E-Bay Dornier 17-P…thereby hangs a tail!

After a discussion with the other moderators and the webmaster, it has been decided to close this thread now. The thread has served it’s purpose and will not be deleted.

😡 Let’s not beat about the bush here, “passing stuff off in a fraudulent manner” is not a matter of for the individual conscience nor is it an amusing way of teaching a fool a lesson.

It is CRIME pure and simple.

Ring a lawyer then–or try the Police.
I’m sure they’ll enjoy making a living out of it.

Personally I don’t care either way.
I don’t buy or sell ali-scrap on E-bay.

This thread is going to fizzle, or cause damage. It isn’t going to cause an enforceable resolution.

I think the damage has already been done James.
The spectacle of grown men accusing each other of theft over sixty quids worth of scrap metal is amusing me no end.
Christ almighty, you can’t even buy a decent curry for two on that these days.

Why don’t you all go outside and enjoy real aeroplanes this weekend, pull back the curtains, let in the light, take your scrap down the recycling bin, etc etc.
A.

But surely this is an open forum and we all have the right to freedom of speech. If the person in question has nothing to hide he will state all the facts. Up to this point no such facts have been made which stand up.

Freedom of speech is one of those rather ill-defined things. In law it usually means that one man’s freedom of speech is another man’s libel – and in the end a lawyer’s bread and butter. 🙂

Also remember that these days a comment that attacks someone personally by accusing them of criminal conduct on an open forum is no different to publishing a letter in a news paper or appearing on TV accusing someone of some criminal misdeed.

Personally I prefer to stay well clear of the litigation process – it is horribly expensive and there are no guarantees in civil and criminal matters that if you win you will recover costs. That happy event can only happen if the losing party has the readies. If they don’t you well may wind up being sued by your lawyer for costs.

But I think this thread has sailed awfully close to becoming libellous in its accusations and it really ought to be closed or deleted. Sales, if they are fraudulent, and I am not saying they are, are matters for the legal system, not a public forum.

But surely this is an open forum and we all have the right to freedom of speech. If the person in question has nothing to hide he will state all the facts. Up to this point no such facts have been made which stand up.

😡 Let’s not beat about the bush here, “passing stuff off in a fraudulent manner” is not a matter of for the individual conscience nor is it an amusing way of teaching a fool a lesson.

It is CRIME pure and simple.

Maybe, Andy.

With the second-hand cars I bought in the UK, I still had legal protection in certain critical areas. Misrepresenting, say, an MG as a Triumph (by swapping badges for a particularly dumb buyer) would be a clear case; as it appears, from the data we have here representing piece ‘a’ as coming from aircraft type ‘b’.

We are not arguing if they are ‘fit for the purpose sold’ which is clearly to turn aluminium chaff into gold – for some.

As I’ve said (I think three times now) the law is there – but it has to be invoked. An internet forum isn’t a solution of any kind.

This thread is going to fizzle, or cause damage. It isn’t going to cause an enforceable resolution.

Regards,

Oil derived from the paring down of slithery legless reptiles…

Malcolm, Andy, all good stuff; I think I also mentioned caveat emptor some time ago, but we aren’t in ancient Rome – it is a reasonable assumption in a civilised country that traders adhere to the law of the land – those that don’t should be forced to cease trading – legally. This does, despite many differences, still apply to private sellers, even through e-bay. Because of the law, in this case English law, we don’t have sellers of patent medicines and many other forms of snake oil. Yes, there is dubious trading, but this is a case that could be dealt with in court.

Yes James I agree, but like me, you are of the real World and you know things don’t really quite work like that.
If you’ve ever bought or sold a second hand motor–well you’ll know…:):):)

And you know that snake oil is sold everyday in the UK–they just call it something else…

In this case, I still think that it really is a case of buyer beware.
If the seller is knowingly passing stuff off in a fraudulent manner then I’m afraid to say that it’ll be between him and his conscience–assuming of course that he has one.

Yep, it is called caveat emptor

Yes, indeed it is…
I just didn’t like to use it.;););)

The cost of litigation goes both ways it will cost the person bringing the action just as much if not more as the person being sued. Anyone taking legal action must be 100% sure of their case or have plenty of cash that they can risk. I do not think the threat of legal action is a good enough reason to back down, if you make a public post on this forum or anywhere else you must be sure of your facts, if you are then stick to your guns and no harm can come to you.
This thread has been complicated by other concerns about other artifacts. The case seems simple to me can the ebay sellers identity who sold the ME 109 part be confirmed? if so and it turns out to be the same person who purchased it as DO17 then its case closed.

I would have thought that some of the responsibility lies with the purchaser.

