In a message dated 10/4/2002 1:05:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, richardsachs@juno.com writes:
<< what's the harm if he's not (as) well versed (as our list bretheren) in the jargon? >>
Coming into this a bit late (I have been off at the Bike Show) ....
Well, this is rather a crucial point about a persons responsibility in selling a valuable thing, be it a bicycle or anything else. True ignorance of the facts or feigned ignorance, the result is the same.
I think I read in between the lines that Richie has affection and empathy for the older gentleman, which I can understand, but this seller still must be held responsible when selling something as special as this bike. HE should have asked you to help him properly describe that bike before placing it for auction.
You cannot simply say a bike belonged to Coppi if you are really not sure or able to substantiate it. Imagine selling an item "Used by John Kennedy" or selling your home by saying it had some enhancing attribute that you really didn't know for sure and unable to substantiate it. It would be seen as outrageous. Kind of like these religious relics, i.e., "Saint Sebastian's toe bone" Yuk.
That bike was valuable in it's own right as a mechanical piece but the Coppi provenance would boost it's value immensely to some buyers. If we are "CR Police", in a position to call someone to task on a slip up (or, in some other cases, intentional misrepresentation) like this, I think it's a good thing.
Dale Brown
Greensboro, North Carolina