint and if at any point in the future I hit hard times and had to sell it on it could be problematic to sell it with tape along the top of it. I also stated that I wasn’t at this point sure whether I would be happy to keep the print if it was not repairable to the mint condition it was described to me as. He agreed to cover the costs at this point for the restoration if I decided to go ahead with it. I also sent him the framers photos of the back of the print with the tape. So it was sent off for restoration. He stated that this could look bad on him as a seller and was concerned about it. I assured him that if the problem was sorted without any trouble that nothing would need to be said and that I would not wash any dirty linen in public. He also stated that he would be seeking some goodwill compensation from his framer.
Again sometime passed and I was informed that he had written a post about it here. I was baffled after his previous comments but even more concerned that, after reading his post that he had omitted relevant details about the situation on here especially regarding him telling me of his knowledge of the tape when he was at the framers. I called him and a heated phone call went on. I told him to come on here and be more clear and honest about the tape as there were others commenting, quite rightly based on the information he had written, suggesting the buyer was out to get compensation etc although he has mentioned that he ‘sold a print that, to my knowledge, could be easily restored to the condition I received it in’. Something I most certainly wasn’t btw. He then agreed he would come on here and explain the details but he didn’t. A day or two later he called me and to my surprise he then told me that there wasn’t any tape on there when he sold it to me! He told me to look at a photo that he sent to me during the sale of the back of the print showing no tape. He had already made the previous comments of his knowledge of the tape and now he was suggesting otherwise. He now said that he saw some tape but didn’t know what it was and that it couldn’t of been this tape as his (undated) photos that he sent me during the sale prove otherwise. To me this was someone trying to wriggle out of the situation; it was as if the accusation of the tape was now with me. I was livid. I also asked him why he didn’t mention any of this following the photo’s I sent him of the damage from the framer. I told him repeatedly that this print has been hanging on my wall since I purchased it. Why would I remove it and stick tape along it? I also repeated that I am an honest person and that I have no reason to create a bad situation.
He then offered me two options in his childish, patronising manner. As if they were the only options available to me. One was to keep the print following repair (my first option anyway) and the second to send the print to him for a full refund. I told him I would decide what step I would take following the report from the restorer.
So the report came. The tape had been removed by the restorer with some skinning to the paper detected, which they believe to of been caused at some point in time by a person(s) who hadn’t used any of the correct chemicals to do so. There were also two stains on the tape. The restorer had repaired the skinning and sent me photos of the before and after stages. When asked if the tape removed was conservation they replied with a laugh ‘of sorts’. They also confirmed the repair he had carried out was ok with minor damage to the front of the paper due to the tape removal.
I then informed the seller of their findings and he said that the tape must have been caused be his framer. (but he saw this anyway and it was framed by them and purchased from new from source). He asked me to ask the restorer to send him the report so that he could himself seek full compensation from the framer and that they had already previously offered him £50.
I told him, as I was very busy that he would have to deal with that. I then forwarded him the invoice from them. I also asked him to inform me as soon as the payment to the restorer had been made so I could be assured as I had given them the purchase order, this also was only confirmed after my question was put to him about it, which was also slightly annoying. It was confirmed between the 25th – the 30th of July by text that the payment had been made. Subsequently I have received a request by the restorer for payment! I informed them of my knowledge that the payment has been made and the restorer has had to double check that it hasn’t which has been time consuming to him, as he is very busy. He firmly told me no payment has been received by him via online or by card over the phone. I contacted mgk1 and after yet more delayed messages I have been told that he made payment but it shows as ‘void’ on his account. He told me yesterday after I told him the restorer requires payment now that he would contact his bank, since then I have tried to call him repeatedly and by text to find out what his bank have said and to ask why, after him confirming that he would pay the restoration fee of £100 + vat that I now have to deal with this non payment problem and lack of communication.

I realise in writing this I have now contradicted myself once by saying to mgk1 that I wouldn’t explain all of this on here but following his decision to post here and that he did not tell the story accurately and more importantly that he tried to wriggle out of what he had already told me. The fact that he has now failed to make this payment which he agreed, to the restorer, and not informed me of the reason why, after as I said, repeated attempts to clarify the situation, he has left me no choice. In all of this I have felt let down by a ‘reputable’ forum member, and now have the task of seeking the restorers fees.

Ultimately I chose to keep the print because of the lengths I went to source one, and the fact I didn’t want to go to the trouble of finding another knowing how hard it was in the first place. I have to leave with a print that has minor damage to the front, but it is only really visible if you are standing in front of it and I will live with that. Also the current hype of this print of course entered my mind and I didn’t want to pay twice what I paid for it, even if I could find one. Would I have paid the price I paid a year ago, maybe but as I have said it would have been nice to of had all the information I now know to of made that call.

The moral of the story for me is that I will never again buy from mgk1 or anything framed and I hope this (long) explanation helps someone to make the right decision that I failed to make when buying a framed piece on the secondary market, especially from the above named member.

Ok then Ben Broome please tell me what details i've left out and 'twisted' that would not reflect well on me while i point out that i have all texts and emails to verify my facts. I would not have explained it without them and furthermore your framer has accepted responsability by paying you the restoration costs. Therefore if this is the case and you took it to them for inspection both you and them were obviously fully aware of the tape so why did you not mention it when i bought it from you and why did you try to suggest there wasnt any tape after you had admitted to seeing it when you took it there?  

Regarding the restorers payment, up until yesterday morning no payment had been recieved as i called him to find out. You havent contacted me as requested to let me know payment has even been made, maybe the least you can do is phone him to let him on Monday to let him know.
 

Finally its nice to know you are happy with this result, i am happy that i now know what sort of a seller you really are.

This is an interesting thread regarding the buying of artwork that has already been framed and possibly a little warning to those thinking of doing so. One persons description of Mint as I have found out through many years of collecting vinyl records is not always what I would even call excellent condition.

I hope all resolves itself well with both members though.

I've found mgk1 a complete pleasure to deal with.

Helping out this far down the line shows he is a good guy in my honest opinion.


Bit low posting personal info (names) Is Finsbury FPR?

Beat me to that comment Coach.

Appreciate tempers run high, but still a level of privacy should be maintained...due to the ease of damage that can be done socially or otherwise with peoples names... 

G

You would say that living at 14 Creepybob Lane SY7 8UY wouldnt you Coach Mclintock.