Seems a fair out come, plenty of time to pay after the auction finished and now another day to get together the funds, probably a lesson learned by the auction house as well.

I don’t believe any of us can have a complete understanding of this situation. It is all mere speculation and here say based on the original post declaring a wrongdoing and now the response by Danny.
It does seem that Tate Ward has attempted to make it right and that should be what matters from a customer service point of view. Sometimes mistakes happen and whether the fault is on buyer not following terms or auction house allowing seller to back out of the deal, it appears that TW has attempted to make things right.

Just my opinion though.

I will be avoiding this ebay seller!

Buyer has had plenty of time and now two opportunities to pay, I don't think he really is or was committed. It's not like he is hell bent on actually getting it as I would be.

And they aren't responding to his queries, despite claiming that they want to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

So who knows whether the print is in the same condition, or even the same one come to that. After the original balls up, including some very strange seller shenanigans, cast iron guarantees shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Absolutely.  If the buyer wanted the print, that's what needs to be done.

How many transactions does TW do, and this buyer requires handholding.  Poor thing, his feelings were hurt.

Want it?  Pay for it and get on with your life.

It's irrelevant how many transactions they do. The buyer was all set to hand over a lot of money and the auction house returned the piece to the seller at the sellers request. For this one transaction TW messed up big time and it's no surprise the buyer lost confidence. Since then TW have seemingly done the sum of sweet fa in attempting to restore confidence let alone treat the buyer with courtesy, respect or anything approaching a manner which acknowledges their role in the fiasco.

...because it isn't. Not even remotely.

I agree with where you’re coming from but there are two sides to every story. I’m not doubting either side but sometimes there is a bullying mentality on here in that an individual or a group gets accused of some sort of misconduct and suddenly people ‘stick the boot in’ without knowing the full story. (I’m not calling you a bully)

Using dodgy or stolen credit cards to buy art is a well known scam. It happened to a bunch of galleries that posted on here a few years ago... The artwork leaves the gallery, then there's a chargeback on the card, and the gallery is left with nothing.

It's why galleries are so cautious, and often don't allow credit cards, for expensive purchases.

I did not pressure Tate Ward in accepting a card. They agreed I could pay half by card and half by bank transfer. I had no issue paying in full by bank transfer if they said no. So do not see what the issue is in that regard. I wanted the points on my card. Other auction houses do not have issue with it.

The print Is probably now worth more due to current prices,  but In the end I do not wish to do business with an Auction house in the manner they acted. End off.


daylightrobber I felt gave good input to some of the reasons to why  I did not go ahead. I appreciated his input. thank you

I don't doubt the buyer has the funds. From his previous posts he's been wanting a banksy for 4 years now, even bid 65k on a Banksquiat last month. Probably got some extra spending cash from a hot stock pick, cashed out. Guy most likely got cold feet, buyers remorse having to drop 60k on a banksy (and probably not even one he's in love with).

I think both sides are at fault here with lessons to be learned. Danny and Tate should have waited the 2 extra days, but would the buyer have followed through with payment even then? Honestly, 30k in CC points is rather pedantic when you're spending 60k on a piece of paper. If your arguing based on principal then it's from a pretty weak position to break a contractual agreement because the auction house didn't allow you to pay half the invoice with a cc. If Tate gave you the invoice, then you know how much to wire and how much to authorize on the CC...doing anything else is just tire kicking.

You came on a public forum to vent/ask for advice on a matter. You then proceed to delete the original thread and say you don't need to explain or justify yourself in this matter. In the process an auction house who has built a business, employs workers, pays taxes has been dragged into this. I'm not absolving tate ward (because they did handle this horribly) but they did justify themselves with how they responded.

So just to understand the situation better, you're refusing to pay because they wouldn't allow you to pay half with CC when Tate said they would? And based on this you're standing a moralistic ground not to deal with scum auction houses that reneg on terms that they originally changed just for you.