In my opinion Richard Dellar, a self-proclaimed expert on swords is nothing more than an over-opinionated collector who can not accept when he is wrong; I also contend evidence shows that Dellar is a maligned malicious cheat, fraud, bully and liar.
Update
Richard Deller's lawyer (Kate Freeman of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP London) tried to get this blog removed but failed; Google's Blogger Support ruled in my favour. What is really bad about Richard Deller's and Kate Freeman / Cameron McKenna's attempt is they claimed I had been served with a legal notice for defamation when I had not. What makes matters worse is they apparently sent their "notice" to and with it accused the wrong person! Wow, seems likely I am not the only one who has the exact same problems with Richard Deller. Further, even if I were that other person and / or had received their "notice", which I was kindly forwarded a copy of by Google after the fact, it appears Kate Freeman is not a defamation lawyer nor does Cameron McKenna practice defamation law, so maybe Kate and Richard have something else going on there! Anyway, this blog is not defamatory as it is truthful and clearly in the public's best interest. And Deller's and Cameron McKenna's acts do IMHO show how much of a pathetic bully with an untenable ego Richard really is.
So here then is my blog then about Richard Deller;
1) Having been a member of SFI ("Sword Forum International" or perhaps "Sword Fantasies and Incest"), I crossed swords with Richard Dellar (AKA Aquae Sulis - Latin for "Bath" the town in England) when he deemed he could be 100% sure about identifying a particular sword described in scant detail by a new member without first seeing a picture of it! From that moment on, Richard Dellar would criticise every post I made on SFI, so I quit what I see as a little boys forum.
2) Richard Dellar in one famous moment denied the existence of the French Model 1816 Cavalry Sabre; this from a man who describes himself as the font of knowledge regarding Napoleonic Swords & matters generally (OK, 1816 is the year after Napoleon was captured but it replaced the previous Napoleonic AN XIII, so Richard Dellar should have known it existed).
3) Richard Dellar actually does know quite a bit, but a) he deems it is his place as some self-appointed sabre god to tell people what they should think and even write, b) he does make mistakes (we all do) but he never, ever admits to them to the point he will drone on and on and on to convince others he was right in the first place; a process of suffocation. If you look at his writing style on SFI, I am confident you will see a man who has to be right, and therefore whose judgment has to be questioned. At the very least, you will probably see Richard Dellar as I do; a rude, over-bearing little Hitler of a man.
4) Richard Dellar told me he was a consultant to the RA; I contacted them and they denied any knowledge of him ("I think that you have sent your email to the Royal Academy of Arts in London by mistake. Might the RA be the Royal Artillary Museum")! Perhaps Dellar meant the Retentive Anals.
5) Richard Dellar boasts that he has contributed to several books, including Robson ("Sword of the British Army" by Brian Robson), although Robson seems unaware of this as I can find no mention of Dellar's name in that book's preface (where Robson thanks certain people). I have seen photos of some of Dellar's collection in "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Wales" (Richard H. Bezdek) but again Dellar is not mentioned on the thanks page which has a section for photo contributors. I can only assume therefor that Dellar had sent Robson and Bezdek photographs along with some of his same suffocating, pompous text as I have suffered, and that Robson and Bezdek felt in retrospect they owe him no thanks at all, which I can certainly understand.
6) Deller along with his bosom buddies claim that modified spear pointed French AN XI / XIII Cuirassier sabres could not have been at Waterloo, despite the fact the Musee de Centre General Gerard at Ligny in Belgium displays several which were taken from the battlefield, despite the fact so many exist in the UK and appear on the auction market regularly. Deller likewise claims the so-called Mark 3 or 1816 Pattern AN XIII scabbard could not have been at Waterloo in 1815 even though it is well known the French developed and introduced new models / patterns and then made them official a few years later, unlike the British. Again, M 1816 scabbards (probably made in late 1814, early 1815 when it is believed the French started spear pointing their AN XIII sabres according to real experts) are found in Waterloo museums and frequently with the large number swords found in Great Britain. Confusing the inspection marks on scabbards of two totally different inspectors, Deller has wrongly stated as fact that all the AN XIII's in Britain with spear points and Mark 3 scabbards were bought after the swords were decommissioned many years after Waterloo; I say "What a jerk!". For further reading see: French AN XIII Cuirassier Sabres
7) Richard Dellar trades in what I consider to be tacky little items on eBay using the seller name aquae_sulian, for example silver Nike trainers with pink laces! Yes, you've got it, the picture I show in "About Me (About Sharp Things)" area is what we are talking about here; hmmmmmmmmmmmm!. The thing is and why I expose Richard Deller's actual commercial activity is that he has been accusing me of being a "peddler of low end of market rubbish, out to make a quick buck". Funny, there I am selling Household Cavalry and Napoleonic swords on eBay while Richard Dellar sells apparently gay friendly trainers while accusing me of selling tack; Freud!
