Thread: Lawrences Auctioneers of Crewkerne - Fraud or Stupidity?

Here is a lesson for all sword collectors and dealers. Unfortunately I see so many auction houses falsely describing sword items these days. Most will take anything substantiated you say on board and either change or remove a listing. Some will ignore you. Others it is clear the auction house is bent.

Lawrences Auctioneers of Crewkerne - Fraud or Stupidity?

I do not trust Lawrences and / or their alleged militaria expert Jeff Day from past experiences. Several times I have spotted what I am sure are hooky items in their sales. I have found Jeff Day to be unhelpful, discourteous, obstructive and often very wrong. Plus Lawrences are not the most efficient organization either. Once, Jeff Day failed to place my bids. Another time, I bought nearly £2000 of items from them, sent them my card details, had the lots packed and shipped to me here in Spain / Portugal, and then some time afterwards Lawrences contacted me and asked if I could check my bank account to see if they had taken the money from my debit card! Funny? Well yes, I suppose. Actually they had not taken the money and being the honest person I am, I sent my card details again and allowed them to retrospectively take their cash. But actually, in some ways, I wish I didn't just give them a "salute" and thank them for my free swords!

So I would generally give Lawrences the benefit of the doubt and describe their acts regarding lot 226 of their 3rd / 4th November 2011 Two Day Sale of Coins, Medals, Militaria, Collectors & Sporting as stupid. Bear in mind Lawrences claim to be specialist auctioneers and that Jeff Day is a militaria expert! OK, so Jeff got this lot wrong, there is no such thing as an 1803 pattern British naval sword. Lot 226 is actually an 1805 pattern sword, but I could and did forgive him for that. I was interested in the sword but there have been a lot and I mean a LOT of reproductions hitting the market lately. Some have unusual, not quite right maker / retailer names to scabbard. Many are maliciously fraudulently aged. The sword being offered by Lawrences states that it is marked to “Kingdon & Co of Plymouth on the scabbard”. Well, I could find no mention of Kingdon & Co in my reference books, and it appeared that Lawrences had been very careful with their description so as not to preclude the item being a reproduction, while IMHO still making it sound like an authentic period naval sword, so I decided to make a specific enquiry regarding the grip to determine if it was authentic or not.

I will let you read the email exchanges between me and Lawrences / Jeff Day below as they speak for themselves and tell the whole story. What I will say, in my very honest opinion, is that Jeff day almost certainly knew this sword was a fraudulently aged reproduction and chose to condone and perpetuate the fraud. I say this because of his reactions and the fact any self-respecting expert would have a lot more knowledge and ethics than Jeff appears to have. I can not believe Jeff Day is so stupid so as to think this sword could be authentic and can therefore only presume he is a cheat. No matter whether he is stupid or dishonest, you can not get away from certain facts; a) Jeff Day wrongly described the item's pattern date, b) he got the provenance all wrong, c) he does not know the difference between plastic and ivory.

You make your own minds up. Here are the emails. My text is in blue. First is the item.
Lawrences226.jpg

(sent via enquiry form)
Is the grip authentic or faux ivory?

Dear Sir
Lot 226
The grip is faux ivory.
Kind regards.
Jeff Day
LAWRENCES FINE ART

Hi Jeff
So it is a repro, correct?
Regards
Mark

Incorrect, the sword is the property of a naval officer J.S. Shillingford in his 90’s carried since the 50’s.
Kind regards.
Jeff Day
LAWRENCES FINE ART

Jeff
Lot 226 is an 1803 pattern naval sword.
It would NOT have been carried by a living retired naval officer less the gentleman was over 200 years old.
Mr. Shillingford would NOT have carried an 1803 pattern naval sword.
Also, there never was a Kingdon sword cutler in Plymouth.
If lot 226 has faux ivory, it is a repro.
Mark

(Link sent to another auction lot at Golding Young who describe their lot accurately as a repro)
goldingyoung406.jpg

Lot 226 - We cannot confirm the grip is ivory without testing. In our opinion it is not a repro.
Kind regards.
LAWRENCES FINE ART

Dear nameless who lacks the professionalism to put their name to what they write.

This is nonsense and you know it.
First, anyone with a brain and any experience in antiques will be able to tell from the touch.
If you touch / hold it and it quickly reflects your body heat, it is plastic.
If it stays cool to the touch, it is ivory.

If you want to know for sure, there is a very simple and quick test.
It is called the hot tip test.
You heat the tip of a pin or Stanley type knife until it is red hot and then you touch a discrete part of the subject.
If it melts, it is not ivory.
If it does not melt, it is ivory.

I think you have quite a few repros in your catalogue this time right?
And you are not going to declare them as such, as you have such a limited offering?