Yep, it is called caveat emptor and unfortunately it still seems most people only wake up to it after they have been stung, and I ain’t Robinson Crusoe in this matter. Hopefully for me those days are long gone – but there are always new tricks, and any collector must be prepared by making sure they do their homework. In the end it is no good blaming the seller no matter how dishonest they are. When it is all said and done they are just walking in the door we left open through our own carelessness and too often our own greed.

But I think this thread has sailed awfully close to becoming libellous in its accusations and it really ought to be closed or deleted. Sales, if they are fraudulent, and I am not saying they are, are matters for the legal system, not a public forum.

Any collecting field that involves people competing for rare or finite numbers of artefacts will without doubt collect a fair number of people who will take advantage of unwitting, inexperienced or careless collectors. I am not surprised given the amount of information posted on this forum in several other threads in which I was involved that faking is happening, in fact I would say that the item under discussion is probably the tip of the iceberg seeing as how there appears to be little or no attempt by collectors of this sort of material to establish any sort of nationally or internationally accepted standards. Setting standards might seem too much like that nasty word “professional” which seems to upset our amateur enthusiasts however it does have long term benefits and will weed out fakes.

I would have thought that some of the responsibility lies with the purchaser.

In this, I’m not referring to what’s on the statute books but in any field of supply and demand there’s an element of this—isn’t there?
Malcom refers to vintage fire arms but everything seems to have an element of buyer beware to my mind.
Certainly over the years I’ve seen people a lot richer than I’ll ever be, trying to pass pretty naff aeroplanes/vintage cars/motorbikes (delete where applicable) off to unsuspecting punters. So it’s the way of things and has always been thus.
And surely to goodness, it doesn’t take a huge leap of intellect to realise that E-bay is a bit of a bazaar in almost all senses of the word.

Now if someone is passing off fake gear, well surely the obvious answer is to pass by on the other side. The knack is of course to know your subject so as not to get caught.
We seem to have passed into a never-never land of not having any common sense on matters and then complaining when we get caught.
My advice is that if you’re not totally sure of something; keep your money in your pocket.

A.

deleted

Graham

You could well be right. However, the Moderators were evidently contacted by the person in question (after the thread was locked) who then asked for the opportunity to put their conterpoint as they, the Mods, felt it warranted being aired in this public forum. This they have now done and their response has elicited certain other responses.

It remains to be seen whether the person in question wishes to respond to the matters that have been put back to them. If they do not, or if Galland26 or Raging Von K or any other involved party do not wish to add further information/clarification, then there seems little else that needs to be added and those reading this thread must ultimately make up their minds as to what has gone on here.

What we know for certain is that this Do 17 item was faked-up to represent a piece of Me 109 with part of a swastika so as to (apparently) fraudulently increase or enhance its monetary value. This item certainly passed through the hands of the person in question (by their admission) although they state they have no knowledge of its altered state.

Hopefully, even if no further input comes from those involved, I have provided some useful service and provided a springboard for some enlightening debate as to the validity of certain items offered for sale on e-bay….a topic that is not exactly new to this forum over many cases and several years.

I know that this is a serious subject with all sorts of allegations made that should be resolved one way or the other…

I wonder though, am I the only one, or do any others find the whole tone of this thread disturbing with more than just a hint of a kangaroo court?

I really do feel that this has reached the point of not being discussed any further here in public

1. Galland26 has not contacted me about these dates… would really like to know where he got them from.

2. Correct Feedback is now private, this has nothing to do with this thread.

3. After I obtained the 109 canopy, a member on this forum, advised me of it’s history, this i took as the truth (wish i hadn’t now!) please do email this so called long list of issues people have with me.

4. As i explained to eBay member ‘zoe338’, I bought it from an aerojumble with the said history attached.

5. I have always responded to eBayers questions.

6.I bought the items off of you in April 2002, and yes a vast majority of the items had no history, any items I sold were only the items with history as attached to the labels, again I should not have mentioned your name when I sold items recently on eBay even though the items DID COME FROM YOU.

The B-24 tail fin issue will be resolved, this issue is between me and Devon Aircraft Research and Recovery Team.

I bought the Dornier items 4 or 5 years ago now and no the piece had no Swastika painted on it.

I sold these items last year and as far as I am concerned they left me in an original un tampered state.

So, for the avoidance of all doubt, are you saying that you were not the person who bought the Dornier 17 item on 23 June 2008 that then became a part of an Me 109 tailfin on 22 July 2008. Further, that you are not the person who sold the “Me 109 tailfin part” on 22 July 2008? Has there been some hideous mistake here and more than one e-bayer/forum contributor has either made a terrible mistake, identity wise, or has an axe to grind with you and set you up?

Presumably you have access to and control over your own e-bay identity and it is not possible, surely, that another e-bay seller shares that same identity?

