Slashdot Mirror


eBay Fakes Devalue the Craft of Tomb Robbing

James McP writes "According to an article on Archaeology, fake artifacts being sold on eBay have caused the bottom to drop out of the low-end artifact market. This outcome is exactly opposite to what archeologists feared would happen when eBay came on the scene. A side effect of more and more forgers getting in on the act has been a dramatic increase in high-quality fakes that can fool experts and illicit collectors alike, lowering the price for high-end artifacts as well. It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes, especially since selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal."

153 comments

  1. fake or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So wait. Are you telling me that Lara Croft's are fake?

    1. Re:fake or not? by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      she's real alright. just not her tits

    2. Re:fake or not? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well her guns are USP 9mm, and the variants of the USP are used by the German military. However, the extended barrels and weighted match are only used in competition shooting and never . . . oh you mean her other guns. Definitely fake.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:fake or not? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      oh you mean her other guns. Definitely fake.

      No, we're actually referring to her torpedoes.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    4. Re:fake or not? by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Anyone who's seen Hackers knows that Angelina's current rack is high-impact plastic (see bottom picture).

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    5. Re:fake or not? by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 1

      Or, for better views from around the same time, see Foxfire (1996): http://today.ccopinion.com/images/2005-12-jolie-foxfire1.jpg

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
    6. Re:fake or not? by CarlosM7 · · Score: 1

      Watching too much Mazinger aren't we?

  2. Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes, especially since selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal.

    May not be illegal but certainly misrepresentation is a thorn in eBay's side.

    The auction depicted in the article reads "100% Guaranteed Authentic" and:

    Origin: North Coast Peru
    Culture: Moche
    Culture Date: 50 A.D. to 750 A.D. Approx.

    Notice how they said "culture date" and not actual date of the mask. The phrase "Pre-Columbian" is as misleading as "100% Guaranteed Authentic" and I think I would have a problem if I purchased this as it is a pretty misleading posting.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "100% Authentic" is a classic example of a common advertising dodge. It's not a sentence, it's a meaningless fragment without an object, subject, or a verb. The implication is that you're saying that the object right there on the same page is 100% authentic, but they're not responsible for your misunderstanding.

      This is a particularly good example, because the sentence not only lacks an object, it also lacks the object that is supposed to be related to the object by the descriptor "authentic". Not only do we not know what is supposed to be authentic, but we don't what class of thing it's supposed supposed to be an authentic member of!

      So (unknown object) (is a) 100% Authentic (unknown thing). A perfectly meaningless sentence fragment. Caveat Emptor.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by fataugie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's a 100% Authentic......reproduction

      --

      WTF? Over?

    3. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone stupid enough to think things like that on eBay lacking a complete pedigree are real deserve to get burned.

      There's a reason in the art world if a painting cannot be tracked through it's whole life it's first considered a fake.

    4. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and I think I would have a problem if I purchased this as it is a pretty misleading posting.

      I think you'd have a bigger problem if you purchased that item, namely that you'd be a sucker.

      Ad states it's 15% 24k gold (in so many words), with a weight of 455 g. That works out to 68.25 g of pure gold, or a little over two ounces... since gold is currently selling at around $900, a buy-it-now cost of $1495 (plus 49.99 shipping) is far less than the value of the gold in the piece.

      Right away it's clear that there is something fishy, which should be enough to scare away anyone who isn't a sucker.

      IOW, too good to be true.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1, Funny

      Heh. It's like Ms. California's boobs(psfw)...Real, but not natural.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genuine Faux Pearls

    7. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by multisync · · Score: 1

      mmmmm ... chicken cutlets ...

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    8. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by againjj · · Score: 1

      It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes, especially since selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal.

      May not be illegal but certainly misrepresentation is a thorn in eBay's side.

      It's illegal if you say it is a real artifact when it isn't. The given auction borders on fraud, and which side of the fraud line it falls determines its legality. Generally, people who make livings at this are good at keeping things on the non-fraud side, and if someone actually threatens a suit, they can buy it back, "with a little extra for you time and trouble", which is simply a cost of doing business.

    9. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a reason in the art world if a painting cannot be tracked through it's whole life it's first considered a fake.

      Except of course for all the paintings not discovered to be by someone considered important until years, decades, or centuries after the work was created. Something that's actually done fairly routinely.

    10. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure it's misrepresentation. But who really cares? Anybody who's fooled by this has an expressed willingness to break the law and to help destroy humanity's cultural heritage. Ripping of these narcissists is not morally defensible, but it is hard to get worked up about.

      Donald Westlake wrote an amusing novel ("High Adventure", and yes it's pun) about a marijuana smuggler who's conned into buying land that supposedly has Mayan ruins on it. Although there are no ancient artifacts to exploit, he discovers that the locals still know how to carve them. Of course, to make a profit, he has to pretend that he's a tomb robber. So you end up with perfectly legal trinkets being smuggled into the U.S., carefully concealed in bales of illegal weed! One of my favorites.

    11. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by timster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly -- forget ebay hawkers, allegedly legitimate big corporations use nonsense statements like "100% Natural" all the time.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    12. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 2, Funny

      Windows Genuine Advantage?

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    13. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBay policy forbids counterfeit trademark bearing merchandise. But counterfeit stuff that is older than 200 years is not only fair game, there is nobody alive to discredit the authenticity.

      Common practice among fraudsters on eBay and all auction sites is to never outright say it's a reproduction, since that flags the item as a counterfeit and is almost certainly to be removed for that word alone.

    14. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fake artifacts?!?!? Back in *my* day, grave robbers had ethics!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by evanbd · · Score: 1

      There's a reason in the art world if a painting cannot be tracked through it's whole life it's first considered a fake.

      Except of course for all the paintings not discovered to be by someone considered important until years, decades, or centuries after the work was created. Something that's actually done fairly routinely.

      In which case the burden of proof lies on the discoverer, unless I'm greatly mistaken. If you discover that a piece is by a famous artist and attempt to sell it as such, I imagine the first question anyone asks will be "How do you know?" I think this was the point the parent post was trying to make -- such things are considered fakes until proven otherwise.

    16. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First it is considered a fake.

      Then all the experts argue about why it isn't.

      Then some people may believe it is real.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    17. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raises an interesting question...

      If I sell something on EBay and advertise it as "100% fake", while it is in fact real, does that constitute fraud?

    18. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by gordguide · · Score: 1

      It's illegal in the sense that "Hey, Officer, I want to report a robbery. That guy over there selling Crack stole it from my car; look, there's only ten bags left and I had twenty a minute ago."

      Nobody who actually has any idea what the artifact might be worth would turn the seller in, since that would be incriminating themselves most of the time because exporting and importing artifacts is very illegal in most countries that actually have either artifacts or museums, let alone both.

