"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

I have attached links that will take you to two photos of the vase in
question. I apologize for how the .txt was posted. I, somehow, ended up
with all the MS crud in spite of the fact that I composed the message with
the note pad. I assume it was in how I made the attachment. I'm not very
good at this computer stuff, sort of keeps me off balance most of the time.

http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase-txt.txt
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase01.JPG
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase02.JPG

In case the text is tough to read, 01 shows the vase lit from the side with
light passing through.
The other, 02, was taken with overhead lighting.

Nothing was done to the photos or the piece to enhance or otherwise change
the image, or the repaired area Our entire argument is that the seller did
not disclose the area in question, which resulted in our bidding way beyond
the true value of the piece. Accident? Oversight? I think not. Not
when they wouldn't do what any honest dealer would and make good their screw
up. All indications are that they tried to profit through fraudulently
representing the vase. I can't imagine a judge wouldn't see it the same
way.

I welcome your comments.

Harold