[k2]

Jul 12, 2019 13:16:37 GMT 1 Jaylove said:

This was so avoidable for both sides I don’t even know why we came to this. How does one spend $20k on art without seeing it first? Blows my mind.

How does a gallery or anyone for that matter sell something and before making sure the transaction is completed, already spends the money?

This is big money, Where I’m from people would be looking for you if you misrepresented something in a sale and then could not refund the money instantly.

Hope it gets resolved. You have no issue with this being a public matter because a) the print was nowhere near mint and b) the offer of refund in instalments.

Hope a valuable lesson has been learned by both parties.

I think the refund issue is an interesting one. I do not know the details of this particular case and have no interest in speculating on it, so the comments below should not be seen as relating to this transaction. 

It seems to me that a situation like this could easily arise when an item is sold on consignment, and when the owner of the piece is paid quickly. 

I know that, at least within the EU, distance-selling regulations provide a buyer a right to cancel/refund without providing a reason for a limited period. I would assume this means that those selling through consignment should not be paid until this cooling-off period has expired, but then this creates additional risk for the seller in the case of bankruptcy or liquidation in the interim period if funds are not held in a separate 'client account', as they might be held by a solicitor during a property transaction. 

I suppose the alternative would be for the middle-man to hold enough funds to be able to provide the refund in the event that is requested, effectively then taking ownership of the piece. But for high value pieces this may be unrealistic. 

When selling / buying a consigned piece, perhaps insisting on some kind of third-party Escrow agreement would be sensible for all parties. 

[Lroy]

Jul 12, 2019 8:23:26 GMT 1 blerd said:

I like James. Give him a chance to make good, before the witch-hunt.

Always liked this gallery too.
First class services, rarities ( I got a big canvas from Tox, not easy to fond nor to ship ! ) , choice, good contact, so all good for me !

[Prescription Art]

I don't really want to prolong this, however it seems I have to.




Here is the print in question. As you can see, it's in a frightful state.

I offered a full refund straight away when I heard the customer wasn't happy. Which was YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. I don't have the print back, and haven't seen what the problems are for myself, so it's very hard to comment any further on it. 

[Inknart]

Jul 12, 2019 12:13:58 GMT 1 @artismylife1975 said:

Jul 12, 2019 10:53:27 GMT 1 Atom Gallery said:

The main question to me is why this is all being acted out on a public forum when it should be a private matter between the gallery and the buyer. And then if a resolution cannot be reached, and one party feels burnt..go public and name and shame.

Totally agree

1. James shouldn’t be selling poor quality prints as mint that’s for sure.
2. The buyer had no need at all to jump straight on here about it. This is the modern world sadly.. attack attack before conversation.

You spend 20k on something, receive it and it's not as described and when you try to return it, the answer is I don't have the money. 

The piece is 2 hours away. It could easily be collected and refunded immediately. I don't think you would take I don't have the money right now for a refund as a viable answer. 

Posting here does multiple things imo, It's using a platform to drive a resolution. That resolution should be documented like any review, once it's resolved I will post an update and all will be good. 

By not posting it could drag out any type of resolution even further. It's really up to the business now to make it right as soon as possible. 

I've heard James is a standup guy, and I truly hope this is resolved ASAP. 

[Deleted]

It's nuts to me that anybody's first instinct would be to chuck a fit on a public forum rather than speak to the person they bought the print from. I've never bought from Prescription, though have had email conversation about possible purchase in the past, but it just seems human decency to give someone a chance to resolve an issue before basically calling them a crook in public. Issues happen for all sorts of reasons. Interpretations of condition can vary (don't know how anyone can assess condition from three tiny photos in unclear lighting). Things can get damaged in transit. I'd always give someone the opportunity to make good before publicly naming and shaming.

I'm sure pretty much anyone who buys art has at some point sold art, even if just on eBay or similar. What would you expect of someone who was unhappy with what they'd bought from you? I'd expect a chance to sort it out, which I'd always do. If they immediately slagged me off publicly I'd be far less inclined to do anything other than fulfil legal obligation.

Immediately accusing a small business of underhand dealing seems really off to me. That kind of bad word of mouth has an effect. You posted about the print arriving in unexpected condition yesterday and within 24 hours you're saying Prescription hasn't done anything to sort it? A day?! That's crazy.

[Eton Groover]

I think the only thing I have learned from this thread is never to sell anything to inknart.

[Deleted]

Jul 12, 2019 14:45:18 GMT 1 Eton Groover said:

I think the only thing I have learned from this thread is never to sell anything to inknart.

and here was me thinking he was a stand up guy apart from his desire for immediate crucifixion.

[Inknart]

Jul 12, 2019 14:40:39 GMT 1 @whatilike said:

It's nuts to me that anybody's first instinct would be to chuck a fit on a public forum rather than speak to the person they bought the print from. I've never bought from Prescription, though have had email conversation about possible purchase in the past, but it just seems human decency to give someone a chance to resolve an issue before basically calling them a crook in public. Issues happen for all sorts of reasons. Interpretations of condition can vary (don't know how anyone can assess condition from three tiny photos in unclear lighting). Things can get damaged in transit. I'd always give someone the opportunity to make good before publicly naming and shaming.