      There are other roadblocks to actual persecution; he may have bought it in good faith domestically, which lets him off the hook. He may rely on an expert opinion, which in my case would be the opinion of anyone who took an introductory Art History class, because I didn't.

      The cops are not going to spend a few thou to check the authenticity, especially when you can trot out contradictory expert opinion, creating the necessary legal doubt. You might get sued, but any one of the other caveats applies; if it's proven to be authentic, the person who wins the lawsuit might have just proven themselves a criminal for buying a known genuine artifact.

      And so on.

      There are lots of things that are illegal, immoral, or just plain wrong, but nothing happens, and nothing is ever going to happen, to people who do them. This is one of those things.

    19. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Exactly -- forget ebay hawkers, allegedly legitimate big corporations use nonsense statements like "100% Natural" all the time.

      Except that statement is subject to truth in advertising laws and regulation by various government agencies.

      In 2007 Cadbury Schweppes was threatened with a lawsuit because they thought high fructose corn syrup was "all natural" and went about advertising 7UP as such. Needless to say, they ended up dropping "all natural" from the ad campaign.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    20. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "100% Authentic" is a classic example of a common advertising dodge. It's not a sentence, it's a meaningless fragment without an object, subject, or a verb. The implication is that you're saying that the object right there on the same page is 100% authentic, but they're not responsible for your misunderstanding.

      "Fraud - (Law) An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of obtaining some valuable thing or promise from another"

      To argue that it's a meaningless fragment somehow abdicates the seller from responsibility is absurd. English is a context-sensitive language. Read the description again:

      PRE-COLUMBIAN MOCHE GOLD WARRIOR DOUBLE STIRRUP VESSEL

      BIG MOCHE GOLD MASK WITH PECTORAL COPPER & GOLD 24K!!!!

      (15 % OF PURE GOLD)

      100% Guaranteed Authentic

      Pre-columbian is a time period. Authentic, in this context, means minimally that the object was constructed as described at or before that time period. If the seller had said, "0% Guaranteed", then perhaps there'd be some leeway to the point that the seller is unsure of what he's selling. So, it if turns out that said mask isn't really pre-columbian, it's very clear that a perversion of the truth is occured, that the seller was entirely irresponsible to call it 100% guaranteed authentic, that such actions indicate an intention to defraud, and they should prosecuted for fraud*. And if it is pre-columbina, nothing should happen.

      Your argument seems about as aburd as the idea that adding random periods in your sentences in contracts would magically abdicate both parties from responsibility within that contract. It is the "meeting of the minds" in contract and in contract-like situation (ie, interactions where there are socially-constructed and lawfully enforced transactions) that determines what, if any, remedy is available to parties for any failures to comply with the intention of the "contract". The only thing sellers of fake artifacts have going for them is, because their "meeting of the minds" is partially implicit, they have more leeway to argue that their intentions were honest.

      Language like "100% guaranteed" is clearly to designed as a means of conveying that a seller is forgoing various defenses should a complaint arise as they themselves have taken on the responsibility of claiming to actually know the truth and to be held accountable for that truth. If such language is infact meaningless, then the use of such language is clearly designed to try to fool people to trust and buy products they wouldn't otherwise by envoking the previous sentence's implications. It is little different than using a trademark one does not have a right/privilege to. All are attempts to manipulate money out of people without exchanging with them something of value.

      *Just because a person should be prosecuted for fraud doesn't mean they likely will. This would appear to be especially true over the internet, but I believe the truth is more that people in general have such low standards of expectations regardless of what is clearly promised that they don't pursue legal action against those that defraud them. Not wanting to be "overly litigious", a desire to not appear foolish for having believed another person's promises, courts generally already being rather busy, "Caveat Emptor", and the possibility of not being able to recoup one's losses anyways for "failing to follow common sense" all are barriers to remeding fraud.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    21. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by c_forq · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed the point. You have a painting that has been passed down countless times, painted by some nobody from Milan. No one has been tracking his paintings, because he is a nobody. Suddenly he becomes famous for some reason, and his paintings are valuable. Pretty much no one can prove the history of their painting, because no one keeps track of things with little value (like velvet Elvis portraits).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    22. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A 100% genuine fake is still 100% genuine.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    23. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by jd · · Score: 1

      Depends on the artifact. I wouldn't trust unknown sellers of artifacts on eBay, especially if the object is too worn or too lacking in detail to verify if it's genuine.

      On the other hand, there are fairly large-scale coin dealers on eBay who have a lot to lose if they're accused of fakery. Again, though, that doesn't make them honest. You should still do whatever checks you can, though that's often going to be hard, particularly for coins. Often they are not going to have good documentation (most hoards are found by farmers and metal detectorists, not archaeologists) and unless you've a source of high-energy neutrons handy, you can't use isotope ratios to date the metal.

      In a few cases, say silver coins from Iron Age Norfolk, the sheer number of genuine articles is so overwhelming that those specific finds are even exempted from Britain's Treasure Trove laws. The market for those can be considered as glutted as any archaeological market ever is. I'd probably trust those, within reason. "Ring coins" from Europe, which are just, well, iron rings with no details, could be mass-produced on any wire-making machine. They quite likely are.

      Rarer stuff or anonymous sellers for ancient material? Nah. I wouldn't trust them at all. I didn't mind buying an R1155 radio off an anonymous seller because there's no demand for fake R1155s and the cost of the forgery would exceed the money you could sell one for. But valuables? Never go near eBay for anything worth something.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by julesh · · Score: 1

      "100% Authentic" is a classic example of a common advertising dodge. It's not a sentence, it's a meaningless fragment without an object, subject, or a verb. The implication is that you're saying that the object right there on the same page is 100% authentic, but they're not responsible for your misunderstanding.

      Yes, they are. Misrepresentation law is quite clear on matters like this: if a phrase is ambiguous, it is interpreted as what the purchaser is most likely to interpret it as. The rule is called contra proferentem.

    25. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      If an object is advertised and sold as legitimate, but is a reproduction, and the seller was aware or had reason to know that the artifact was a reproduction, they have committed fraud, a crime. The fact that it is very likely that the item is being shipped across State lines places it in the stream of interstate commerce, which makes it a Federal crime.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    26. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't buying it be illegal in the first place? In which case going after the seller for selling you a fake is probably a lot more trouble than its worth.

    27. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 1

      Actually, they won't say that if you challenge them, and it wouldn't stand up in court. They're just betting that you won't know any better, and certainly won't take the matter to court. If you do? Well, I doubt they've thought that far ahead, but good luck. Most likely they'll have concealed their identity, or will simply pack up and reopen under another name.

      They're crooks. They don't worry about legal justifications. That's the whole point.

    28. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was talking to a model once, and had to ask: "Are those things real?"