8) Dellar also uses other eBay accounts (against eBay's terms and conditions), one being j_j_runkel. Why does Richard Dellar have more than one eBay account? Quite likely so he can "schill" bid up his own items for sale (as an eBay seller, it is often easy to see when someone has bid much more as a maximum and schilling is where the seller uses foul means, another account they control, to get the buyer to pay more by the seller bidding on their their own item) and / or email hate to other sellers anonymously, as I experienced. I know this about Richard Dellar as he contacted me anonymously as j_j_runkel, and then when I replied, he made the almighty gaff of replying back to me as aquae_sulian and then confirming his identity to me when I said "I recognize that writing style [sic]"; ooops Richard!
I do not think Richard should call himself "aquae sulian" (person from Bath) but "Unda in caput capitis" (water on the head / brain). I consider he is a nasty, over-bearing, jealous, falsehood purveying cheat of a man, and he can kiss my Brighthelmstone backside! I think I would rather be stuck in a tropical city elevator with someone who suffers from aggravated bowel syndrome, who had just eaten a bean and cabbage curry, during a black out than have to listen to Richard Dellar.
The above is my sole opinion, unless as where stated as fact. Kate Freeman (Cameron McKenna London) and Richard Deller; go choke on my human and civil rights; shame on you and your falsehood purveying bully boy / girl tactics. All Richard Deller had and has to do to get this blog removed is to apologize for being such a bully on SFI and for operating multiple eBay accounts for fraudulent gain, promising to never do such things again. Plus to stop insisting he is right about everything, especially about AN XI / XIII sabres.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Sworders / Olivers Auctions, a warning
On the 18th November 2008, Sworders (incorporating Olivers) held an auction of militaria items which I believe shows people are foolish to sell and / or buy through them.
First, at least 6 of their British army pattern swords were falsely described; Sworders got the patterns / models wrong. This is pretty rudimentary stuff given there are so many reference books on the subject and that their militaria expert John Foster is meant to have 10 years experience under his belt! This is something an auction house which claims to be a specialist in militaria really should not get wrong, especially 6 times in one auction!
Second, a friend of mine attended their viewing day and raised the spectre that the vast majority of their "Scottish basket hilted" swords were reproductions, which I had my suspicions about already as the high estimate items had brass hilts (very unusual) with unusual blades, while their standard pattern basket hilt looked like a well known reproduction, with no maker's mark and seemingly poor etching. When I asked for a detailed image of the brass proof "slug" (suspecting it would be "T." or "P." which are well known fakes with the "." when there should not be one), I did not get it.
Third, the French heavy cavalry sword they were selling was one I recognized to be a reproduction, so I told them this and their "expert" Tony Cribb said he knew this (I have the email to prove it) but they did not have the time to amend the listing to include "(repro)"; what a lot of time that must take and how nice he admitted Sworders / Olivers were selling forgeries as authentic swords.
Forth, of the only genuine looking Scottish basket hilts they were selling, Sworder's Tony Cribb emailed me to say it had a Sudanese Kaskara blade in it when I said I wanted some more photos. Now, even if Sworder's sword expert was right, why did they not declare this in the auction description? Yet more bad practice perhaps even fraud I say. But the thing is, I do not believe the blade was from a kaskara, I believe the groove patterns showed it to be either a Spanish or Scottish made blade, circa 1700. I suspect the sword was actually a late variant of the 1798 pattern introduced by the British for Scottish infantry officers, where an officer had adopted the regulation hilt but had his family blade mounted into it, which did happen. Kaskara blades also have three groves like Scottish / Spanish (who supplied many blades to the Scots at that time) blades, but Kaskara grooves are different, and their blades do not have ricasso's / fortes. But Tony Cribb refused to let me have the images I wanted in order to be able to bid high (way above their estimate), perhaps he hated to be proven wrong, even when proving him wrong would have been good for the auction house and more importantly the seller of that sword.
Finally, Sworders refused to accept any of my bids because I asked them to guarantee I would not be charged storage fees if I paid quickly and told Mail Boxes Etc to collect the items as soon as possible, plus I wanted 24 hours from the time I received any swords I bought from them to verify everything was correct (no reproductions). You see, Sworders have some very aggressive terms and conditions!
First they only give you 3 days to collect your items after auction before they start charging you storage! Now, given people like me who live overseas and bid by email are reliant on a) the auction house notifying us promptly, b) the auction house advising us promptly that payment had been processed and c) for the shipping company to come and collect the items ASAP, you can understand 3 days is not enough, through no fault of our (overseas / absentee commission bidders) own. So Sworders seem out to make a dishonest buck from so called storage fees which only benefit them, not the buyers or sellers.
Second, Sworders only give you 10 days from the auction date to return any forgeries! Trouble is, I and others like me are not likely even to receive the goods in 10 days (allowing 2 days to receive the invoice and pay, 3 days for the shipping company to collect, 2 days for the shipping company to pack, and 5 days for the items to get to me), let alone get the items back to Sworders.
