Milwards Swimversa

[Greentura]

A credit to Mr Davis :thumb: . I will watch with interest, not that i will be thinking of selling my own one, not now I've enjoyed using it. Perhaps if it hadn't lived up to expectations it would have found it's way to auction but it seemed i found 'a good'un'

[Nobby]

Well it just goes to show how much we're all learning with these internet forums. The prices the two rods realised just show how much people are aware of.


I'm disappointed that such a prolific rod restorer is changing so many rods from their original specification.
And in this case claiming it to be a rod it clearly is not.


I think this last one is much closer to a fraud under the Theft Act 1968, Section 15 which deals with Criminal Deception.



There's 'sailing close to the wind', there's 'luffing on the tack', but I think the builder is 'dead in the water' morally this time

[Chevin]

Totally agree nobby, I would completly say this is fraud, it even appears he is writing on the rods to make them appear as something they are not. I can see only one purpose for this, to make unsuspecting buyers push the bids up.

[Davyr]

Whoops - I just bought the Andrew Davis restored Swimversa! I did wonder if the seller had been given it in the first place, for much of a profit to be possible over the probable cost of restoration. But then my resistance just crumbled... :chuckle:

[Nobby]

You've just covered all the salient points required to mount a successful prosecution there.


1/. The action was dishonest
The rod is not a Swimversa, it's a third of a Swimversa with some other bits stuck on.

2/. He has told a lie as to fact ot law.
He claims it is a Swimversa when it is not.

3/. The action was taken to obtain the property of another, i.e: money
He restored the rod inaccurately, made false claims about it and offered it for auction.


It's been many years since I mounted a prosecution on behalf of the Crown, but I'd say everything needed was there.

[Nobby]

Whoops - I just bought the Andrew Davis restored Swimversa! I did wonder if the seller had been given it in the first place, for much of a profit to be possible over the probable cost of restoration. But then my resistance just crumbled... :chuckle:

Well, it's a top price for a Swimversa, but it's a cheap price for a Davis restored rod.

It looks beautiful, congratulations.

[Davyr]

I'll certainly be reporting back once I've taken it for its "maiden voyage"! :thumb:

p.s. It was really the inclusion of the Ellen Lawrence rod bag that swung it!

[Weyfarer]

You've just covered all the salient points required to mount a successful prosecution there.


1/. The action was dishonest
The rod is not a Swimversa, it's a third of a Swimversa with some other bits stuck on.

2/. He has told a lie as to fact ot law.
He claims it is a Swimversa when it is not.

3/. The action was taken to obtain the property of another, i.e: money
He restored the rod inaccurately, made false claims about it and offered it for auction.


It's been many years since I mounted a prosecution on behalf of the Crown, but I'd say everything needed was there.

I understand your anger and frustration Nobby but all manner of frauds or nearly-frauds take place in auctions; on-line or otherwise. Ebay won't do anything unless the buyer himself complains and then only if he goes through the proper ebay reconcilliation procedures. The police certainly wouldn't do anything.

Why not wait until feedback for the rod is posted then the buyers id will be known. Then, if you are concerned, you could contact the buyer with a "did you know...." message. And of course it might well be that the buyer couldn't care less so ;ong as he's happy that he's got a bargain and it fishes well.

As a matter of nosiness I went through the seller's buyer feedback. Amazing how many spools of thread, cork handles, cheap rod bits and "unusual" rods he bought six or so months ago. Definitely a busy fella.

[Nobby]

I suspect you're right Weyfarer, though I have heard of eBay pulling auctions early when complaints have been made, and there is indeed a facility to make such a complaint.

Contacting the purchaser after the sale......and telling him he's been 'had'? God, I'd feel awful, but at least he'd have a chance to register a complaint with eBay and get his money back.


I too, looked at the sellers purchasing record


Last year I came across two prolific sellers who had two eBay accounts.....makes you wonder why?

[Greentura]

As someone that recently won a case against a seller that listed an item but neglected to mention it had been shortened by 16", 8" on each section to make them the same length, i would have no problem starting a case against the seller. That rod is clearly not what it was listed as, he is in fact obtaining money by fraud and deception, some of his other rods were more than just suspect and i would steer well clear.

just not cricket or fishing come to that