      She said, "They had better be, considering how much they cost!"

    29. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in your day, they were common everyday products grampa, not artifacts.

    30. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There's a world of difference between 'fake until proven otherwise' and '[always and forever considered] a fake because it cannot be tracked through it's whole life'.

    31. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Courageous · · Score: 1

      In the United States, companies, when facing legal action for advertising terms, are responsible for the interpretation of the average person reading the terms. There's no hiding behind weasel words: if the average person takes what you say to mean something, you're responsible, and can be held accountable. Britannica got into trouble on this something like two decades ago. I'm not sure how often it is enforced: I get the idea, not very. Truth in advertising just isn't given much credo over here, sadly.

      I wish we had something more akin to the British Advertising Authority (I think that's what it's called).

      C//

    32. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by jeepien · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that high-fructose corn syrup is NOT all natural?

      I have a hard time believing it is supernatural, which is the only other option.

      I would assert that it is indeed completely natural, as are radon, asbestos, and a host of other similarly wholesome substances.

    33. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by jeepien · · Score: 1

      Under U.S. Law, there are Limited and Full Warranties.

      The word "Guarantee" is legally meaningless. Caveat emptor.

    34. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Window's Genuine Advantage

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    35. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by G-Man · · Score: 1

      Hey, I only get infected with certified 100% organic free-range H1N1 virus. None of that test tube "swine flu" for me.

    36. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Given the ease of faking a pedigree, what exactly is your point? You need to do actual carbon dating and other potentially destructive tests to verify some of these items, and even then the 'legbone of King Tut' is indistinguishable from 'the legbone of the slave in the burial chamber in the smaller pyramid next door'.

    37. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Under U.S. Law, there are Limited and Full Warranties.

      "(6) The term "written warranty" means --
      (A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or
      (B) any undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking,

      which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of such product.

      (7) The term "implied warranty" means an implied warranty arising under State law (as modified by sections 2308 and 2304 (a) of this title) in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product. " -- US Code Title 15, 2301

      In short, the discussion is not about warranties because warranties are about implied or written promises to the functionality of a good, not its identity. The discussion is about direct misrepresentaiton of the facts.

      The word "Guarantee" is legally meaningless. Caveat emptor.

      The word "Bunny" is probably legally meaningless, in the sense that no legal code likely defines "Bunny". That doesn't mean it's actually legally meaningless. It *does* mean that a jury or judge, given the facts as presented will have to decide what "Bunny" means for the extent of a case presented before the court. As for "Caveat emptor".

      "CAVEAT EMPTOR. Let the purchaser take heed; that is, let him see to it, that the title he is buying is good. This is a rule of the common law, applicable to the sale and purchase of lands and other real estate. If the purchaser pay the consideration money, he cannot, as a general rule, recover it back after the deed has been executed; except in cases of fraud, or by force of some covenant in the deed which has been broken. The purchaser,if he fears a defect of title, has it in his power to protect himself by proper covenants, and if he fails to do so, the law provides for him no remedy. Cro. Jac. 197; 1 Salk. 211 Doug. 630, 654; 1 Serg. & R. 52, 53, 445. This rule is discussed with ability in Rawle on Covenants for Title, p. 458, et seq. c. 13, and the leading authorities collected. See also 2 Kent, Com. Lect. 39, p. 478; 2 Bl. Com. 451; 1 Stor, Eq. Sec. 212 6 Ves. 678; 10 Ves. 505; 3 Cranch, 270; 2 Day, R. 128; Sugd. Vend. 221 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 954-5.
      2. This rule has been severely assailed, as being the instrument of falsehood and fraud; but it is too well established to be disregarded. Coop., Just. 611, n. See 8 Watts, 308, 309."

      In short, Caveat emptor does not protect a person from fraud. More specifically, caveat emptor is what tells you to closely examine a product, to ask questions about it, and to think carefully about whether one has a want or need for said product. If the seller lies to you, caveat emptor doesn't apply (presume, of course, that you do not believe the seller is a liar). If you do not adequately examine a good, fail to ask adequate questions, and/or accept ambiguous or lacking answers, caveat emptor does apply. A warranty might apply if there's sufficient lacking of implied or declared functionaity of a product, but to get to that point requires some level of information exchange to the actual object in the first place. That is, if someone sells you a rotten core apple, it's an issue of implied warranty. If somoene sells you a wax apple that smells and feels like an apple and is sold as an apple, then it's an issue of fraud. And if you get an apple that you're told has been sitting out in the open sun for a week, it's an issue of caveat emptor.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    38. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Eivind · · Score: 1

      No. That doesn't actually work. To pick that single sentence to pieces, and conclude that it says nothing. It does. English is a context-sensitive language, and if I say:

      "Selling; one Rolex Watch. 100% authentic. Guaranteed genuine"

      Then infact, I *AM* claiming that the watch I am selling is a genuine, authenthic, rolex-watch. And if this isn't true, I'm comitting fraud. No if's and but's about it.

    39. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Correction; for anything worth something that cannot easily be verified to be what it claims to be.

      It's really hard to tell an -actual- reall-old-coin from a fake really-old-coin. In contrast, there's no simple way of creating seemingly-real-but-fake Ixus-cameras.

      Now, risks of never getting the goods at all and similar, still apply, if one pays beforehand. But assuming one gets it at all, and a quick inspection and test shows it looks and acts like an Ixus, it probably really is an ixus. (might be a stolen one though)

    40. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Sweden all commercials/ads/likewise most be true, unless it's obvious to most people that it's a lie or a joke etc.

      So putting up this mask as "100% authentic" would probably give you a fine for illegal marketing, and possibly fraud as well.

      But then again, the problem is often how to get any money from fraudsters, they usually don't have any declared income...

    41. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by noundi · · Score: 1

      Those swines and their labs.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    42. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      Common practice among fraudsters on eBay and all auction sites is to never outright say it's a reproduction, since that flags the item as a counterfeit and is almost certainly to be removed for that word alone.

      Ebay's search function would seem to disagree with you. There are 58,491 Auctions with the word Reproduction at Ebay.com when I checked just now. There is even an Original/Reproduction field in the description block where people are allowed to explicitly tag their item as a reproduction so they can stay legal, and demonstrate that even if the buyer missed the indication, that they did not at any point try to pass off the reproduction as the real thing. A reproduction is not a fake. It's a copy. Sell it as such, and no fraud charge is possible. The real thing can be expensive, the copy, no matter how good, is not the real thing. But so long as that is known up front, it's fine. A counterfeit is a fake. Something that is being sold as an item made by a specific maker at a specific time, that was made by someone else. This is fraud. And is illegal. The buyer thinks they are getting one thing, but they are actually getting something else. Where you are perhaps getting confused is with modern counterfeit goods. It is only legal to offer a reproduction if there are no limits on the copying of that item. So a reproduction of Charles Babbage's mechanical calculator would be fine. A reproduction of a play station would not.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    43. Re:Not Illegal But Definitely Misleading by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Well, depending on the coin, a PCGS rating would be #1 on my list.

