Options
Antiques Road Trip - Legal shenanigans?
Staffsyeoman
Posts: 613 Forum Member
✭✭
The second half of Antiques Road Trip tonight (28 Jan, with Anita Manning and James Braxton) had a very odd set up where Anita Manning was shown with the background blurred out and a voice over from Wonnacott saying "due to ongoing legal reasons" they couldn't show where she had shopped and what she didn't buy, Anyone got an idea what caused the ruckus?
0
Comments
Any programme where they buy antiques at "retail" and try "to sell them at "wholesale, i.e, auctions where many bidders are dealers wanting to buy things to sell on) seems mostly a waste of time.
Possibly the shop in question had been trying to pass off repro stuff as genuine, and got called out on it?
*goes to see if it's on iPlayer...*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05132yv/antiques-road-trip-series-8-reversions-episode-3
However, when I hit play it was an episode featuring Phillip Serrell and Charles Hanson.
Very odd.
There were two episodes shown, one immediately after the other. Firstly Phillip Serrell competing against Charles Hanson (who made well over a thousand pounds) and then straight on to another episode with Anita and James Braxton.
Edit: Yes it is. I didn't think to skip to the second half as I thought it would be only one episode. It's a double. Too tired to watch now though, so maybe tomorrow.
It has to be hard to make a substantial profit in buying to sell at auction.
But I find it very funny when the experts haggle the dealer in the antiques shop to buy an item for less than half the price on the label and yet they still make a loss on it at the auction anyway.
It always make me smile when they go into raptures having "made" a few quid at an auction. By the time you take off the agent's commission, the traveling expenses to the auction and the time taken, they've "made" nothing.
But it does make for a relatively cheap programme and a lot of people watch it.
Once someone sold an old vinyl record and had to deduct the £4 postage from their profits, yet the gallons of fuel used delivering cheap items all over country is ignored.
It's just a question of economics.
Many bidders at auctions are looking to buy something they can sell on at a profit.
But "the world and his wife" are also trying to make a profit before and when it finally goes up for sale.
They can't all win.
I just wondered if anyone knew what had caused the legal punch up!
I prefer auction shows.
On Antiques Roadshow they can just give any old value off the top of their head without having to prove it.
I always wonder about these auctions, how many people actually turn up. Won't get a decent price for anything if there's very few punters there.
I buy and sell a few things, but I always use eBay. The ways you can display stuff on there is very comprehensive, yet so few people take full advantage. I've always made money on stuff I've sold on there.
Some places seem to be good for buying. Some seem to be good for selling.
Always commission & VAT to take into account.
commission now reaching 20% which is a fair chunk..
best place to sell Anita's in Scotland.. and Nantwich in Cheshire.
You seem to be under the impression that the show is an educational documentary.
which is what i saw..nothing..
Mmmm....
Wouldn't it be great if there was some vast resource of information that was fully indexed in some way that you could easily search it by entering a few pertinent terms.
Errrmmm...
"Antiques Road Trip"
"Legal Issues"
"Stamford"
Oh!
Not really Just wondering why some costs are considered and not others
The aim is to make as much profit as possible as it all goes to Children In Need. Their "rapture" comes from being able to make money for the charity through the choices they made. The pairing up just gives it that element of competition and shows how different things sell at the same auction. It's a good mix for a TV show.
It's choice, chance and charity.