I'm sure pretty much anyone who buys art has at some point sold art, even if just on eBay or similar. What would you expect of someone who was unhappy with what they'd bought from you? I'd expect a chance to sort it out, which I'd always do. If they immediately slagged me off publicly I'd be far less inclined to do anything other than fulfil legal obligation.

Immediately accusing a small business of underhand dealing seems really off to me. That kind of bad word of mouth has an effect. You posted about the print arriving in unexpected condition yesterday and within 24 hours you're saying Prescription hasn't done anything to sort it? A day?! That's crazy.

Of course and I refund as soon as I hear. Not give them an open time frame for 20 thousand dollars. 

[Inknart]

Jul 12, 2019 14:45:18 GMT 1 Eton Groover said:

I think the only thing I have learned from this thread is never to sell anything to inknart.

Which is completely fine. As a buyer and seller I expect the same service. I've sold over 50 pieces on here, have given away a ton of stuff and have never had an issue. If an item shows up damaged I don't tell that person hold on to it for awhile, i'll get you the money when it comes back in, but i don't know when that will be. I'm not a gallery, i'm a person and I have upheld that standard on morals and ethics alone. If i'm a business you're damn sure I have capital to run my business. 

If the answer from the gallery was, " let me get this sorted for you asap, i'll pick it up and have refund that money to you within the next 5 business days," it would have been different. I wouldn't have posted anything. 

It's the open ended time frame of not having capital to run a business or facilitate returns the same day I receive the item that was not as described. 

Would be no issue if he had money for the return. 

James has apologized and said he will get it sorted, though I don't know when. I was referred to James and have heard great things. I'm only hoping for a smooth return at this point. 

I do not know James though, personally. IMO this is a business transaction through a Gallery. 

[nex]

Jul 12, 2019 13:45:33 GMT 1 Prescription Art said:

I don't really want to prolong this, however it seems I have to.




Here is the print in question. As you can see, it's in a frightful state.

I offered a full refund straight away when I heard the customer wasn't happy. Which was YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. I don't have the print back, and haven't seen what the problems are for myself, so it's very hard to comment any further on it. 

If the timeframe for this debacle is ONE DAY then sorry but this is utterly ridiculous and should never been posted here and an apology should be in order ... to said gallery

[lucyloo]

Prescription art has always gone above and beyond for me! Never had a problem when buying anything from the gallery

[Lroy]

Jul 12, 2019 14:45:18 GMT 1 Eton Groover said:

I think the only thing I have learned from this thread is never to sell anything to inknart.

“ Never say mint !! “🎶
It’s what i have learned from UK language ( and collectors ) strictly attached of the real sense or terms of the English words !
Even a print rolled in a tube is not already mint !
“ mint “ should be banned of language !
And you should use the French terms as great condition, impeccable ! Etc ...
Mint !? I have had a bad feedback ( this f. is on the forum
I guess and I made a thread on this word : “ mint “
The buyer bought me an Eelus and because a microscopic default in the paper, he put me in the red on eBay with a bad comment ( I have more than 700 sales all with great feedbacks and this sucker made his wanker ! ). And he did not told me before putting his bas feedback ! 💥 as a trap !
So I will write to UK government or/and academy/university contingent to ban “ mint “ from your dictionary !
The only thing “ mint “ that I ve seen in my life were my balls before I grew up ( did I ? )

[The Difaced Assassin]

Jul 12, 2019 9:00:24 GMT 1 @03wilkij said:

Jul 12, 2019 8:23:26 GMT 1 blerd said:

I like James. Give him a chance to make good, before the witch-hunt.

He had his chance and responded like a petulant child - 

Keyboard warriors!!

[The Difaced Assassin]

Absolute shocker that a gallery that in the 13+ years they have been around, doesn’t sell fakes or backdoors prints or runs off with charity money and are a nice bunch of people, that they havent been lynched before, the fuckers deserves it, give it to them full blast!!!

[Jaylove]

Jul 12, 2019 13:37:16 GMT 1 k2 said:

Jul 12, 2019 13:16:37 GMT 1 Jaylove said:

This was so avoidable for both sides I don’t even know why we came to this. How does one spend $20k on art without seeing it first? Blows my mind.

How does a gallery or anyone for that matter sell something and before making sure the transaction is completed, already spends the money?

This is big money, Where I’m from people would be looking for you if you misrepresented something in a sale and then could not refund the money instantly.

Hope it gets resolved. You have no issue with this being a public matter because a) the print was nowhere near mint and b) the offer of refund in instalments.

Hope a valuable lesson has been learned by both parties.

I think the refund issue is an interesting one. I do not know the details of this particular case and have no interest in speculating on it, so the comments below should not be seen as relating to this transaction. 

It seems to me that a situation like this could easily arise when an item is sold on consignment, and when the owner of the piece is paid quickly. 