  3. Disagree in part! by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

    I believe that selling a Fake as a Real Item would constitute fraud!! So still illegal!!

    1. Re:Disagree in part! by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Funny

      But it is not "really" illegal.

      Just as stealing $5.00 out of your girlfriends wallet may be illegal, but selling drugs to schoolchildren is "really illegal".

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Disagree in part! by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think what the summary was aiming for was that the sell of fake items in and of itself is not illegal. If they are honest about the origins (or write their summaries cleverly enough) then it's not illegal. Kind of like the market for forged coins; not illegal as long as your not selling them as the real thing.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    3. Re:Disagree in part! by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about authentic fakes?

    4. Re:Disagree in part! by SCPRedMage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's far preferable that a bunch of idiots on eBay buy fake "artifacts" than for real artifacts to be looted.

      What's more is that I highly doubt that any court in the WORLD would think that these fools could have any reasonable expectation that these were in fact the genuine article. No reasonable expectation, no case.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    5. Re:Disagree in part! by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if you steal the drugs from your girlfriend's wallet and sell THAT to schoolchildren?

    6. Re:Disagree in part! by James+McP · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is where I was going. I thought about saying "except for the whole fraud thing" but thought it was overly glib.

      Mea culpa. Next time I shall be glib.

      --
      I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
    7. Re:Disagree in part! by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Idea. Find 10 fake coins worth say $100.00 a piece if real. Mix them into a bunch of real coins worth $50.00 in total. Post picture and auction, stating they are from your late grandfather's old coin jar. Ask for $300.00 dollars. Some slicker will see picture and think they are ripping you off and buy the auction. You profit and no illegal acts are committed.

    8. Re:Disagree in part! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You would have to find 10 OLD fake coins, because the date of manufacture can be determined pretty closely.

  4. I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

    "eBay Fakes Devalue Lara Croft of Tomb Raiding"

  5. Good old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tomb Raiding is so 1996

    Now its all about simple JavaScript-based Web 2.0 games that even the people buried in the tombs can enjoy

  6. Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, who could have ever thought new technology could have beneficial side effects? That's just crazy.

    I'm glad to see this get press. Maybe some people will think twice about jumping on the alarmist "Must Fear Everything New" bandwagon.

    Then again, it double's their potential for attention-whoredom: make news talking up your baseless dire predictions, then make news with the shocking revelation that, not only did your predicts not come true, the opposite happened! Who could have seen this amazing twist ending!

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article: "As a former curator myself, I know that an embarrassingly high percentage of objects in our museums are forgeries. What fools the curator also fools the collector."

      What was the benefit again?

    2. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      It's also related to the fact that the high-end market is full of fraud as well. For instance, high end auctioneers will often bid secretly on behalf of sellers to encourage bidding wars. With eBay at least, you don't have that type of collusion, it's a lot more transparent, although there still exists the very real problem of verifying the authenticity of those objects of course.

    3. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It reduces the profitablility of ransacking historic sites and graves that might otherwise be studied scientifically.

      Fuck collectors, they're 99% of the problem. And if it's good enough to fool a curator, then it's good enough to display in a museum. Not like the average schmuck walking through the museum is going to know the difference.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, who could have ever thought new technology could have beneficial side effects? That's just crazy.

      It does seem obvious, but strangely, politicians talk about falling house prices as though it's something undesirable instead of desirable.

    5. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      It might not be entirely good, the market crash might trickle down to legitimate archeology in an era where technology is making the possibility of historical preservation and investigation better than ever. In this era of a transition to a global culture, its important to try to preserve as much as possible while we still can.

    6. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by maceilean · · Score: 1

      Maybe the artifacts should stay in the ground for no one to see? Or buried in museum basements where no one but researchers can enjoy the material culture of long-dead peoples?

      Important private collections are almost always published and these collectors spearhead (and pay for) most of the research into the artifacts. Without private collectors the public would remain wholly ignorant of whatever it was being collected.

      The vast, vast majority of museum holdings are never displayed to the public so instead of being kept in permanent obscurity these artifacts would better serve the public being private collections.

    7. Re:Laura Croft: Ebay Raider by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      And if it's good enough to fool a curator, then it's good enough to display in a museum.

      While I'm basically in agreement with the rest of your post, I am completely at a loss to understand the rationale behind this sentiment. You don't display things in a museum for fun. A museum stores and preserves objects for their historical value, of which intrinsic/artistic value is a very tiny component. To the extent that it fails to live up to that function, it fails to be a museum.

      If someone forges a pretty starscape in Photoshop, does it get published as fact in the Journal of Cosmology? Like hell it does. Forgeries don't just undermine the historical significance of genuine articles, they take the merest hope of ever making sense of historical data, tear it to shreds, and turn the remains into papier mache. They're wholly evil.

  7. branding in Bolivia by rachellena · · Score: 1

    Yes! now everyone can own the "original" andean artifact handcrafted in the time of Cortez, but please only limited qualities available. Until we "uncover" more with our skillful team of archaeologists.

  8. Weird anyway. by imboboage0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one that finds it a little odd that people are interested in purchasing items raided from tombs in the first place? O.o

    --
    Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    1. Re:Weird anyway. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Am I the only one that finds it a little odd that people are interested in purchasing items raided from tombs in the first place? O.o

      It's how most of the artifacts in museums around the world left their home countries. Also, go to the houses of some old money types in New York and you'll find a shocking amount of looted art. Some of the looted art eventually ends up going back to museums (like the Levy-White collection now trickling toward the Met, though Shelby White still has quite a collection that might astonish you at home).

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  9. Laura Croft by BGrif · · Score: 1

    "It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes"

    So Laura Croft has moved from Mass Murderer to Forgery?

    1. Re:Laura Croft by PPH · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how he only thing she got when searching for ancient artifacts was Billy Bob, I'd say it doesn't pay.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  10. Not another Lara Croft comment, I promise by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Harumph! Ebay? They belong in a museum!

    1. Re:Not another Lara Croft comment, I promise by Sinter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where's +1 "Indiana Jones" when you need it?

      --
      From Wherever to Whenever.
    2. Re:Not another Lara Croft comment, I promise by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Harumph! Ebay? They belong in a museum!

      And where do museums get their artefacts? ... A few years ago a friend told me of how his museum -- basically a small room in a university, where the friend was the part-time curator -- bought some Egyptian papyri via eBay. Sure eBay has its problems, but other auctions aren't necessarily more trustworthy when it comes to potentially forged antiquities.