Now, as Sworders accept absentee commission bids from overseas buyers, it seems clear their terms and conditions are both unfair and possibly a way of extorting more profit out of auction sales (likely to be unlawful too under Britain's unfair contract legislation).
I asked Sworders to accept my bids on the basis I would pay and get the items collected ASAP (I said I would do what I needed within 24 hours but could not be held to account for the delays by others) and that I would be given 24 hours from the time I received the items to determine if anything was a forgery; they simply ignored me.
I am upset mainly over the Scottish broadsword they said had a Sudanese blade in! I am sorry I did not get to buy it and I am very sorry for the poor seller who I believe Sworders let down so badly. It was not just the poor description, but the fact they refused to provide photographs to allow me to authenticate it, and the fact they refused to take any bid from me. If the sword was what I think it was, I would have bid £1000 GBP for it. I actually put forward a bid of £425 GBP for it anyway, which Sworders did not register; Sworders sold it for £200 GBP, so the seller who entrusted them got under half what they probably would and perhaps a fifth of what they possibly could if Sworders staff did not exhibit, I say, such bad attitudes. I also would have won 3 other swords at their auction if they had registered my bids, so this was not the only seller which Sworders did an appalling job for in my honest opinion.
I believe Sworders incorporating Olivers are a joke and a very bad one; because of their terms and conditions I also consider they are pissibly "thieves" with the professionalism of east end market stall holders. I would never sell or buy through them or recommend anyone else to do so either if asked.
First, at least 6 of their British army pattern swords were falsely described; Sworders got the patterns / models wrong. This is pretty rudimentary stuff given there are so many reference books on the subject and that their militaria expert John Foster is meant to have 10 years experience under his belt! This is something an auction house which claims to be a specialist in militaria really should not get wrong, especially 6 times in one auction!
Second, a friend of mine attended their viewing day and raised the spectre that the vast majority of their "Scottish basket hilted" swords were reproductions, which I had my suspicions about already as the high estimate items had brass hilts (very unusual) with unusual blades, while their standard pattern basket hilt looked like a well known reproduction, with no maker's mark and seemingly poor etching. When I asked for a detailed image of the brass proof "slug" (suspecting it would be "T." or "P." which are well known fakes with the "." when there should not be one), I did not get it.
Third, the French heavy cavalry sword they were selling was one I recognized to be a reproduction, so I told them this and their "expert" Tony Cribb said he knew this (I have the email to prove it) but they did not have the time to amend the listing to include "(repro)"; what a lot of time that must take and how nice he admitted Sworders / Olivers were selling forgeries as authentic swords.
Forth, of the only genuine looking Scottish basket hilts they were selling, Sworder's Tony Cribb emailed me to say it had a Sudanese Kaskara blade in it when I said I wanted some more photos. Now, even if Sworder's sword expert was right, why did they not declare this in the auction description? Yet more bad practice perhaps even fraud I say. But the thing is, I do not believe the blade was from a kaskara, I believe the groove patterns showed it to be either a Spanish or Scottish made blade, circa 1700. I suspect the sword was actually a late variant of the 1798 pattern introduced by the British for Scottish infantry officers, where an officer had adopted the regulation hilt but had his family blade mounted into it, which did happen. Kaskara blades also have three groves like Scottish / Spanish (who supplied many blades to the Scots at that time) blades, but Kaskara grooves are different, and their blades do not have ricasso's / fortes. But Tony Cribb refused to let me have the images I wanted in order to be able to bid high (way above their estimate), perhaps he hated to be proven wrong, even when proving him wrong would have been good for the auction house and more importantly the seller of that sword.
Finally, Sworders refused to accept any of my bids because I asked them to guarantee I would not be charged storage fees if I paid quickly and told Mail Boxes Etc to collect the items as soon as possible, plus I wanted 24 hours from the time I received any swords I bought from them to verify everything was correct (no reproductions). You see, Sworders have some very aggressive terms and conditions!
First they only give you 3 days to collect your items after auction before they start charging you storage! Now, given people like me who live overseas and bid by email are reliant on a) the auction house notifying us promptly, b) the auction house advising us promptly that payment had been processed and c) for the shipping company to come and collect the items ASAP, you can understand 3 days is not enough, through no fault of our (overseas / absentee commission bidders) own. So Sworders seem out to make a dishonest buck from so called storage fees which only benefit them, not the buyers or sellers.
Second, Sworders only give you 10 days from the auction date to return any forgeries! Trouble is, I and others like me are not likely even to receive the goods in 10 days (allowing 2 days to receive the invoice and pay, 3 days for the shipping company to collect, 2 days for the shipping company to pack, and 5 days for the items to get to me), let alone get the items back to Sworders.
Now, as Sworders accept absentee commission bids from overseas buyers, it seems clear their terms and conditions are both unfair and possibly a way of extorting more profit out of auction sales (likely to be unlawful too under Britain's unfair contract legislation).
I asked Sworders to accept my bids on the basis I would pay and get the items collected ASAP (I said I would do what I needed within 24 hours but could not be held to account for the delays by others) and that I would be given 24 hours from the time I received the items to determine if anything was a forgery; they simply ignored me.