I know that, at least within the EU, distance-selling regulations provide a buyer a right to cancel/refund without providing a reason for a limited period. I would assume this means that those selling through consignment should not be paid until this cooling-off period has expired, but then this creates additional risk for the seller in the case of bankruptcy or liquidation in the interim period if funds are not held in a separate 'client account', as they might be held by a solicitor during a property transaction. 

I suppose the alternative would be for the middle-man to hold enough funds to be able to provide the refund in the event that is requested, effectively then taking ownership of the piece. But for high value pieces this may be unrealistic. 

When selling / buying a consigned piece, perhaps insisting on some kind of third-party Escrow agreement would be sensible for all parties. 

Yup.  Completely agree.

[lg2771]

Jul 12, 2019 13:45:33 GMT 1 Prescription Art said:

I don't really want to prolong this, however it seems I have to.




Here is the print in question. As you can see, it's in a frightful state.

I offered a full refund straight away when I heard the customer wasn't happy. Which was YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. I don't have the print back, and haven't seen what the problems are for myself, so it's very hard to comment any further on it. 

I'm confused how there's a giant crease on the front, with additional damage on the back, and no one noticed beforehand.

[singo369]

Jul 12, 2019 17:16:57 GMT 1 lg2771 said:

Jul 12, 2019 13:45:33 GMT 1 Prescription Art said:

I don't really want to prolong this, however it seems I have to.




Here is the print in question. As you can see, it's in a frightful state.

I offered a full refund straight away when I heard the customer wasn't happy. Which was YESTERDAY AFTERNOON. I don't have the print back, and haven't seen what the problems are for myself, so it's very hard to comment any further on it. 

I'm confused how there's a giant crease on the front, with additional damage on the back, and no one noticed beforehand.

if you mean the bottom right corner of the print, I think that's a shadow of the person taking a photo of it.

[19818914]

I think if the seller doesn’t have the funds he should borrow it immediately to refund you.

[ADC]

Irrelevant to the situation, isn't it common for a business to take 3-5 days to refund?

[The Difaced Assassin]

Jul 12, 2019 18:42:25 GMT 1 ADC said:

Irrelevant to the situation, isn't it common for a business to take 3-5 days to refund?

Sssshhh dont let rational reasoning ever get in the way of a good lynching.   

[Deleted]

Jul 12, 2019 17:56:43 GMT 1 19818914 said:

I think if the seller doesn’t have the funds he should borrow it immediately to refund you.

you good for $20k

[ADC]

Jul 12, 2019 19:05:20 GMT 1 The Difaced Assassin said:

Jul 12, 2019 18:42:25 GMT 1 ADC said:

Irrelevant to the situation, isn't it common for a business to take 3-5 days to refund?

Sssshhh dont let rational reasoning ever get in the way of a good lynching.   

Haha my apologies 😂

[19818914]

Jul 12, 2019 19:22:35 GMT 1 @kintoreton said:

Jul 12, 2019 17:56:43 GMT 1 19818914 said:

I think if the seller doesn’t have the funds he should borrow it immediately to refund you.

you good for $20k

of course I am.

[Deleted]

Jul 12, 2019 20:10:20 GMT 1 19818914 said:

Jul 12, 2019 19:22:35 GMT 1 @kintoreton said:

you good for $20k

of course I am.

good chap

[lg2771]

Jul 12, 2019 17:37:11 GMT 1 singo369 said:

Jul 12, 2019 17:16:57 GMT 1 lg2771 said:

I'm confused how there's a giant crease on the front, with additional damage on the back, and no one noticed beforehand.

if you mean the bottom right corner of the print, I think that's a shadow of the person taking a photo of it.

I think so too. I'm an idiot.

[Deleted]

Can anyone defending the gallery in this situation explain me why?

- Costumer took a long time sourcing a really expensive print which is quite probably the most expensive buy of his life besides house/car, and his holy grail of art he wants to own.
- Print is being sold to customer as 'mint'.
- Print arrives and is far from mint.
- Gallery lied about print being mint.
- Costumer is quite correctly upset for being lied to and asks for refund.
- Costumer gets told Gallery wants to refund but has no funds to refund and isn't offered a timeframe for refund.
- Costumer posts on UAA to tell his story.
- Costumer is going to have to spend a lot more time and presumably money to secure another print.

I'm pretty sure if this would happen to you over a 10k+ print you'd be upset and posting this story too.

[irl1]

If you are the owner of the print on here give the money back and this can be sorted 

Then stick your print in an auction miles away from here

Juliens in the States would be a good bet

[lv90210]

I think given the Dealer hasn’t any funds to cover the refund highlights why he probably sold a print with condition issues described as mint.

He needs cash !!!!

You live and learn, there are only two trustworthy B dealers out there IMO.

[Sundowner]

Would be interested to know which two you’re referring to....

[blerd]

Jul 13, 2019 5:13:36 GMT 1 lv90210 said:

I think given the Dealer hasn’t any funds to cover the refund highlights why he probably sold a print with condition issues described as mint.

He needs cash !!!!

You live and learn, there are only two trustworthy B dealers out there IMO.

You've set the next question and your subsequent answer up like a bad daytime thriller.