Home › Forums › Windstone Editions › General Windstone › Is it just me?
- This topic has 12 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by Pam.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 26, 2011 at 6:16 pm #503971
Or does the OW in Red Fire on ebay look kind of faded on his display side? They are claiming it is new in box (and maybe it’s just the photos), but the back looks darker than the front – and the front seems more “orange” than “red”.
Anyone have a picture of a mint OW in Red Fire to compare?
September 26, 2011 at 6:27 pm #858098He looks normal to me, but I don’t have any red fires. I think it just might be the lighting and sculpture. Or like the flash wasn’t used.
The faded fire reds that have come up have been in a gold color.
September 26, 2011 at 6:29 pm #858099His display side looks slightly faded… you can see it on the back leg.
Kalandra
September 26, 2011 at 6:31 pm #858101It is hard to tell from the photos, but it looks he is partially faded, as the display side definitely looks more orange compared to the non display side. He doesn’t look badly faded like some red fires I’ve seen, but it appears he is beginning to fade. Again, it may just be the pictures, but that is what it looks like to me.
September 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm #858102The neck area on his display side looks a little like cheddar…that’s the color I associated with sun damage. But, when I found my sun damaged ruby OW, the neck area, the face, and the belly, and part of the tail were all similarly effected from sun exposure. I think it would be tricky to only have part of the dragon faded; it’s usually the parts that stick out and receive more sun. I’ve noticed SOME shading difference with the OWs because I bought mine sight unseen, when I got him I was paranoid his front paws didn’t look red enough! Looking at other pictures, there is certainly some variations in the depths of red. But again, that neck on Ebay does look like it’s getting there to gold, so in short: I’m not sure!
September 26, 2011 at 7:02 pm #858103looking at the ebay guy again, yes I think he is sun faded. The haunch of his display leg has the same fading red as the neck area on teh display side does. When I repaired my OW ruby dragon, those areas required the most paint, so maybe they are the worst effected by exposure?
here are some pics of my big guy, sorry about the glare =P
September 26, 2011 at 7:49 pm #858115He does look faded compared to any of the Red Fires that I have as well. I am curious as to what he might say about it. Wonder how long it has been in that window for the taking of pics or if it has been on display?
September 26, 2011 at 8:09 pm #858117It could be that they bought him “new” from a store that had previously displayed him. Or, maybe the person bought him new in box, displayed him, and kept the original box… Then he would be mint WITH box, as opposed to mint/new IN box. Some people might not distinguish between those two things.
Have you tried contacting the seller? Ask for the items history. Did they buy it from a retail store? Did the store ever display it, to their knowledge? Did they ever display it? Be honest, just say “it looks like one side of this dragon is a lighter or a more orangey color than the other side. Can you tell me if both sides match, or if one side is a little darker or lighter than the other?”
The box does look at though it has been taped more than once.
September 26, 2011 at 10:29 pm #858146You can’t go by the tape on the box. If I get a piece and cannot display it, I look at it, put it back in the box and tape it back up. The next time I look at it, I will tape it back up again. I have stacks of boxes and never pile them without having the boxes taped up in case they fall. If I decide to sell it, I have to take it out for pictures. Then I tape the box back up again. As long as he has not been displayed, he is new in the box, regardless of the number of times the box has been taped.
September 26, 2011 at 11:45 pm #858160All I meant by my comment is that the box looks as though it has been opened previously. I wasn’t saying it was incrementing evidence, it was just something I noticed.
September 27, 2011 at 12:03 am #858163And everyone has their own idea of what is new, or mint, or like new too. About the only thing you can rely on is seeing a piece that is loaded with dirt and dust in the crevices; then you know it is not new, regardless of the description. I remember a while back that someone said their piece was new, and that it had been kept in their closed curio for the seven years they had owned it.
September 27, 2011 at 12:35 am #858169Huh, someone bought him anyways. For $600! He looked faded to me, too…I hope whoever got him doesn’t care. I really like my faded RF scratcher, but it’s probably not as nice if you aren’t expecting it…>.>;
September 27, 2011 at 1:01 am #858172Whenever you are buying a piece that is listed as new, like new, mint, mint in box, etc (especially with expensive windstones!) it is always best to ask the seller for a detailed history of the item, just in case your definition of mint or new is different from theirs 🙂
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.