On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 7:09:08 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
DerbyDad03 wrote:
Nope.
unscrupulous is the word a collector used for folks like you
i agree with them they warned me about this
Folks like me? Folks that offer definitions? What's unscrupulous about that?
if you purposefully make a tool look older than it is in order to
get more money for it that's wrong and deceptive
Not true. Purposefully making something look older than it is to get more money is not deceptive unless you also claim/imply that it is older than it is.
Remember what you said that I said "Nope" to:
"if someone's distressing a tool to make it look vintage that's counterfeiting"
Distressing an object is nothing more than a finishing technique. Granted, if someone distresses an new object and then *advertises* it as vintage/antique/circa-1888, then yes, that is unscrupulous. However, the mere distressing of an object to make it look old is neither counterfeiting nor unscrupulous. It's nothing more than a finishing technique. That was my point, and the reason for my "Nope".
If I build a new house and finish it a style that makes it look like it was built in the 1800's - including using crackle paint to make it look really old - and then offer it for sale, that is not unscrupulous. However, I try to convince someone that the house was actually built in the 1800's, then I am being unscrupulous. The same goes for tools, furniture, paintings, etc..
You need to separate the finishing technique from the words used when advertising the object for sale before you can say that the seller is being unscrupulous. You need to consider the intent of the seller. Many people will pay more money for something with a distressed finish simply because they like the way it looks. Go to any crafts show and look at the hundreds of old looking objects that are both not old and not being advertised as old. Nothing unscrupulous going on there.
Here's a perfect example. I've made a number of these for my kids and for their friends. I distressed the hash tag to make it look older than it is. There is absolutely nothing unscrupulous about making that brand new hash tag look older than it is because I never claimed it was a "vintage hash tag".. It was distressed to make it look older than it is in an attempt to blend an old communication style (the chalkboard) with the new (twitter).
https://buzzfarmers.com/wp-content/u...1.29.58-PM.png