      The ideal, I suppose, is to go for a private deal with a source you trust, e.g. another museum. But with high-volume stuff -- like Egyptian papyri, of which there are hundreds of thousands of items in existence -- that's not always efficient. EBay is very efficient.

  11. Recession proof... by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

    It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes

    Wonderful! It is exactly this kind of advice that will get us through the credit crunch.

    Stay tuned tomorrow, when we will explain to you how to save on bullets but just pretending not to hear or see your enemies and/or cheating spouses!

  12. My fake auctions suffer by SnarfQuest · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sell fake artifacts for the fake ebay artifact auctions, and have noticed this. I used to get three times as much for my fake artifacts (with aged certificate of authenticy). Because of this, I now write "This Artifact is Fake, Hoser" in the appropriate runes on each one I produce. They still sell well, and noone has caught on yet.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  13. Shrubberies by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wondered that original Holy Grail I bought of eBay was so gosh-darned cheap.

    1. Re:Shrubberies by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      I'm also wondering about that gross of Jesus pinkey finger bones I bought, and the seven true crosses I have in my front yard. Any way to test them?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Shrubberies by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      cover your self with a wet bed sheet (for safety) then light the crosses on fire.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Shrubberies by kaizenfury7 · · Score: 1

      You got in on that deal? When I saw that were only 300 left in stock, I thought to myself...wait a moment...something doesn't seem right, and decided to take the safe route and go through a Russian escrow company. Can't wait for my grails any day now!

    4. Re:Shrubberies by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      Of course yours was a cheap fake, you moron.

      I already bought the real Holy Grail off ebay like, almost six months ago. It even came with a certificate of authenticity -- and it's not like you can just fake that shit.

      Sucker.

    5. Re:Shrubberies by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure that among my ten skulls of Leonardo da Vinci, there is at least one fake. If only I knew which one.

    6. Re:Shrubberies by zigmeister · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but I just purchased the "greatest airspeed-velocity swallows on the market." Anybody have an idea how I can verify this?

      --
      Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
    7. Re:Shrubberies by dmomo · · Score: 1

      No two originals are teh same! Collect the entire set!!!

    8. Re:Shrubberies by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      It might be the wooden one. The one stamped "Made in China" is also suspicious, since he was from Italy.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    9. Re:Shrubberies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fake one will weigh less. Time to get out your balance scales.

    10. Re:Shrubberies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leonaldo da Vinci vely good chinese cook mind you babalian devil.

    11. Re:Shrubberies by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's 'cause it's butt-ugly looking. And nobody wants to put a butt-ugly looking cup into their living room display.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  14. Well, my Egyptian Mummy is authentic . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know, because he often rises from the dead in the middle of the night while I'm sleeping. He then proceeds to drink my beer, eat my chips and generally make a mess of the apartment.

    He seems to have a penchant for microwave burritos as well. I can't remember any references to burritos in the Bible's chapter of "Exodus."

    And he has been downloading porn on my computer, as well. Mummies seem to be into some weird kink. I'm kind of glad that I can't read Hieroglyphics . . . that's probably some nasty stuff that scholars have mistranslated.

    If he was not such a valuable archeological artifact, I probably would have tossed the bastard.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Well, my Egyptian Mummy is authentic . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I can't remember any references to burritos in the Bible's chapter of "Exodus."

      Exodus 16:14-16:21

    2. Re:Well, my Egyptian Mummy is authentic . . . by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      ...

      If he was not such a valuable archeological artifact, I probably would have tossed the bastard.

      He's probably quite capable of doing that himself - with that porn he's downloading and all.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  15. Ok by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, the way to wipe out the illegal stealing and smuggling of ancient relics is to flood the market with cheap fakes. What other areas of unlawful exploitation can this principle be applied to? Drugs? Child porn? Bootleg music and movies? I believe flooding the prostitution market with fake girls has already been tried, but it hasn't been too successful at curbing demand.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Ok by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      I believe flooding the prostitution market with fake girls has already been tried, but it hasn't been too successful at curbing demand.

      Not all fakes are simple forgery. And some fakes are easier to spot than others. Silicone breasts require some examination to detect and are accepted as still authentic enough by some. However, testicles are a dead giveaway of you don't have a genuine woman.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Ok by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My sister has lots of testicles. She's a veterinarian. Isn't it funny how most female veterinarians don't see any connection between their fascination with castration and their inability to keep a boyfriend for very long?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Ok by deadzaphod · · Score: 1

      Ivory. If you can make convincing fake ivory and sell it you might save elephants.

  16. Failed oportunity by pavon · · Score: 4, Funny

    This headline totally should have been:
    eBay Fakes Lower Craft of Tomb Raiding.

    1. Re:Failed oportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *golf clap*

  17. Same with fossils by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My coworker is an amateur paleontologist. He has a reasonably serious collection that takes up most of his house, and does a lot of trading as well as collecting. He has a lot of stories about fakes.
    "Dominican Amber" is this beautiful, amazingly clear, amazingly inexpensive amber from the Dominican Republic. Except that when you do some research, it all comes through one company, who has filed patents on taking ground-up amber fragments and re-melting them under pressure into new-old amber.
    Likewise, there are some amazing specimens of fossil fish coming out of China, where their skins are fantastically preserved so you can easily see individual scales. Only, a lot of them are completely identical. They're not cast replicas, though: they took an original, cast or machined a negative in metal, then put pieces of slate on top of the negative and vibrated it until it has excavated a perfect copy into the slate -- so it's pure, natural, ancient rock with something that looks exactly like a fossil. In fact, it's pretty hard to tell the difference even for people who know fossils, unless they have a microscope and some time to inspect the edges where the fossil meets the rock.
    He said there are also loads of intricate fossils, stuff with lots of fine features (like the tentacles on squids) that have actually been broken off, and a talented fossil restorer has just cut a new one in the rock itself to make the fossil look complete.

    All of these, like the fake antiques, have made the real ones less expensive -- but at the same time, they make a market larger, because more people can afford to buy, and at some point that could make the demand rise sharply overall, even though the individual pieces cost less, still contributing to increased demand for originals.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:Same with fossils by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can buy them, or you can just go to a place like this and pick them up off the ground. I head over there once a year when I'm visiting family in the UK, and have a nice little collection of ammonites, mennonites, ichthyosaurus vertebrae, shark teeth, etc. You see a fair number of these made out of iron pyrite too, which is pretty interesting. The area east of Lyme-Regis is particularly cool since an old victorian dump is also being slowly washed onto the beach.

      If you're interested in collecting artifacts or fossils there are plenty of places where you can go and do it yourself, legally. It's more interesting, more fun, and a lot more meaningful to have a piece you found yourself sitting on a shelf.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    2. Re:Same with fossils by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I do that: the area I live is awash with fossils. But they're only from a few eras. My coworker is trying to put together a collection that rivals a museum's, and has pieces from almost every continent, from hundreds of places on each, many being the only site where a given fossil has ever been found.

