Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Nice example, EXCEPT for the extra screws for the bow removed receiver sight.
You think the auction house would identify this obvious deviation from originality in their description???
While they did not specifically mention the extra holes, they certainly made no attempt to hide them in the auction picture they provided. What else do you need to really know about that gun?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
While they did not specifically mention the extra holes, they certainly made no attempt to hide them in the auction picture they provided. What else do you need to really know about that gun?Bert
I just thought it should be mentioned in the write up. I suppose the photographs could be considered to be part of the description, however.
mrcvs said
Bert H. said
While they did not specifically mention the extra holes, they certainly made no attempt to hide them in the auction picture they provided. What else do you need to really know about that gun?
Bert
I just thought it should be mentioned in the write up. I suppose the photographs could be considered to be part of the description, however.
The photographs are most definitely part of the auction description, and in most cases, they are the only unbiased part of the description… especially if the people viewing them know what they are looking at.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Online
mrcvs said
Bert H. said
While they did not specifically mention the extra holes, they certainly made no attempt to hide them in the auction picture they provided. What else do you need to really know about that gun?
Bert
I just thought it should be mentioned in the write up. I suppose the photographs could be considered to be part of the description, however.
Did you really think there was a deal here? Just look at the pre auction estimate, it is a tell all.
1 Guest(s)