I am upset mainly over the Scottish broadsword they said had a Sudanese blade in! I am sorry I did not get to buy it and I am very sorry for the poor seller who I believe Sworders let down so badly. It was not just the poor description, but the fact they refused to provide photographs to allow me to authenticate it, and the fact they refused to take any bid from me. If the sword was what I think it was, I would have bid £1000 GBP for it. I actually put forward a bid of £425 GBP for it anyway, which Sworders did not register; Sworders sold it for £200 GBP, so the seller who entrusted them got under half what they probably would and perhaps a fifth of what they possibly could if Sworders staff did not exhibit, I say, such bad attitudes. I also would have won 3 other swords at their auction if they had registered my bids, so this was not the only seller which Sworders did an appalling job for in my honest opinion.
I believe Sworders incorporating Olivers are a joke and a very bad one; because of their terms and conditions I also consider they are pissibly "thieves" with the professionalism of east end market stall holders. I would never sell or buy through them or recommend anyone else to do so either if asked.
Anglian Swords Fraud on eBay
Previously, I have stated my views of Harvey Withers of Anglian Swords and raised the prospect Harvey is a con man, selling repros as authentic.
Now I know him to be a fraudster.
In November 2008, Harvey Withers listed a sword on eBay (item number 300274305044) with the description "Superb Orig. French Napoleonic Heavy Cuirassier's Sword", when it was not. First, the inspection marks dated the sword from May 1815 to September 1816; Waterloo was mid-June 1815, so the sword (if genuine) was more likely to be post-Napoleonic than Napoleonic. Second, the scabbard was clearly a mark 3, dating it to 1816. Of course I let Harvey Withers of Anglian Swords know about this, offering to substantiate what I said if required by him, but he declined to reply or change his listing to reflect this.
But it gets worse; Harvey's sword was not just be falsely described, it was a repro! The grip looked very reproduction and the inspection marks to the blade looked forged, the wrong font, bad quality; the later having been partially "wiped" (erased) in an apparent atempt to make them look more authentic. What is more the stamps to the hilt were also of the wrong format and font, plus the name "VERSAILLE" was stamped on the wrong part of the hilt. Finally, the junction of the hilt's bars to the pommel was wrong; his sword had a known repro's junction "style". When I asked Harvey Wither of Anglian Swords about the spine of the blade and any signatures which would help authenticate it or not, he did not reply! When I submitted the information to him again with the offer to substantiate what I said as fact, then asked him to correct his auction, he declined.
Harvey / Anglian Swords then went about it again, with yet another French Sword (item number 300274535505). I happened to be conversing with Michel Petard, the famous French sword reference book author at the time and he pointed out Harvey's latest French sword had undeclared damage and a different blade than it should have. Of course I let Harvey / Anglian Swords know and copied Michel Petard's text about this to him, but what did Harvey Withers do? Why, of course, despite the fact the world's leading expert on French swords has made a statement on his eBay sword, Harvey did absolutely nothing.
I have no doubt in my mind that Harvey Withers / Anglian Swords deliberately sells reproduction swords as genuine / authentic swords; that Harvey is a fraudster.
I have kept a copy of his auction and my emails to him, which I can not show here because of eBay's copyright, but am happy to provide if required.
Now I know him to be a fraudster.
In November 2008, Harvey Withers listed a sword on eBay (item number 300274305044) with the description "Superb Orig. French Napoleonic Heavy Cuirassier's Sword", when it was not. First, the inspection marks dated the sword from May 1815 to September 1816; Waterloo was mid-June 1815, so the sword (if genuine) was more likely to be post-Napoleonic than Napoleonic. Second, the scabbard was clearly a mark 3, dating it to 1816. Of course I let Harvey Withers of Anglian Swords know about this, offering to substantiate what I said if required by him, but he declined to reply or change his listing to reflect this.
But it gets worse; Harvey's sword was not just be falsely described, it was a repro! The grip looked very reproduction and the inspection marks to the blade looked forged, the wrong font, bad quality; the later having been partially "wiped" (erased) in an apparent atempt to make them look more authentic. What is more the stamps to the hilt were also of the wrong format and font, plus the name "VERSAILLE" was stamped on the wrong part of the hilt. Finally, the junction of the hilt's bars to the pommel was wrong; his sword had a known repro's junction "style". When I asked Harvey Wither of Anglian Swords about the spine of the blade and any signatures which would help authenticate it or not, he did not reply! When I submitted the information to him again with the offer to substantiate what I said as fact, then asked him to correct his auction, he declined.
Harvey / Anglian Swords then went about it again, with yet another French Sword (item number 300274535505). I happened to be conversing with Michel Petard, the famous French sword reference book author at the time and he pointed out Harvey's latest French sword had undeclared damage and a different blade than it should have. Of course I let Harvey / Anglian Swords know and copied Michel Petard's text about this to him, but what did Harvey Withers do? Why, of course, despite the fact the world's leading expert on French swords has made a statement on his eBay sword, Harvey did absolutely nothing.
