Jump to content

Please tell me no one on here is bidding on this! 9thaausmc


Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

I may have been hosed on one of these jackets but there really is a guy by that name.

 

Just curious, did you get hosed on the other six jackets that have been discussed here also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reminder to all that in any type of collecting, things will undergo peer review and often times will fail the review, for reasons that can vary from innocent mistake to outright fraud.

 

Seems this particular case it is the latter vs innocent mistake. What a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I will accept returns if you find the description is materially wrong.”

 

This is the statement that the seller has on his auctions, so I guess enough people found issues that were "materialy wrong" with the Admirals uniform that he pulled it..

 

I didn't have a dog in this fight until I started looking at some of the other uniforms this person has for sale.

 

I have serious doubts about the 17th Airborne 1st Lieutenants uniform. The ribbons are obviously new, plus the fact that he has an enlisted Army good conduct on an Officer’s uniform. Now of course this “Officer” could have been prior enlisted and received a battlefield commission, but I doubt it. Again it may be me being picky but I raise an eyebrow to things that just obviously look out of place. That’s only the first uniform I find flaws with that I would question, and that I find "Materially wrong"

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/WW-2-US-Army-1st-Lt-17...=item3a62c2ee80

 

 

The next uniform I have to question is the “First Sergeant’s Ike jacket with service in the Pacific. I would think that there would be some service hash marks on at least one or two of these uniforms, but they all seem to have just combat service hash marks.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/WW-2-US-Army-1st-Sgt-I...=item3a62cb277b

 

I firmly understand that in a perfect world all of our questions would be answered with proper documentation, provenance, proof, etc, but we all realize that this is next to imposible, so we rely on our research skills, and the help of others on this forum to question the authenticity, prior to spending hard earned cash.

 

Maybe I’m just very picky about the uniforms that I purchase, but seeing all the junk I see nowadays, I have become more of a pessimist than an optimist, and I seriously question a lot of what I see, especially on Ebay. I would rather be a scrooge with my money, than to feed my money to someone who is lacking moral fibers and is looking to make a fast buck on someone.

 

Leigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

collector-5957
I wonder how long before people complain to ebay that being able to see things they have bought in the past is restricting their trade....

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, this has sure turned into an interesting and lively debate....very educational and spirited at the same time!

 

I have no dog in this fight, and as a helmet guy, I know very little about the finer points and details around uniform collecting and medal and patch placement. I do own quite a few uniforms but they came with irrefutable provenance and background.

 

What I do know about is fraud, false pretences, counterfeit goods and currency as that is my job, investigating these very issues on a daily basis. I only wish my cases were as interesting as investigating faked military collectibles and goods, but my files usually centre around mail order fraud, debit card and credit card fraud and indentity theft. Kinda boring, but the point I am trying to make is that the selling of items that are clearly faked or altered and/or misrepresented, is still fraud.

 

As one member stated, omitting facts or claiming ignorance is not a defence to this practice, however in the eyes of the courts these can be hard cases to prosecute due to the essential elements required for a fraud case, and one critical element is knowledge. If the seller has knowledge that the item(s) are not original as presented, and doesn't claim that, then that is misleading by omission and constitutes an offence of fraud (at least here in Canada it does).

 

We have all seen or heard of the counterfeit goods being mass produced in third world countries, Gucci purses, Rolex watches, Mont Blanc pens, Ralph Lauren shirts etc. These are all sold all over the world and some are faked so well that even experts have a tough time discerning their authenticity, but in the case of military collectibles, we of the forum are the experts (well, I'm not but you get the point) and need to police our own hobby. When you buy a 'Rolex' watch for $40 from a sketchy looking dude on a sidewalk in NY you can be sure it's a fake (or stolen, but when it stops and falls apart 10 minutes later it's obviously a fake) but with military collectibles, we all know that it can be very subjective and a suspicious eye has to be used when buying many things. Unfortunately a strong dose of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) must be employed.

 

There will always be those who will turn a blind eye and buy items on the faint hope that "the spare uniform belonging to Patton and was in storage since his death" or that "Pappy Boyingtons AVG flight helmet, fresh right out of the woodwork" are real, and we can't help those folks because they will always prescribe to what we call the Doctrine of Wilful Blindness, wilfully buying something they know deep in their hearts are very unlikely to be authentic. Hell, I've done it a time or two when first starting out :pinch: , but having learned from the forum how to spot a repro or a fake I would never re-sell those things without being absolutely clear about what it was and my doubts about it. I have also bought an item or two knowing full well that they were repros but bought them as such and not expecting originals. In these cases I was not defrauded as I knowingly purchased what I knew was not original, however if I went to resell them and advertised them without stating that I knew they were not authentic that would be an offence)

 

In my view the doctrine of wilful blindness ends when that item is resold, but this is very hard to prove. Wilful Blindness is relevant to determining whether a party to an offence possesses knowledge. Wilful blindness performs the role of filling the gap between suspicion and actual knowledge. Simply put, in a case like this, one must make the appropriate inquiries if he or she has a suspicion that the item is not original as presented. If after that inquiry the seller still portrays or presents the item as "real" that is an offence. Many times we see a helmet or other such item advertised as "original WWII helmet, airborne markings", this is misrepresented but deceptively so because it likely is an "original WWII helmet", but the detailed description falls behind that "original" title and as such leads people to believe it's an original airborne marked helmet.

 

To be clear, and for reference for further discussions on this topic, here are the established nine elements for fraud according to the definition under Common Law;

 

- a representation of an existing fact;

- its materiality;

- its falsity;

- the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;

- the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;

- plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;

- plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;

- plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and

- consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

 

I didn't start this post with the intention of boring you all to death, but rather to give some insight as to how these types of misrepresentation are considered to be fraud. The bottom line is it simply is not morally or legally right for someone to advertise something for sale that is likely, suspected or proven to be, fake, "re-created", put-together or counterfeit without clearly stating so.