If the case of mistaken identity applies not only to Dornier 17/Me 109 part but also to the e-bay buyer/seller then, of course, I shall apologise unreservedly. However, you clearly accept that you bought the piece of Dornier 17 in question. You also accept that you later sold it on (last year) but when you sold it it was in its original unaltered state. In that case, was there a “clone” item sold at the same time that very closely resembled the Do 17 item but was, in fact, from an “Me 109”? Are you also saying, too, that you were not challenged about this item when it was offered for sale and that you did not ask the person challenging its provenance for proof of its link to the Do 17 item? Further, that you were not the person, who, when the proof was supplied by way of the photos that start this thread you failed to respond?

As to it being offered for sale on e-bay, I have had the following message (one of many!) from another forum member. It reads:

The buyer was my sister, she bought it for me for a birthday present but then asked me to pay for it through my paypal….. so, I saw the item and after speaking to a few people, we worked out that there was indeed a line of rivets there which would have not have been there if it were real.
I refused to pay for the item and ceased all contact with the seller, he did message me through this forum a few times afterwards though offering me the piece at reduced prices.

That particular informant then goes on to mention you as the seller, by name. This was before the connections to you were made by others on this thread and seems to corroborate what Galland26 and others have been saying. Therefore, is there is some confusion or misunderstanding here as it seems that several people are making the same mistake of linking you to this faked-up item – a link you seem to deny. I would also add that Galland26 (my original informant) and Raging Von K on this forum seem very clear as to the what, who, where and when. Similarly, PM’s, e-mails and phone calls from no less than nine other unrelated and independent individuals link you personally, one way or another, with this or other transactions that are claimed to be “questionable”. Are they all mistaken?

The question of misrepresentation by someone, at some stage, of the Dornier 17 item for a swastika bedecked Me 109 item seems clear to all. Also clear, by your admission, is that the item went through your hands and so presumably you know who you sold the “unaltered” Do 17 item to? However, you are apparently saying that you have no knowledge of the “Me 109 tailfin part” that this Do 17 item subsequently became.

Correct?

Malcolm raises a good point……I am only happy with items I dug myself or come from a reputed and highly respected source….and they know who they are!

I’ve been watching this thread with a slight passing interest and apart from the fact the seller has appeared back on line, I have to ask two questions.

1) After sixty years, is there anything further to be learned about aviation history by digging up crashed aeroplanes?
It’s not as if The Battle of Britain isn’t well covered in printed matter already. There are even whole aeroplanes–some rebuilt, some not so rebuilt from the period available free in museums for us to study.

2) Why would anyone part with hard earned cash to buy a piece of Ali-scrap (and let’s face it, exhibit 1 on this thread is a piece of ali-scrap) –even if it was once attached to a WW2 aeroplane? The item in question here has all the provenance of the king’s new clothes if you ask me.
Ali scrap = Ali scrap.
Surely as others have said here already, the deeds of the men who flew the things are what count.

Still, there a sucker born every minute as the man once said.
I’ve got some old window frames in the shed, anyone want them?

A.

I tend to agree with those comments, but then I suspect that all of you would have not needed me to to tell you that. 😀

One of my interests is collecting antique firearms which I have been doing for the last 40 odd years. In that time like every serious collector of these quite expensive items I have learnt through painful financial experience to double and triple check things like provenance, evidence of restoration and most importantly if an item is a fake. There is lots of money involved and the level of attempted dishonest practice while not high is still something to be contended with, and believe me I think I have seen most of the various tricks that people will resort to to turn mutton into lamb.

Any collecting field that involves people competing for rare or finite numbers of artefacts will without doubt collect a fair number of people who will take advantage of unwitting, inexperienced or careless collectors. I am not surprised given the amount of information posted on this forum in several other threads in which I was involved that faking is happening, in fact I would say that the item under discussion is probably the tip of the iceberg seeing as how there appears to be little or no attempt by collectors of this sort of material to establish any sort of nationally or internationally accepted standards. Setting standards might seem too much like that nasty word “professional” which seems to upset our amateur enthusiasts however it does have long term benefits and will weed out fakes.

In antique arms collecting faking and creating false provenances exists but there are guidelines which are adhered to by the reputable dealers and collectors and wide publication of known fakes etc. so a lot of these are weeded out – this practice is good for the hobby because it serves to remove the untrustworthy items and sellers. Just simple awareness amongst collectors of an item that is not what it is purported to be will see it frozen out of the market. Also experienced collectors like myself have built up a body of experience and knowledge which allows us to be very discerning as to where our hard earned money is spent. Part of that is following a golden rule that money is not spent unless you have personally examined the item or if that is impossible you have had a reputable dealer do it for you, then and only then do you purchase. As I said I, like all experienced long term collectors, have been burned by a mistaken purchase at some time or other. It hurts but you learn from it and move on.