I have no doubt in my mind that Harvey Withers / Anglian Swords deliberately sells reproduction swords as genuine / authentic swords; that Harvey is a fraudster.
I have kept a copy of his auction and my emails to him, which I can not show here because of eBay's copyright, but am happy to provide if required.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Alban Shipping, crooks of the auction house trade?
I once bought a small antique naval officer's dirk (dagger) at Fellows Auctions in Birmingham via email and they recommended me to get Luton based Alban Shipping to collect, pack and ship the item to me; Alban Shipping did virtually all of Fellows work.
When I contacted Alban Shipping they said they would collect the item the following week along with other items. I have dealt with a number of shipping companies, mostly Mali Boxes Etc. with other auction houses and it was always the case of a free collection unless stated, and then no more than £10. Alban Shipping told me they would collect the item and then give me a price. Generally speaking Mail Boxes Etc and others charge around £15.00 to pack a full sized sword, so I was expecting less for a dagger, especially as Alban were so slow. The cost of sending a sword to where I live costs around £40.00 normally, so I was epxecting that to be lower too. Insurance is normally optional at around 2% of the item value; in my dirk's case this would equate to about £3.00
When Alban finally got back to me they wanted £65.00 for collection, £35.00 for packing, £55.00 for shipping and £10.00 for mandatory insurance! A total of £165.00 for what should have been about £60.00 top. So I said no, so I said I would arrange for someone to collect the dirk from Alban. Alban Shipping's director Andrew and manager Mary May then got nasty with me, saying the dirk could not be collected unless I paid the £65.00 collection fee. I answered that as they had not advised me of a collection fee, they had no moral or legal right to charge me one now. They made it quite clear unless I paid this, the dirk would not be released. Living outside the UK, I was basically being blackmailed into using them, but I battled on threatening legal action.
Alban Shipping then offered me a deal where I paid them a reduce amount if I arranged and paid for a carrier to collect it myself, which I did. Then Alban Shipping promptly unpacked my dirk after I had made the deal and arranged / paid for ParcelForce to collect it; Alban did this knowing ParcelForce will only collect packed items, so they well and truly turned me over. In the end I had to pay Alban everything except the insurance fee in order to get my dirk.
However, that was not the end, oh no. Alban Shipping then went and over-charged my debit card; I did not know but there is less recourse when you use a debit card and you have to claim the money back via your bank if the merchant refuses to refund. Of course, Alban Shipping refused to refund the over-charge, so I had to write to my bank Barclays. I actually managed to get all of my money back in the end (I have the letter from Barclays to prove it), but only because I went through the long process and had to wait for my money to be refunded.
I say Alban Shipping are malicious, dirty, cheating, defrauding low-lifes and anyone who deals with them on a one-off basis (I am sure they suck up to their regular customers) are best advised to count their fingers.
When I contacted Alban Shipping they said they would collect the item the following week along with other items. I have dealt with a number of shipping companies, mostly Mali Boxes Etc. with other auction houses and it was always the case of a free collection unless stated, and then no more than £10. Alban Shipping told me they would collect the item and then give me a price. Generally speaking Mail Boxes Etc and others charge around £15.00 to pack a full sized sword, so I was expecting less for a dagger, especially as Alban were so slow. The cost of sending a sword to where I live costs around £40.00 normally, so I was epxecting that to be lower too. Insurance is normally optional at around 2% of the item value; in my dirk's case this would equate to about £3.00
When Alban finally got back to me they wanted £65.00 for collection, £35.00 for packing, £55.00 for shipping and £10.00 for mandatory insurance! A total of £165.00 for what should have been about £60.00 top. So I said no, so I said I would arrange for someone to collect the dirk from Alban. Alban Shipping's director Andrew and manager Mary May then got nasty with me, saying the dirk could not be collected unless I paid the £65.00 collection fee. I answered that as they had not advised me of a collection fee, they had no moral or legal right to charge me one now. They made it quite clear unless I paid this, the dirk would not be released. Living outside the UK, I was basically being blackmailed into using them, but I battled on threatening legal action.
Alban Shipping then offered me a deal where I paid them a reduce amount if I arranged and paid for a carrier to collect it myself, which I did. Then Alban Shipping promptly unpacked my dirk after I had made the deal and arranged / paid for ParcelForce to collect it; Alban did this knowing ParcelForce will only collect packed items, so they well and truly turned me over. In the end I had to pay Alban everything except the insurance fee in order to get my dirk.
However, that was not the end, oh no. Alban Shipping then went and over-charged my debit card; I did not know but there is less recourse when you use a debit card and you have to claim the money back via your bank if the merchant refuses to refund. Of course, Alban Shipping refused to refund the over-charge, so I had to write to my bank Barclays. I actually managed to get all of my money back in the end (I have the letter from Barclays to prove it), but only because I went through the long process and had to wait for my money to be refunded.