And you still have not explained how it is your ex-RN officer came to be carrying an 1803 pattern naval sword in the 1950's, have you?????!!!!!!
What a joke. My, you must be desperate.
In amazement
Mark Austin

Dear Mr Austin,
In reply to your E Mail and its content. We are obviously never going to accept such messages in any way. We are not here to be a target for anyone to abused via E Mail with such comments. This is not the first occasion that we have experienced problems with you, however we have showed patience in the past.
Lawrences will no longer accept bids or enquiries from you, under any circumstances. We no longer wish to have any contact with you now or in the future.
Yours Sincerely
Jeffrey Day

Jeff
I was not abusing you. I was pointing out the facts, trying to save you the problem of taking an item back and damaging your "good" name. Clearly you are selling an item fraudulently and intentionally so. You know the grip is plastic; you have stated this by email. But then you tried to muddy those waters like some barrow boy by subsequently trying to retract the facts and by claiming you would need to test the grip, which I pointed out is a simple test you can conduct in house, as if you did not know. You also know the provenance about it being a old yet still living Royal Naval officer's sword is a nonsense as no RN officer would carry such an old model of sword. I even sent you a link to another auction house's item which is the same as you are selling, yet they have the honesty to declare it for what it is, a reproduction.

Yes, I have had problems with you before, hence I was being very careful before considering bidding at your auction house. And you will be happy to know I am not alone; you have a very bad name amongst militaria collectors and dealers by all accounts.

Your email below is an exercise in futility and the only purpose is your untenable pride. I was not going to bid on any of your items anyway, and I thought I had made that clear. Clearly neither your descriptions or you can be trusted. Clearly you are very dishonourable people.
So I will publish our emails and details of your fraud. And I will report the matter to your local trading Standards.

Have a deservedly bad sale.
Regards
Mark Austin

Hello Mark
Your antipathy for Mr. Day and Lawrences "shines" through!
Not concerned you have burnt your bridges with them?
My observation is besides the item, I thought auction houses were legally bound to protect the identity of the vendor unless the vendor has specifically given permission to have their identity, etc. disclosed, which this does not appear to be the case as the item would otherwise surely say "The property of (rank) J.S. Shillingford, RN"? So has Mr. Day transgressed in more than one way?
Ed

Hi Ed
The thing is, I had already decided at that point not to bid / do business with Lawrences. I rank auction houses according to a number of factors and Lawrences with this slid from last but one on the scale to the very bottom. I have had so many problems with this Jeff Day character and bear in mind two things; a) I am a customer who pays bang on time, and b) all of the past problems Mr. Day accuses me of are in fact problems of their making. Jeff Day is a very difficult man to get information from and to do his job in my experience. I spent ages getting details out of him for one of their auctions some time ago, and I mean ages as Jeff is not a quick / obliging man, and then I made a range of bids which he then failed to register. It was a total waste of time. At another auction I bought nearly 2000 GBP of items and a) had issues with some of them (I sold them on for what I bought them for rather than have to deal with this man to get a refund, that is how bad I rate him) and b) was approached by Lawrences after I had received the items (remember, some of which I had issues with) because they forgot to charge my debit card (or rather did not know if they had charged it and were so bad in their accounting they needed me to check to see if I had or not). Despite the issues I had with the lots I went ahead and sent them my card details anyway, so they could take payment. I did not get any thanks for this, nor did I get any appology from Jeff Day regarding the bids he failed to register that one time for me.

Jeff Day is no expert in my opinion, and I have to triple check everything he touches. I would not mind but his attitude is so bad on top of it. So I had already arrived at the stage where it really was not worth me dealing with Lawrences ever again, so I let him have it. It is a joke this man calls himself and expert yet gets sword patterns wrong and either a) knowingly sells repros as authentic items and / or b) can not tell the difference between ivory and plastic. I can only imagine he turns up for work every day blind drunk and I have no more time for him, except to warn others about his / their failings.

Truly, good riddance to them.
Mark (on soap box)

BTW Lawrences, for an alleged specialist in militaria, had a worse sword selection than a UK book auction house at the same time, and Lawrences were also selling this as a naval sword;
lot0246-0.jpg
Check out the faux nylon grip, the horrible blade devoid of etching and infantry (brown) all weather bag. I did not bother enquiring about this or any other lot except for 226, as 226 was the only one that looked worthwhile / not a fake and it turned out to have a plastic grip and was allegedly being sold by some guy who had carried in battle!

i was at this auction and there was a number of well lets not say fakes but not as stated swords for sale. but its not just lawrences, all the auction houses are at it, and the thing is the buyer does not have much hope of getting his money back. I bid and won a ncos half pike from wallis and wallis early this year, i bid unseen and going by their write up on the web, when it turned up it was wrong, i rang them same day and asked for it to be returned, after many months and phone calls, emails etc, they stated that they would get it send to leeds armoury for a report if i paid, i said i would if it was correct but they would need to pay if it was wrong. after getting sick to the back teeth with them and finding out that the pike was still in the chaps office i called in my solictor, I did get my money back in the end, further to this i went down to view their next auction and what a set of rusted old rubbish, some swords had snapped guards but in the list was stated as in good condition, there was also a few fakes around, and it looked like some sort of bad car boot sale. I will never buy unseen items again, michael

Hi Michael
No, I agree. Buying at auction is a minefield. As least with Wallis and Wallis I get tipped off if something is majorly wrong. I have only had to return one item to W&W out of quite a few I have bought from them, and I got refunded but I must admit I detected a reluctance. However, as the grip was not fishskin as described, they did not have a leg to stand on.

