4of 4
  • 1,527 messages
  • September 18, 2014 12:11
10K
added
25K
prices
10
info pages
1K
posts
September 18, 2014 12:11

Is it possible that there are several issues of the same compilation albums ???

If at Catawiki nr 46142 looking at the pictures of the two sellers then you notice that the one on the back only shows 79, where with the other number 79.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 34 messages
  • September 18, 2014 12:51
25
posts
September 18, 2014 12:51

Yes, not only the number designation differs, but also the layout of the spine text is completely different. Unfortunately, the catalog copy does not include an image of the spine.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 1,909 messages
  • September 18, 2014 13:18
100
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
25K
reviews
1K
posts
September 18, 2014 13:18

I especially doubt the "authenticity" of the album that Lordernie offers for sale.

This type of spine with that print was not used from that album on (78 still and 79 no longer). Which does not exclude the possibility that some were still made with the old spine (a kind of transition period).

From here (very far) and with only some (dark) photos available, I would say that the Lordernie copy has been given a 'wrong' new spine.

But before I make statements about that that look like claims, I'd better take a closer look.

But if Lordernie can say with certainty that this is an original rug, then it could well be a variant. Then add!

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 1,527 messages
  • September 18, 2014 15:30
10K
added
25K
prices
10
info pages
1K
posts
September 18, 2014 15:30

Do not think that the spine has been renewed, because in my opinion the interior would wear traces of that.

Have a dozen crests with renewed back and that is clearly visible.

Will add it

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
4of 4