I say Alban Shipping are malicious, dirty, cheating, defrauding low-lifes and anyone who deals with them on a one-off basis (I am sure they suck up to their regular customers) are best advised to count their fingers.
SFI (Sword Forum International or Sword Fantasies & Incest)
Looking to get your sword identified? I say "Best avoid SFI".
Beware of Sword Forum International; Although many of the members are non-affiliated and helpful, many more are grouped in little "Do not argue with us" gangs and most are out to make a buck off unsuspecting sword owners who go there for identifications.
I have proof, a screen grab of an internal SFI email between one of their "respected" members, one Ian Knight of Brighton, AKA swords_of_honour (yeh right - Ian Knight sells Indian swords as English), and someone I had a business arrangement with (a partnership to buy some French swords). This respected SFI member used the Sword Forum International mail system to approach this business partner of mine to try and get them to renage on our agreement, claiming I was not ethical! Claiming I had a bad reputation on SFI (I was not one of the little gang and I did my best to help others unselfishly).
What most of the members of the antqiues section of SFI do is a) down play a particular sword on the public forums and then b) make a "generous" offer to the poor unsuspecting sword owner abusing SFI's email system. When you catch the little buggers out and provide a screen shot of their email to prove it, what do they say? Why, they say "The internal emails are private and copyrighted, so you should not be doing this! A bit like religions, which is what these jokers think they are, where the BS pundits say you can not ask where God came from because that is not allowed, then go to say they are acting in God's name and doing nothing wrong. Mark McMorrow, the un-god like owner of Sword Fantasies & Incest dodges all of this by hiding his email addresses and not replying when you find them, like a common thief is prone to doing when faced with the facts!
Beware of Sword Forum International; Although many of the members are non-affiliated and helpful, many more are grouped in little "Do not argue with us" gangs and most are out to make a buck off unsuspecting sword owners who go there for identifications.
I have proof, a screen grab of an internal SFI email between one of their "respected" members, one Ian Knight of Brighton, AKA swords_of_honour (yeh right - Ian Knight sells Indian swords as English), and someone I had a business arrangement with (a partnership to buy some French swords). This respected SFI member used the Sword Forum International mail system to approach this business partner of mine to try and get them to renage on our agreement, claiming I was not ethical! Claiming I had a bad reputation on SFI (I was not one of the little gang and I did my best to help others unselfishly).
What most of the members of the antqiues section of SFI do is a) down play a particular sword on the public forums and then b) make a "generous" offer to the poor unsuspecting sword owner abusing SFI's email system. When you catch the little buggers out and provide a screen shot of their email to prove it, what do they say? Why, they say "The internal emails are private and copyrighted, so you should not be doing this! A bit like religions, which is what these jokers think they are, where the BS pundits say you can not ask where God came from because that is not allowed, then go to say they are acting in God's name and doing nothing wrong. Mark McMorrow, the un-god like owner of Sword Fantasies & Incest dodges all of this by hiding his email addresses and not replying when you find them, like a common thief is prone to doing when faced with the facts!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Harvey Withers (Anglian / British Military Swords)
Harvey Withers, nothing but an obsessive, nasty, cheating sword salesman? Author of "British Military Swords" with his own web site by the same name and on eBay as "Anglian Swords", selling edged weapons from around the world, Harvey J. S. Withers clearly needs to make a buck from swords, which is not a bad thing, but I believe this puts his status of expert in question. Other sword experts and published sword reference book authors such as Robert Wilkinson-Latham and Michel Petard for example, do not sell swords. I believe there is a conflict of interest in Harvey Withers being on the one hand a self-professed sword reference book author, and on the other hand actually selling swords. What makes matters worse is I was ripped off by Harvey Withers (early on in my collecting) plus I have caught Mr. British Military Swords selling reproductions as genuine on eBay; even when I submitted the facts to him, he just let his auctions continue anyway. Withers is, in my sword book, a fraud and a cheat.
Update: Harvey Withers gets it wrong, and wrong, again!
Wrong again Harvey!
And Again!
And Again!
And Again!
Honest seller? Expert?
Harvey complains about this blog; he now has his own complaint blog! The thing is, I substantiate my gripes with you Mr. Withers. And, I have given you every chance to resolve the issues of your getting sword identifications wrong and selling somewhat dogdy swords at times. Rather than moan and groan and claim I am publishing defamations (falsehoods) about you, put things right. If you want, choose a neutral public / transparent forum and we can discuss the issues!
I actually bought several swords from Harvey Withers when I first started acquiring my collection in 2004; in retrospect this was a bad move. Not only do I feel I got bad value generally, based on paying more for swords coming from someone with such perceived standing (when I sold them on, they sold for a lot less), but I also believe I was cheated by Mr. Withers. You see, amongst the swords I bought from him was an 1828 Pattern Basket hilted Scottish highland officer's broadsword. I did not have the knowledge at the time I received this sword, but 3 years later when I came to sell it on (because I had a better replacement), I noticed the proof slug had been gouged with a screwdriver. When I confronted Harvey with this fact, he never denied it but did not justify it nor offer any appeasement / apology.