The issue boils down to description. The problem is that we, as British sword collectors, see "pattern" a lot; e.g. 1895 pattern infantry officer's sword. But unless some definitive age is placed upon the sword (WW1, Victorian, George 5th, etc.), the sword can thereby be 2 minutes old and the description is still valid.

What I dislike immensely is where auction houses play a game knowing an item is modern, a repro, describing it carefully. Some of the expressions to look out for besides "pattern" are "silver metal", "faux", and "plated" (often used to describe something that has been horribly replated or a modern piece). It also pays to know "leather" can mean any animal skin including pig skin, and what swords should have what grips. Also the period the British used acid etching on their blades, as this form is basically what Indian sub continent makers use today.

I truly think that many auction houses with so called specialist militaria departments get desperate for listings, that they stray over to the black side.

Actually, with Lawrences, someone else told me the sword was actually authentic, and the grip clearly was ivory, but that their expert got muddled up. Consequently, the sword sold for a lot less than it should of done, because this expert was telling people the grip was plastic!!!!!!!!

There is one specialist, sells nothing but militaria auction coming up soon and the vast majority of their swords are repros. There are two repro Japanese NCO katanas the auctioneer insisted are authentic based solely on them looking like the real thing and having arsenal marks and serial numbers, until I pointed out some facts, including that the serial numbers are upside down. Now, should I need to provide expertise to so-called experts and is this auction house going to revise their description in the light of what I have given them? No, I don't think so.

Auctions are getting worse and worse for repros; it really is buyer beware.

Cheers
Mark

hi mark, with you all the way re auctions, as I said I was at lawrences sale, and at the viewing they had a french sword marked as 19th cen, on looking at the weapon i pointed out it was not 19th cen at all but a 21st cen model french military school sword still in use,I just got a sort of fu-- you look.I did see the navy sword but did not take much interest as navy items are not my thing. I take it you are talking about bonhams oxford as they have lots of reproduction swords for sale at silly prices. I have just returned from a well known german auction and apart from the paintings being all by the same hand, same backgrounds, size etc and with know age at all, found some nice swords on offer from the napoleonic period. I know that it is getting harder and harder to pick real from some very very good fakes out there but feel that auction houses that set them selfs up as experts in the field do need to do better for their fee. The bottom line thoe is that under the currect trading standards act the buyer does not have much redress. as it stands i never buy with out viewing first, this is leaving me with having to drive to france for an auction just to view first hand the items they have for sale. michael

Hi Michael
No, am talking about Ware Military Auctions.

Bonhams Oxford though are a mine field and not great people to deal with IMHO. Amazing, as Bonhams Edinburgh are possibly my favorite auction house in the UK. If you are buying at Bonhams Oxford, you REALLY need to know what you are doing. Part of the problem being getting condition reports and information on lots is neigh on impossible; Robin Lucas their specialist just ignores emails until you are persistent and then he gets annoyed; not just me that says this either.

Buyers do have redress if the description was incorrect. So the trick is to watch out for descriptions tricks (pattern, faux, style, type, silver metal, possibly later, considered authentic). If an auction house describes an item as "1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword" this is not the same as "19th Century 1796 P heavy cavalry sword".
Regards
Mark

hi mark, interesting you stated the 1796 heavy cavalry sword, there is one at bonhams oxford coming up on the 22nd, i did look at this but its a dog and i hate paying their over the top 25% buyers fee, so will give that auction a miss.I don,t know ware miltary actions at all. michael

Hi Michael
I was actually the under-bidder for that "dog" 1796P HC sword; it sold for 750 GBP +++ You say "dog", I say I will gladly have it at the right price, woof, woof; it had the original hatchet point which makes it very rare.

I actually bought 21 items / 14 lots at Bonham's auction today. A couple of things were punts I may take a mild bath on (generally now when I buy something less than I hoped it would be, I manage to sell it on at the same price it cost me anyway, so it only costs me time and sadness). If you are interested, the lots I bought were 9, 35, 65, 86, 92, 104, 109, 111, 119, 121, 125, 126, 127 and 134. Of those I consider lots 86 (very famous senior naval officer's sword - it was his father's or granddad's originally I believe and is a claymore blade on top), 92 (original hatchet point An XIII), 104 (RAF officer's sword), 111 (1796P heavy cavalry dress sword and bits), 121 (Spanish cuirassier sword), 126 (1845 pattern English cavalry backsword of the type used at Culloden) and 127 (one is not French, it is a very rare Hungarian sword) to be spectacularly good buys, even with Bonham's 25% greed tax.

Cheers
Mark