      Yeah, locally we have ammonites and trilobites by the bucketful and every couple of years someone turns up a dinosaur. About 10km from my house there's a field full of dinosaur tracks. It's neat to look at.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  18. Thousands of years by salimma · · Score: 1

    This scam has been going on for thousands of years -- many religious relics are fake, most notably the heads of John the Baptist (Catholic News Agency; also referred to by Umberto Eco in his mediaeval novels).

    More controversially, the Our Lady of Guadalupe icon in Mexico also has a very uncertain provenance.

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
    1. Re:Thousands of years by gordguide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, and if people would just RTFA, they could save themselves a lot of typing:

      " ... It is true that fakes have been around for centuries. In 1886, the celebrated Smithsonian archaeologist W. H. Holmes described countless bogus antiquities in Mexico. A few decades later, Egyptologist T. G. Wakeling noted that many ancient Egyptian artifacts were, in fact, fakes. In the 19th century, American and European museums purchased large numbers of "Etruscan" ceramic vessels and sarcophagi that came straight from the kilns of rural Italian farmers. ..."

  19. Actually, it is illegal by Nekomusume · · Score: 2, Informative

    "selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal."

    If you pretend it's real, it's fraud.

    1. Re:Actually, it is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but the person injured in that case is the person who was attempting to buy an illegally looted artifact. They aren't likely in any position to push the issue. Certainly it is much less of an issue than getting caught importing illegally stolen cultural artifacts. Also, the person who made the fake is very likely not doing anything illegal. The reseller knows it is fake, and the manufacturer probably isn't responsible for how it is advertised to the end buyer. The 'producer' of the real deal is definitely doing something illegal.

  20. Must see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Genuine Egyptian Mummy case!

    Real Mummy's curse included!

    Totally legal, and licensed by the Royal authority of Egytpian Antiquities!

    If all the stuff in your house doesn't disappear after the curse, your money back guaranteed!

  21. Numismats by dargaud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Case in point: my father collects roman coins and is quite expert. Recently he bought a coin on eBay that appeared perfectly real. But then some time later the same coin was for sale again. He contacted the other buyer and they traded high-res pics: they were identical down to the same defects. He then started a private inquiry on the buyers which led him to some russian (what a surprise) groups that sell perfect fakes on the Internet to people who want to then sell them on eBay. They do mass quantities (in the thousands). They even guarantee them against several types of scientific tests (including fluorescence and mass spectrography) ! I have no idea how they can do that, unless they have access to a certain amount of 2000 year old copper and other metals.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Numismats by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Has any copper actually been "made" in the past 2000 years? Wouldn't it all by definition be ancient?

      Of course, the trace elements in it could identify it as coming from Somewhere Else.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Numismats by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      russian (what a surprise) groups that sell perfect fakes on the Internet to people who want to then sell them on eBay. They do mass quantities (in the thousands). They even guarantee them against several types of scientific tests (including fluorescence and mass spectrography) ! I have no idea how they can do that, unless they have access to a certain amount of 2000 year old copper and other metals.

      By cornering the market on mass spectrometers, of course!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Numismats by ionymous · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They even guarantee them against several types of scientific tests (including fluorescence and mass spectrography) ! I have no idea how they can do that

      They're criminals. They can say they guarantee anything. Maybe the coins actually fail these tests, but once you've purchased it, what do they care?

    4. Re:Numismats by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Informative

      as someone who owns a Roman coin I've looked into this (I've only got the one because my collection is primarily of hammered English silver coins). Silver which has been out of the ground and moulded for 2000 years or so takes on some certain characteristics which set it apart as being old, so you do actually need old coins to pull off convincing fakes. How they make money on it is in melting down (or at least heating up) the coins and then remoulding them into more expensive (i.e. rarer) coins. The roman coin I've got was a little over £20 (from a reputable dealer) because it is of an unpopular Emperor and was found with a lot of others - if you can re-hammer a £20 coin into a £200 coin you can see where the profit comes from

      What really bothers me about all this though is less the ripping people off (which is annoying, but so far I don't think I've been got - hint: buying only relatively inexpensive coins and insisting on knowing providence on more expensive ones helps) but more that these people are destroying the world's history to turn some quick money now (for the same reason I don't support irresponsible metal detector users - you need to report any important find!)

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    5. Re:Numismats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBay now has new "protections" that hides the bidders usernames. Such investigations are now impossible to do.

    6. Re:Numismats by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ever tried collecting on one of those warranties? The licensing agreement is murder.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Numismats by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      what's the difference between copper that was dug up 2000 years ago and copper that was dug up yesterday?

      I'm no expert, but if we're talking about non-organics, my guess is that the only way to tell the difference between authentic objects and fakes is workmanship - and since roman currency was made by pounding an ingot with a stamp - it seems reasonably easy to replicate that as well.

    8. Re:Numismats by gawaino · · Score: 0

      Ancient copper was refined differently and contains trace elements. Also, metal produced since atomic tests of the 1950's will show background radiation.

    9. Re:Numismats by jd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you took them to court for selling you improperly-made forgeries, I doubt the judge would offer a whole lot of sympathy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:Numismats by jd · · Score: 1

      Excellent advice, though if you've any links or other info on those characteristics, I'd like to see them. There are some interesting "Celtic" coins on eBay - cheap ones, mind - that I'd like to do some quick-n-dirty validation on.

      Related to this, I'm working with archaeologists in England. Because of help I've got via Slashdot and some archaeological science mailing lists, they now regard me as the coin guru. (Urk!) The site is poorly-understood and some coins have been allegedly found by metal detectorists nearby that are hard to explain. I need whatever info I can get my hands on on how to spot fake coins and understand the significance of any real ones. Help would be gratefully appreciated!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:Numismats by savanik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What really bothers me about all this though is ... that these people are destroying the world's history to turn some quick money now

      I have to ask - how are they destroying the world's history? If they're producing such good fakes that even curators are being fooled into thinking that they're genuine, doesn't that mean there's more culture going around?

      As a simple example, if I created a near-perfect forgery of the Mona Lisa, such that a curator couldn't tell it from the original, then we'd have two Mona Lisa's floating around to be hung up in museums. How does this damage the world's history and culture? It's no longer as rare, so more people have access to it.

      Maybe the individual who owned the original might be a little miffed at the dramatic fall in value of his painting since no one would know which one was real, but isn't that a little bit selfish in terms of the entire world sharing in a culture?

    12. Re:Numismats by Imrik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suppose you had to use another piece of art from the same period as the Mona Lisa to create your fake. Yes there would be another Mona Lisa to show off, but the piece you used would be destroyed forever.