Why would this sword have it's copper proof slug gouged and more importantly, why didn't Harvey Withers disclose this? One of the most likely reasons, given the sword in question was not maker marked, was that a well known reproduction of the time gave itself away with a proof slug containing the letter "P" crucially followed by a period / full stop; like this "P.". It seems genuine swords were made with a "P" proof mark letter but only later Indian made reproductions were marked "P." These Indian made repros were exceptionally convincing, but they are not authentic Scottish basket hilts of course. So if you were to sell a reproduction highland broadsword as genuine, what you would need to do to is remove the "P." evidence! Hmmmmmm.
Harvey Withers still claims this sword is genuine but does not address the gouged proof slug or why he did not disclose it, although he clearly remembers the fact. Whether this is a genuine 1828 P or not, you can not escape from the facts that when I sold it on, I disclosed the gouged proof slug, when Mr. Withers sold this sword to me, he did not. Given there are no maker marks on this sword, given the event of reproduction swords, any sword expert will tell you the proof slug against this backcloth suddenly becomes very important indeed. Harvey knew of the repros as he published this in his book "British Military Swords, 1786 - 1912 the regulation patterns", yet he sold this sword in the above condition to a then naive collector. At the very least, the non-disclosure aspect was not a very nice thing to do, was it? But there is more that draws H. J. S. Withers "good" name into question.
What prompted me a few years on into raising the issue of the above basket hilt with Mr. Withers was another sword he was selling on eBay, a Model 1840 US Cavalry Sword stamped simply "GA" to shoe drag of the scabbard and ricasso of the blade. Harvey described this sword as an American Civil War sword, but I don't believe it likely is / was; I think it more likely is a repro. You see, I wondered how this sword was in such good condition (given all the others I had seen) and had so few markings. Although the M 1840 was imported in many cases, these normally would have maker and inspector marks on them; critically on the pommel. Harvey's sword had none of these and yet he was selling the sword, which likely had never been in the USA, as an American Civil War sword. Harvey Withers was quick to apply his vast knowledge to his defense saying that indeed a number of imported swords did not have many or in some cases any markings, but still, these were in the minority it seems and does not bode well when you consider Harvey's sword was in the UK and looked, well, quite new. At the very least you would expect Harvey Withers to concede the sword could be a repro, but Harvey would not do that, oh no. Instead he started hurling insults my way including accusing me of being a weirdo; shame he does not look at his own photo on his own book I say!
Since that time Harvey Withers has listed a number of items on eBay as authentic which I am certain were reproductions, such as a "Russian Shaska" he once tried to sell. In the case of the shaska it had western not Cyrillic letters and badly marked to the sword, plus one too many hanging rings; a well known flaw with most repros. I admit we all can get caught out but when you, or Harvey in this case, are presented with the facts by reference to respected books on the subject, if you have any decency you bite the bullet and remove the item from sale right? Not Harvey Withers though, oh no; he kept on selling a reproduction as authentic even after the facts were put to him.
Even if Harvey Withers sells a genuine authentic sword 100% accurately and fully described, it seems he gets more for it as "an expert" than other sellers might, and yet this perceived extra value of buying from British Military Swords is I say unjustified, and even risky. I bought from Harvey because I thought I would be getting something better, instead I got something worse, even fraudulent. Maybe Harvey Withers is right, maybe the 1828 P he sold me is genuine, but it does not change the fact he did not disclose the gouged proof slug to me nor explain why it was gouged in the first place, huh Mr. Withers?!
Harvey now emails me with threats and insults, claiming I have libeled him yet not explaining how (libel = written falsehoods without public value), plus calling me a sad little man with mental health problems. Perhaps therefore you would be intrigued to know that Harvey has researched my past life and even my future plans to buy houses in various countries. I do not give a toss where Harvey lives, wants to live and what his past is yet I am the one with mental health problems and somehow little? So, if I am so little Harvey, why do such a thorough job of researching me? I say it is you with the screw loose and a stature problem pal!
Harvey keeps on threatening legal action for my words yet I receive nothing from his apparently imaginary lawyer. His threats are strange though as all Harvey Withers has to do is apologize for selling me a fake at worse, a damaged and highly devalued sword at best (recompensing me what I subsequently lost on that sword would also be nice), plus stop selling repro swords as authentic; surely, not too much to ask is it Mr. Withers?
Update: Harvey Withers gets it wrong, and wrong, again!
Wrong again Harvey!
And Again!
And Again!
And Again!
Honest seller? Expert?
Harvey complains about this blog; he now has his own complaint blog! The thing is, I substantiate my gripes with you Mr. Withers. And, I have given you every chance to resolve the issues of your getting sword identifications wrong and selling somewhat dogdy swords at times. Rather than moan and groan and claim I am publishing defamations (falsehoods) about you, put things right. If you want, choose a neutral public / transparent forum and we can discuss the issues!