 

(geez, I just bored myself to sleep....zzzzzzzzzz.....)

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to beat a dead horse, but heres a jacket that he sold on Jan 22nd:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Post-WW-2-US-Army-Sgts...0#ht_720wt_1141

 

And heres a ribbon bar he won on Jan 9th:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...=#ht_2017wt_907

 

 

Thats why i always check a sellers past history. If someone knows how to post the photos for future reference please do, as I do not know how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum

Would some moderator be so kind as to wish him (5150WMA) into the cornfield. :)

 

The evidence, found by the diligent efforts of fellow forum members, of his previous EBAY

purchases and his subsequent sales is too much to refute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed all his uniforms have the insignia sewn on in the same manner. Loosely stitched with a wide gap between stitches. You'd think there would be some variety: machine stitched, decorated (baseball), etc. :think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

audacia cum prudentia

Got to say if I was on a jury and you guys were the prosecution, I'd have to sit back in the jury room, sip my coffee and say " GUILTY "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey 1canpara I have a professional question about counterfeit items.

 

 

If someone makes, say some web gear, and marks it with a real company name and period date, but there is no real way to tell it is fake (such as a repro marking, or name misspelling or anything). Even if they say it is a reproduction, would it not be considered fraud as the implication of the item is that is was made by 'X' company in that year.

 

Seeing as how a normal individual would assume that given no evidence to the contrary it should be what it is marked as. The intent being to make an item that is a replica of an original piece- with no clear way to identify it as such.

 

Or would the initial seller who stated it was a fake be in the clear, but would only the next guy in the chain in trouble for selling it as real.

 

I know this is far more cut an dried for people who, for example, make reproduction Hershey bars (as that a currently acting company with trademark implications) but what if it is a 50year old company no longer in existence whose trademark has expired. From my research it seems you can only reactivate an old trademark if you can prove you were involved in some way with the original filing. ( I actually wanted to see if I could somehow own the trademarks for the Assault Jacket companies so no one could use them without getting sued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sick. I have a few jackets from him myslef. I had some questions about them, and he gave me the same trailer answer. Good thing I only bought 2 from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sick. I have a few jackets from him myslef. I had some questions about them, and he gave me the same trailer answer. Good thing I only bought 2 from him.

 

don't feel too bad, we've all done that at some point in our collecting lives...I have a couple of helmets that I thought were originals but found out later they probably weren't...I was new and naive, that's why I am so active on the forum, because every moment I spend here is a learning experience

 

(and truth be known, I was watching a couple of his uniforms when I found this thread that Dave started...sure saved me some grief and some cash!)

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey 1canpara I have a professional question about counterfeit items.

If someone makes, say some web gear, and marks it with a real company name and period date, but there is no real way to tell it is fake (such as a repro marking, or name misspelling or anything). Even if they say it is a reproduction, would it not be considered fraud as the implication of the item is that is was made by 'X' company in that year.

 

Seeing as how a normal individual would assume that given no evidence to the contrary it should be what it is marked as. The intent being to make an item that is a replica of an original piece- with no clear way to identify it as such.

 

Or would the initial seller who stated it was a fake be in the clear, but would only the next guy in the chain in trouble for selling it as real.

 

I know this is far more cut an dried for people who, for example, make reproduction Hershey bars (as that a currently acting company with trademark implications) but what if it is a 50year old company no longer in existence whose trademark has expired. From my research it seems you can only reactivate an old trademark if you can prove you were involved in some way with the original filing. ( I actually wanted to see if I could somehow own the trademarks for the Assault Jacket companies so no one could use them without getting sued.

 

it's a great question Jon, and not one I'm sure I can answer easily. Trademark, Patent and Intellectual Property law is very complex and not something I am real familiar with, however I know that if you reproduce, fabricate or copy a product that has proprietary and trademark rights attached to it, much like the fake and counterfeit goods being sold on the internet and on the streets, then it is clearly an offence. If you reproduce something, or remake something that hasn't been produced or sold for 50 or more years, I would think there is some kind of statutory time limit on trademark or rights but then that likely differs from state to state, although most patents are federally registered I believe.

 

If someone was to reproduce an item and mark it as an original, say with a period era makers name and date, and then sell it as an original, either as NOS or if they aged it and sold it as original and used, it would still constitute a fraudulent offence. If they sold it as a fake and the next owner sold it as an original, knowing it wasn't, that also would be a fraud. The problem is, that with each new owner as it passes hands, the story gets watered down and the truth around the item becomes murky. This is where the law around these issues also gets murky because we have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the seller knew it was a forgery or a fake, and quite frankly, unless the loss is fairly substantial, or there have been numerous counts of the same offence by the same seller, it's not likely going to get to court due to police and court resources. With the bigger name designer items, like Rolex, Gucci, Panerai, Mercedes Benz, Ferrari etc, they have their own legal counsel and resources and they will chase down prolific offenders and stop them in their tracks, usually with very strong lawsuits and cease and desist orders. This is not likely going to be the case with a long defunct ammo belt maker or a garment company who was under WWII army contract to make M-41 jackets.

 

In any case, another long drawn out answer to a fairly simple question. I expect if I keep this up the Mods will get a "cease and desist order" for me... ;)

 

hope this helped a bit,

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example. Heres a ribbon bar he purchased on Nov 15:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=120644859680

And here it is on a jacket he sold on Dec 13:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...=#ht_720wt_1141

 

For educational purposes, here are the ribbons in the first auction...

ribbons1.jpg

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...