    13. Re:Numismats by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      unless they have access to a certain amount of 2000 year old copper and other metals.

      Yes they do, ALL copper on Earth is way more than 2,000 years old. read the linked article. It says that there is simply no way to test metal. All of it is billions of years old.

      You can look at the corrosion on the outside but there are ways to fake that.

    14. Re:Numismats by joe+155 · · Score: 1

      Reference-wise I'd say it might be worth having a look in the front of "Coins of England" (i.e. the standard catalogue) by Spink, the last copy I bought did have some fairly good advice about how to spot fakes, but ultimately I think that experience is really the best guide. I know I have seen some on ebay that I was sure were fake just from looking at a picture of because you have a general idea of what actual silver looks like (it turns out I was right and someone, inadvertently I think, got some negative feedback). The other info you have on ebay of course is you know the sort of things that the person whose selling it usually sells and so you can to some extent rely on them; if they have over 1000 coin sales and 100% positive feedback I think you can afford to be fairly trusting.

      That's not to say that I'd hold myself up as an expert, it takes many years really to have a really good hit rate on well made fakes and I think that on a pretty decent fake my chances of getting it for sure would be about 50% - not bad but not great. Of course on the really well made fake my chance of knowing definitively would be about 0%... I suppose this is the reason that they spent about 6 months analysing the Coenwolf I gold penny before it went on auction; it can be just that hard to tell even for experts with all the devices you could ask for to aid in the investigation. And if they struggled to say definitively you can bet that we would have no idea.

      With regards to archaeological findings it's important to remember that there are really two types of "fakes". The new ones which come up on ebay, not worth anything really, don't tell us anything useful about any time other than our own (but you're probably a lot less interested in that anyway). The old ones which were made at the time are more interesting even though they are often of worse quality (I've got a Henry VIII coin made of lead which, obviously, has been rubbed pretty badly) but are far more historically interesting because it tell us more about the people who were around. A large quantity of old fakes would be a really interesting finding which would be pretty important because it may be evidence of large scale forging in the past which may tell us more about law and order in the time period.

      "Hard to explain" may make the findings more interesting, remember though that coins could have been dropped and pushed a little way into the ground and so might seem like they are in slightly odd places (but obviously a Henry III penny shouldn't be under a roman floor). If you suspect that the metal dectorists might be actively lying to you then I guess it makes the problem more difficult. I think that if they are bringing in things like gold anglo-saxon pennies then you'd need to contact real experts anyway - but given how rare they are I might be suspicious at first. If they are bringing in slightly poor looking (i.e. "about fine") Henry III pennies then I'd say they have no reason to lie about it - they're not worth that much (I bought one for £5) so I think it'd probably be easier just to get a real job.

      Still, if they are posing a lot of challenges for your analysis then you might still want to get them checked out. If you took them to a local coin dealer in person and explained the situation (i.e. that you're part of a historical society and aren't in it for the money) they might be willing to help you out for free just to give you a general overview of what's real and what's fake. Failing that appraisers will do it thoroughly but at a cost (Spink in london will tell you everything you could ever want to know about a coin and give it a professional grade - this will increase the value but comes at a cost).

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    15. Re:Numismats by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Copper doesn't appear in nature as copper ingots - it is always as ore. The methods for refining that ore have changed over the years and the older methods weren't so thorough so older copper coins had more impurities. The nature of the impurities can tell you where the copper came from and that can tell you a lot about the object itself. If no ore was being extracted from the place you trace the copper to, at the time the object was supposedly made, then you can say it's fake.

    16. Re:Numismats by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I don't think copper has to be refined - that's why it was the first metal fashioned into tools.

      Agree that refining differences should be able to picked up in sophisticated analytical chemistry techniques - but copper is a special case. You might have to fire it, but if you use old coal, I'm not sure you'd introduce any new impurities.

    17. Re:Numismats by quenda · · Score: 1

      Copper doesn't appear in nature as copper ingots -

      Oh yes it does! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_copper

  22. How about selling your GF to schoolkids for drugs? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why think so small?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  23. Which they don't by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are very careful to avoid actually saying that the items are artifacts.

    Anyway, what are you going to do, tell the police you bought an item you thought was illegal and it turned out it wasn't? Go ahead, cops deserve a laugh now and then. I am sure they will drop all the murder and rape cases and jump right on top of it. Just like cops jump on copy right infringement (note that the police doesn't, only prosecutors looking for a lucrative job after their public service).

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Which they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same reason those Nigerian scam emails don't get the attention of law enforcement.

      Scammer: "I am the deposed prince of Nigeria. Please help me commit wire fraud by giving me your account details. I'll pay you back, honest."
      Idiot: "Sounds good!"

      Said idiot goes to the police after he finds out all his money is gone. They laugh themselves silly. Never mind that the scammer is undoubtedly out of their jurisdiction, there's also the small matter of the fraud that the idiot was trying to aid and abet.

    2. Re:Which they don't by julesh · · Score: 1

      They are very careful to avoid actually saying that the items are artifacts.

      Even if they only imply that they are, it is still fraud. See this article that explains how courts will go about interpreting their claims: i.e., they will take the side most favourable to the purchaser if there's any ambiguity in the seller's description.

    3. Re:Which they don't by Imrik · · Score: 1

      You're skipping a step, the purchaser will most likely contact the seller before pursuing legal action. If they do, the seller will point out how they never said it was an artifact. This will make the seller far less likely to actually contact a lawyer and find out that it doesn't matter.

    4. Re:Which they don't by julesh · · Score: 1

      You're skipping a step, the purchaser will most likely contact the seller before pursuing legal action. If they do, the seller will point out how they never said it was an artifact. This will make the seller far less likely to actually contact a lawyer and find out that it doesn't matter.

      I'm assuming a purchaser who understands their legal rights. In this case, they'll realise that nothing the vendor says _after_ the purchase is made is relevant to whether the contract was misrepresented or not.

  24. Buyer beware by netscan · · Score: 0

    It should go without saying that buying anything at auction, meatspace or digital, is a risky venture if you don't know what you're buying.
    A fool and their money are soon parted, eBay just makes the process easier for the scammer.

    1. Re:Buyer beware by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      that's why I buy all my pre-columbian artifacts on amazon's marketplace.

  25. So now we know how God made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we know how God made all those fossils to test the faith of his followers against belief in "evolution".

    1. Re:So now we know how God made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      outsourcing to China?

  26. Won't someone please think of the tomb raiders by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Think of all the hard working honest tomb raiders hacking their way through a jungle somewhere so that you can have your trinket from some dead culture collecting dust on your mantle.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  27. So you see, Dr. Jones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is nothing you can possess that I cannot duplicate.

  28. So you see Dr. Jones... by decalod85 · · Score: 0

    there is nothing that you possess that I cannot duplicate and sell on Ebay!

