When I set up this website I included a page 'Is it? Or isn't it?' to enable visitors to the site to check the YZness of any pieces which they came across. Four things to look for to check if the piece was very likely to be YZ. Number 5 on the list was 'The Foolproof Test', for which I wrote 'Sorry, but there's no such thing.' That remains as true as when I wrote it but, in response to a current trend on ebay, I have now changed that answer to 'Has it got the YZ trademark?' At present the YZ trademark is a guarantee of authenticity. Given the high prices now commanded by some YZ pieces it's not impossible that there will, at some time in the future, be attempts to forge that trademark but, for now, I've no evidence, nor am I even aware of any rumours, of such a forgery having been attempted. So why am I now becoming increasingly worried about buyers being tricked into bidding for non-YZ pieces in the belief that they are actually YZ? In 2014 I published a page on this site entitled 'Is Somebody Trying To Con You?' The problems which I highlighted there are still with us. At that time I put the false assertions and wild assumptions down to the pig-ignorance of some sellers leading to unbelievable heights of wishful thinking, doubtless given potency by visions of vast profits. What's now happening, with increasing frequency, on ebay seems almost to be a deliberate attempt to defraud buyers. Rarely has the phrase caveat emptor been more apt. The ebay buyer really does need to beware. Frequently the auction page heading is an erroneous assertion that the piece being offered is YZ, though the seller's description often rows back somewhat on that. Often, but not always. Compare the following examples. In the first, there is an unambiguous assertion that the piece is a 'vintage ashtray and match holder set from Henry Howell'. It isn't. The second example is a blatant attempt to pass off a very substandard non-YZ piece as YZ. Are those claims fraudulent? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. In the third the seller at least has the good grace to admit that he/she 'cannot be 100% sure it is a henry howel' (sic). I can be 100% sure that it isn't.
The next two examples are of sold pieces. Neither is YZ, which makes the prices paid surprising.
I have collected non-YZ pieces for as long as I have collected YZ ones (over 40 years) and I have long argued that non-YZ should achieve higher prices than they currently do. The two above are both well-crafted pieces which wouldn't disgrace any collection but the prices are silly money. I can see only two possible reasons why those pieces fetched those prices. Either the misleading page headings led some people to believe that they were YZ pieces - a reasonable mistake to make given the YZ-like appearance (and workmanship) of the mis-identified 'platypus'. (Let's call it a crocodile, for the sake of accuracy.) Or was it the lure of vast profits to be made from the Faturan content of the pieces? For an in-depth look at Faturan see Faturan by Ian Holdsworth and Ibrahim Faraj. I've always considered Faturan to be a con - it's merely a type of phenolic resin produced in the early part of the 20th Century - but read the above article and make your own judgement. Irrespective of what I think, Faturan does command exremely high prices and greed on the part of very many buyers has led to the destruction of far too many beautiful YZ pieces over the years in order to acquire their phenolic resin content.
|