Buying an item that has collector value but which cannot be physically verified by the purchaser in the conditions which operate on Ebay seems sheer silliness to me. I’ve examined far too many examples of purported rare items that physically made a mockery of their somewhat flattering photographs. So as I said always check the item before you buy and if you can’t have someone you trust do it for you. As for items bearing painted markings and which are commanding high prices I’d either make sure that I was expert enough to know wartime paint from the modern variety or if not have someone who was do the checking. In fact if I was buying anything that relied on painted markings to give it its value that would be the first thing I checked.

.
The other 6 issues in the growing “log of claims” might take another 10 pages to debate, but it seems worth while bringing the issue down to the essential basis of the thread, regarding the Dornier 17 skin morphing into a 109 fin skin on ebay.

It would seem clear someone? has their “facts” incorrect? and that should be easily clarified one way or other before moving onto answering the other issues?

These are now serious allegations, made repeatedly over 5 pages, naming the individual publicly, and it is good to see Nick has chosen to answer his critics openly, it would seem easy to clarify who is mistaken in this situation?

>

Tangmere1940
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 918

E-Bay Dornier 17-P…thereby hangs a tail!

——————————————————————————–

In October 1939 the RAF shot down their first enemy aircraft over France – a Dornier 17-P downed by “Boy” Mould of 1 Squadron. The Dornier crashed at a little village called Toul and some years ago the wreckage was recovered after some detective work involving the late “Al” Brown. When it was recovered “Al” acquired and kept some of the wreckage – although at about the time he fell ill a number of items were disposed of. These items went to a militaria dealer on the South Coast and, again, changed hands until another dealer evidently placed them for sale on e-bay. Here the story takes an interesting turn.

The said items were bought by an e-bay seller who frequents this site. In fact, to be precise, he won them on 23 June 2008. Here, the story takes an even more interesting turn.

On 22 July 2008 the same e-bay seller who had won these Dornier 17-P items placed at least one of those items back for sale on e-bay….only this time the said Do 17-P item had now become part of an Me 109 E tailfin with an established Battle of Britain history.

Me-109E Reply to Andy Saunders

——————————————————————————–

I bought the Dornier items 4 or 5 years ago now and no the piece had no Swastika painted on it.

I sold these items last year and as far as I am concerned they left me in an original un tampered state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangmere1940
Reply to Nick Jones…….

[So….if you didn’t repaint the Dornier skin, who did? Unless I have misunderstood this, it came to you without the swastika section but when you tried to sell it the swastika section was there. Or have I got this totally wrong?

Tangermere/Andy has provided clear evidence of tampering with the Dornier item, and he and Galland26 seem able to clearly identify the ebay identity and the dates purchase and re-sales were made.

At the moment the only commonly agreed fact seems to be Nick sold it last year, and deny’s involvement in modifying it, that doesnt seem to preclude someone else buying it in June 2008 and re-selling it in July 2008?

The missing element seems to be clearly linking Nick to that ebay identity?

Tangmere/Andy, your first post was quite definite in its accusation, of the then unidentified ebay seller.

I assume your recent comment above about “misunderstanding” this, or “getting it totally wrong” is not your actual current view of the situation? and that those are only rhetorical comments?

The thread has now run for 5 pages and gathered many other accusations against Nick based on that first strong accusation?, I assume you are maintaining your accusation, and not so far intending to withdraw it?

As you are now naming Nick openly and directly, I assume you are confident of the links between him and the ebay identity who re-sold the modified material, surely the “e-bay identity” purchasing the parts in June 2008, and selling them in July 2008 can now also openly be named, and then clearly linked to Nick? for him to defend?

and

Nick – surely you can then simply confirm if that “e-bay identity” is you or not, and clarify if you did win them in June 2008 and attempted to sell it as a 109 tailfin in July 2008, and if not, confirm when and how the part did come into your possession, and then identify the “ebay identity” you did use to sell them last year? (obviously you should know the ebay identity and perhaps real identity? of the buyer you sold them to? if that person is responsible for modifying and re-selling them?)

Galland26 seems to be holding screen dumps of ebay evidence and emails relating to all of these June/July 2008 Ebay transactions in anycase? – can you confirm the “e-bay identity” associated with 109 tailfin sale in July 2008, and can you clearly associate that “ebay identity” with Nick?

Hopefully the clear facts can be tabled and agreed by all?, and the person who is mistaken (who ever that is?) can explain his position?

Certainly from whats now been presented above, I have to say I’m not able to confidently determine who is correct??, and that now risks casting a doubt over all concerned?? for those of us simply viewing this issue remotely? hardly the expected or desired position after 5 pages?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Must be fake Andy unless you recovered them:rolleyes:

Thank you, Nick.

Am I alone in hoping that your reply might have been, well, not so lightweight?

At least the dates from e-bay (posted above) might now give you something to get your teeth into, reply-wise. Heres hoping.

The Dates

I think you’ll find the dates came from here……. 😀