I actually bought several swords from Harvey Withers when I first started acquiring my collection in 2004; in retrospect this was a bad move. Not only do I feel I got bad value generally, based on paying more for swords coming from someone with such perceived standing (when I sold them on, they sold for a lot less), but I also believe I was cheated by Mr. Withers. You see, amongst the swords I bought from him was an 1828 Pattern Basket hilted Scottish highland officer's broadsword. I did not have the knowledge at the time I received this sword, but 3 years later when I came to sell it on (because I had a better replacement), I noticed the proof slug had been gouged with a screwdriver. When I confronted Harvey with this fact, he never denied it but did not justify it nor offer any appeasement / apology.Why would this sword have it's copper proof slug gouged and more importantly, why didn't Harvey Withers disclose this? One of the most likely reasons, given the sword in question was not maker marked, was that a well known reproduction of the time gave itself away with a proof slug containing the letter "P" crucially followed by a period / full stop; like this "P.". It seems genuine swords were made with a "P" proof mark letter but only later Indian made reproductions were marked "P." These Indian made repros were exceptionally convincing, but they are not authentic Scottish basket hilts of course. So if you were to sell a reproduction highland broadsword as genuine, what you would need to do to is remove the "P." evidence! Hmmmmmm.
Harvey Withers still claims this sword is genuine but does not address the gouged proof slug or why he did not disclose it, although he clearly remembers the fact. Whether this is a genuine 1828 P or not, you can not escape from the facts that when I sold it on, I disclosed the gouged proof slug, when Mr. Withers sold this sword to me, he did not. Given there are no maker marks on this sword, given the event of reproduction swords, any sword expert will tell you the proof slug against this backcloth suddenly becomes very important indeed. Harvey knew of the repros as he published this in his book "British Military Swords, 1786 - 1912 the regulation patterns", yet he sold this sword in the above condition to a then naive collector. At the very least, the non-disclosure aspect was not a very nice thing to do, was it? But there is more that draws H. J. S. Withers "good" name into question.
What prompted me a few years on into raising the issue of the above basket hilt with Mr. Withers was another sword he was selling on eBay, a Model 1840 US Cavalry Sword stamped simply "GA" to shoe drag of the scabbard and ricasso of the blade. Harvey described this sword as an American Civil War sword, but I don't believe it likely is / was; I think it more likely is a repro. You see, I wondered how this sword was in such good condition (given all the others I had seen) and had so few markings. Although the M 1840 was imported in many cases, these normally would have maker and inspector marks on them; critically on the pommel. Harvey's sword had none of these and yet he was selling the sword, which likely had never been in the USA, as an American Civil War sword. Harvey Withers was quick to apply his vast knowledge to his defense saying that indeed a number of imported swords did not have many or in some cases any markings, but still, these were in the minority it seems and does not bode well when you consider Harvey's sword was in the UK and looked, well, quite new. At the very least you would expect Harvey Withers to concede the sword could be a repro, but Harvey would not do that, oh no. Instead he started hurling insults my way including accusing me of being a weirdo; shame he does not look at his own photo on his own book I say!
Since that time Harvey Withers has listed a number of items on eBay as authentic which I am certain were reproductions, such as a "Russian Shaska" he once tried to sell. In the case of the shaska it had western not Cyrillic letters and badly marked to the sword, plus one too many hanging rings; a well known flaw with most repros. I admit we all can get caught out but when you, or Harvey in this case, are presented with the facts by reference to respected books on the subject, if you have any decency you bite the bullet and remove the item from sale right? Not Harvey Withers though, oh no; he kept on selling a reproduction as authentic even after the facts were put to him.
Even if Harvey Withers sells a genuine authentic sword 100% accurately and fully described, it seems he gets more for it as "an expert" than other sellers might, and yet this perceived extra value of buying from British Military Swords is I say unjustified, and even risky. I bought from Harvey because I thought I would be getting something better, instead I got something worse, even fraudulent. Maybe Harvey Withers is right, maybe the 1828 P he sold me is genuine, but it does not change the fact he did not disclose the gouged proof slug to me nor explain why it was gouged in the first place, huh Mr. Withers?!
Harvey now emails me with threats and insults, claiming I have libeled him yet not explaining how (libel = written falsehoods without public value), plus calling me a sad little man with mental health problems. Perhaps therefore you would be intrigued to know that Harvey has researched my past life and even my future plans to buy houses in various countries. I do not give a toss where Harvey lives, wants to live and what his past is yet I am the one with mental health problems and somehow little? So, if I am so little Harvey, why do such a thorough job of researching me? I say it is you with the screw loose and a stature problem pal!
Harvey keeps on threatening legal action for my words yet I receive nothing from his apparently imaginary lawyer. His threats are strange though as all Harvey Withers has to do is apologize for selling me a fake at worse, a damaged and highly devalued sword at best (recompensing me what I subsequently lost on that sword would also be nice), plus stop selling repro swords as authentic; surely, not too much to ask is it Mr. Withers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)