Home › Forums › Windstone Editions › General Windstone › Report Windstone Fakes/Knock offs/Infringment Pls read first
- This topic has 1,069 replies, 183 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by Jennifer.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 11, 2008 at 8:58 pm #708543
Yep, there it is…I know I had seen it before. Should John be informed about it?
December 11, 2008 at 11:11 pm #708544purpleturtle wrote:Yep, there it is…I know I had seen it before. Should John be informed about it?
Yes he should!
I just informed John on your behalf.
I always inform which member found the infrigment/copy.December 12, 2008 at 6:00 am #708545Thanks, BDW 😀 .
January 1, 2009 at 1:46 am #708546I think they’re cute. 🙂 Ebay auction.
Emailed John.
January 1, 2009 at 3:37 am #708547Did good, that is the sratcher but not nice like the real thing. 😉
January 2, 2009 at 2:47 am #708548Oh crap. That reminds me. I found some in Londonderry mall that looked like the gargoyle wall scone (exactly like). Except plastic and ugly. But that was also a while ago and this guy only comes around at Christmas anyway. He’s probably long gone.
That and I don’t have a picture. My fiancee can’t get them off his blackberry – he lost the cord.
January 2, 2009 at 2:55 am #708549I wonder if that dude casted them himself out of the original 😕 ….
It wouldn’t be hard to do considering the type of sculpture it is. But you said they were plastic – interesting. To bad you can’t post the pics.February 9, 2009 at 5:06 am #708550I found these up on ebay. Pretty weird looking but obviously knock offs. already emailed John
http://cgi.ebay.com/2-Beautiful-Vintage-Pearlized-White-Blue-DRAGONS_W0QQitemZ360090418443QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116February 9, 2009 at 7:16 am #708551Vintage indeed. :nea:
February 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm #708552Greater Basilisk wrote:Vintage indeed. :nea:
I don’t think most people eve realize that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vintage_(disambiguation)]vintage[/url] applies to things that are typically more than 20 years old. I don’t have a scratcher so I can’t check the copyright date, but considering it wasn’t issued until 1996 I wouldn’t imagine it to be too much before that. That means even the scratcher himself isn’t even old enough to be considered “Vintage” yet.
February 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm #708553Exactly. I didn’t know that the term “vintage” was already applicable after 20 years – I was thinking more like 50. But as you say – either way the word is misused in this auction.
February 9, 2009 at 4:52 pm #708554I agree that 20 years is a bit young for vintage, but I know that clothing (and some toys) from the 1980s are considered vintage now. A car that is 20 years old isn’t quite a vintage car so the vintage classification varies a bit.
February 13, 2009 at 2:10 am #708555I wasn’t able to take any photos, but we went to the state fair yesterday, and a vendor there was selling a couple knockoffs. They were very rough looking copies of the male dragon. Looked like a mold was made from one and used to cast these clay-looking sculpts. The vendor’s name was Kicking Bird Pottery of Tennessee.
February 13, 2009 at 2:47 am #708556pipsxlch wrote:I wasn’t able to take any photos, but we went to the state fair yesterday, and a vendor there was selling a couple knockoffs. They were very rough looking copies of the male dragon. Looked like a mold was made from one and used to cast these clay-looking sculpts. The vendor’s name was Kicking Bird Pottery of Tennessee.

that one? 🙂 found it for ya
February 13, 2009 at 3:05 am #708557Ohh that is not right…I do kinda like the Brown colors tho.
Marzena
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