    1. Re:So you see Dr. Jones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like your own post?

  29. Ebay changes everything by ememisya · · Score: 1

    Part of making a system which allows for making purchases globally extremely easy is screwing with the local economy of any area which largely has access to that system. Just imagine what will happen in the streets if marijuana was legalized and people started selling it online.

  30. Direct Modern Analog: Cracking DRM by maillemaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What we are seeing here is the archeological equivalent of cracking DRM.

    Once pieces can be reproduced indistinguishably from the real thing at cost X, the value of the real thing trends towards X.

    Archeology's DRM has been cracked.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:Direct Modern Analog: Cracking DRM by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More accurately, and more abstractly, it's cracking the DRM on matter.

      Once you can replicate something perfectly right down to the molecular level, there is no longer any difference between the original and the duplicate, because there's

      Sure you could say that you know, because you made the replica, but if I take both pieces, hold them behind my back for a moment, shifting my arms, you've lost that.certainty too.

      Personally, I love seeing scarce goods copied perfectly and can't wait for this to happen to more things.

      The diamond industry comes to mind. DeBeers has been trying desperately to convince everyone that "diamonds are valuable", and now that we're getting good at making copies, they're changing their tune to be, "natural diamonds are valuable". Which basically just proves them to be shysters all along. There was really nothing special about them before, and there's even less now, but they're trying desperately to cling to their business model of convincing people that something is valuable, then holding monopolistic stockpiles of it and releasing just a trickle.

      --

      Question everything

    2. Re:Direct Modern Analog: Cracking DRM by againjj · · Score: 1

      The diamond industry comes to mind. DeBeers has been trying desperately to convince everyone that "diamonds are valuable", and now that we're getting good at making copies, they're changing their tune to be, "natural diamonds are valuable".

      This has already arisen for other gems. As things like synthetic rubies became indistinguishable from natural gems, people started getting certifications of non-synthetic origins of their gems, and tried to convince others of the value. It didn't stop the prices from falling.

  31. Not just artifacts. by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The same has occured with the trade of endangered plant species to an extent.

    The illegal trade of endangered flora has let to the destruction or near destruction of many species. Ebay sales have allowed people to trade plants that were grown in private collections rather than habitat and due to the risk of illegal habitat smuggling of plants, people growing them in cultivation can undercut those selling plants taken illegally from habitat.

    This has allowed some highly endangered species to recover as the pressure from illegal smuggling has died away due to it not being worth the time for smugglers when mass growing at plant nurseries means they can be undercut to the point it's not even worth the smugglers driving to the habitat, let alone risking doing the smuggling itself.

    Ironically though, the international process designed to help protect endangered species - CITES - actually hampers this because it prevents international trade of endangered plants even if they were grown purely in private collections and never grown in habitat, whilst smugglers ignore such regulations anyway.

    As with this and as with artifacts there's a lot to be said about free trade of fakes, or in this case - privately and responsibly grown plants rather than restriction of it. It allows market forces to undercut costs of authentic specimens to the point where it's simply not worth smuggling from a monetary point of view. If more was done to support the trade of "fakes" rather than hamper it as per CITES I think decline of smuggling would actually help - it's better to prevent smuggling at the source and protect habitat than it is to try and catch it at the ports because again, smugglers will avoid the ports anyway.

  32. Bridge for sale by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal.

    Right, except for that whole fraud thing.

  33. This reminds me very much by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    of some musical compilations sold on TV during the '80s. Things like "25 Best Soft Rock Tunes From 1984, by the Original Artists".

    Later it came to light that this small recording company had put together a studio band named "The Original Artists", and was doing covers of the original works.

    If I recall correctly, there was a class-action suit, and the recording company lost.

  34. They SHOULD be easy to reproduce. by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They SHOULD be easy to reproduce. Almost all of truely antique pots and so on were made hundreds of years ago be just "normal indians" It is not like most of them were in their time "high art" it was jsut the vilage potter's work and likely sold for a small amount. The potter made these from local cheap materials that are still locally available and cheap,. Basically any skilled potter who knows what to do can turn out many pots per day both now and 500 years ago.

    This is not the same thing as a fake Rembrandt oil painting. 1,000 years ago these pots were made by people of avgerage skills.

    1. Re:They SHOULD be easy to reproduce. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pottery made by people of average skills is not what is being traded on the global antiquities market.

      Believe it or not, ancient "normal indians" also had outstanding artists. Their works sell for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      These works are not easy to reproduce, unless you have access to a nuclear reactor to artificially age the fired clay.

      To say that this is not like a Rembrandt, speaks to a rather nasty bias. Believe it or not, brown people can make art too.

  35. Double take by kuliphex · · Score: 1

    So are the "artifacts" in Avalon 4 real or fake? I just read Charles Stross's "Halting State" and almost questioned my sanity when I first saw this thread's title!

  36. Other applications by efalk · · Score: 1

    One of the best ideas I ever heard was that someone should generate fake tiger bones, rhinoceros horns and other artifacts of endangered species and flood the markets with them. This would cause the prices to collapse, making it no longer economical to be a poacher.

    1. Re:Other applications by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      One of the best ideas I ever heard was that someone should generate fake tiger bones, rhinoceros horns and other artifacts of endangered species

      s/fake tiger bones/fake powdered tiger bones/
      s/rhinoceros horns/powdered rhinoceros horns/
      etc ...

      I'm not an osteologist, but with even a very small amount of research I'd not have problems in identifying a poor fake of a tiger bone. Either the external shape would be wrong, or the internal structure would be wrong. (I'm not bull-shitting about this - exercises in this "identification of parts" are a routine and necessary part of palaeontology courses, and I still have to practice it often enough to know that I can push up my competence in a matter of days.)

      Powdered bone, horn, etc ... different matter. Which I suspect is why the price of intact bones is considerably higher than the powered material, it being easier to prove what they are ...

      oops, "prove". I forgot the bread proving in the oven ... "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" now, but it looks likely to bake off nicely. I'll find out in about 40 minutes.

      Where were we? I think that the market is probably already adapted to the presence of large amounts of fake material. Now, producing fake tiger DNA to muddy the trail further ... there may be some (new) mileage in that. But you'd skate close to the edge of legitimising the trail in tiger bollocks etc. If you've developed bacteria strain to produce DNA that passes as tiger DNA, then you're not far from persuading the bacteria to produce, for example, tiger testosterone. There are linguistically-challenged doubly-incontinent autistic orangutans who could successfully run the advertising campaign for that.

      Equally, if someone were to take current trends in theraputic skin cloning (for burns victims, etc) a bit further, being able to run a vat of culture medium to produce 3m-wide rolls of genuine tiger skin, as long as you want ... well I could see myself buying a roll of that to wallpaper the bedroom ceiling.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"