Posted by Michael Wendorf on March 25, 1999 at 21:00:20:
In Reply to: Re: Rarity and "ugly' posted by Marvin Amstey on March 25, 1999 at 20:06:10:
: :
: : : :
: : : : : I just noticed that Michael used the same term in discussing a rug on Ebay. I suppose that is OK because the dealer is not identified; nonetheless, internet discussion forums are what they are, and is seems that if two collectors use the term "ugly" as an opinion, there are probably many more of us who need to be a little more honest. Regards, Marvin
: : : : Dear Marvin:
: : : : I am not taking sides, but there is a distinction. I made my comment on a commercial discussion board concerning a set of bags that quite obviously are misrepresented and where specific comments were requested about the piece. I think the issue here is whether your view of a particular piece as an illustration of your opinion is appropriate on a non-commercial site and where the piece is accurately represented by an established dealer. MW
: : :
: : : It's an interesting issue, but the discussion we are having here has nothing to do with commercialism. Marvin
: : Dear Marvin:
: : I guess we both could benefit from some etiquette lessons. But, hey, at least we are being honest. I can live with that. I will add that the discussion does have something to do with commercialism insofar as an established or influential collector's comments, whether innocent or merely illustrative, could be intrepreted as chilling, intentionally or otherwise, the value and marketablity of a piece. You may be well within your rights and actually promote further understanding by so doing, but I'm not sure using such a specific example was necessary to your point. Regards, MW
: I never thought I had any influence; just a country boy collecting and studying rugs. However, your point is well taken, and here the matter rests (I can say that now because I've had my martinis). Best regards, Marvin
Marvin:
(shaken, not stirred, I presume). Cheers. MW