5 ms·

I get that Museums aren't well funded but I feel like ten quid isn't enough value being returned to the owner. That owner didn't know what they had and was take

by mevile 10y ago

I get that Museums aren't well funded but I feel like ten quid isn't enough value being returned to the owner. That owner didn't know what they had and was taken advantage of, even if it was for a good cause. I hope their name becomes part of the story of the device at least.

aw3c2 10y ago
Yeah, I thought it sounded very ungrateful when reading: "We said 'Thank you very much, how much was it again?' She said '£9.50', so we said 'Here's a £10 note - keep the change!'"
- biot 10y ago
  It's like using open source as the foundation of a billion dollar business. "Thank you very much, how much was that fantastically useful library again?" "Free." "Have a nice day."
mckoss 10y ago
That got to me too with the museum representatives smugly ripping off the owner and telling her to "keep the change".
london888 10y ago
Yes the museum could have handled it better so that the owner wasn't made to look stupid.
pkaye 10y ago
Like many collectables, the value will come with how complete and original it is and how functional. Things which are missing parts or modified can lose substantial value.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Yes -- this also looks like it was just the teleprinter part, not the actual encrypting mechanism.
13of40 10y ago
It would be awesome if she read the article, then dug around and found the motor...
- lostlogin 10y ago
  She's the obvious person to ask about it so I assume they did. How you ask without revealing that you know what's being sold is valuable is beyond me.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  If she did I suspect the motor would suddenly become a bit more expensive.
  - petecox 10y ago
    Suckers! :) Who would pay 10 pounds for a 75 year old piece of junk that didn't even work? I mean if you're going to be all steampunk, at least interface with a USB-C connector and use the machine to live tweet the announcement.
- molmalo 10y ago
  Well, if she did, I think she should take legal counsel...
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I understand your emotion but consider it from the owner's point of view. It was junk taking up space, now they have 10 quid and more space. They are quite happy. Sure that junk "might" have been valuable but if you go down that road you end up a hoarder thinking someday velvet paintings of elvis are going to be really really valuable. She could have taken it to the local Antique store and had it evaluated, or asked the museum about it, but instead did what many do, throw it up on Ebay and see if anyone wants it. She's happy, the museum is happy, that really is all that counts here.
- aw3c2 10y ago
  If I was the owner and would now see my L20 junk written about as valuable artifacts in the news, I would be pissed and angry. Solely because the buyers did not educate me but used my ignorance for their advantage. Maybe she would have simply donated the item, I sure would have. The issue is not money, it is being exploited.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- wwwdonohue 10y ago
  You really think they're going to be happy seeing the museum folks bragging about getting it for so cheap in the BBC?
- MrJagil 10y ago
  I think the problem is the phrasing. "Keep the change" sounds like they exploited her ignorance and ran off with a bargain. It's just not how most people want things to be. Despite the logic of the situation, it doesn't feel right. Attributions are free. Further, though, there are some practical considerations. If they'd shown her appreciation, future dialogue about how it got there, clues to the motor etc should be easier to develop- they obviously asked, but no reason to potentially burn any bridges.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
I've never quite understood this. I bought a music box at a garage sale for bout $10. It seemed like a good deal at the time. A few months later I noticed a label on the bottom so I did some research and discovered that the same item was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. Should I now go track the owner down and tell her that she should have asked for more money? Counter that with the time I found a Coach trinket at another garage sale for $1.50 and I pointed out to the homeowner that an old gf had bought the same thing from the Coach store for $35. Her answer was "well, I guess you're getting a good deal then." In the end, once the seller and buyer agrees on a price, it's hard for me to see how that's screwing someone over.
- tormeh 10y ago
  >I bought a music box at a garage sale for bout $10. It seemed like a good deal at the time. A few months later I noticed a label on the bottom so I did some research and discovered that the same item was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. Should I now go track the owner down and tell her that she should have asked for more money? You didn't know. It was a trade among equals. This was different. That said, there are some situations where it's considered OK to rip people off. Finance works like that. But I would've thought that museums had slightly higher standards of conduct than Goldman Sachs...
- mynewtb 10y ago
  No, your transactions were as you did not secretly use rare knowledge to your advantage.
molmalo 10y ago
There seems to be something strange with that transaction. I don't know there, but where I live, that kind of transaction would clearly be invalidated if taken to court. At least here, for a transaction to be valid, both parties must be in the same kind of conditions, regarding to the knowledge of the thing (if one does not know what the object is, they should explain the other, not just take advantage of the situation). This was clearly not the case. "It may also be sued annulment or amendment of legal acts when one party exploiting the need, lightness or inexperience of the other, obtained through them an obviously disproportionate and unjustified financial advantage." Spending just a few seconds in google, it seems that it is the same in other countries: "When anyone, exploiting the sum ignorance, notorious inexperience or extreme misery of another, obtains an excessive profit that is clearly disproportionate to what he in turn agrees, the injured party is entitled to seek rescission of the contract, and if it impossible equitable reduction obligation." But of course, it all depends of the law of the place. If that that's OK in Essex, well... too bad for the one selling this object. And good for the museum taking advantage of that opportunity (even if it may sound a little bit unfair). At least this machine will be in good hands. In any case, it'd be nice if they stop bragging about that. ----- Edit: And according to wikipedia[1]: In English Law, "unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake" IANAL, but in this case, I think there was obviously one party that didn't know what the object was, and another that did know and was taking advantage of the situation ("It was advertised as a telegram machine ", "keep the change" and all that). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_in_English_law
- merb 10y ago
  That law won't apply to a auction
  - molmalo 10y ago
    Why not? Because he saw the article on Ebay? I don't know if this changes things, but they paid in person, they had every chance to inform the other party if it seemed so strange for them. And the fact remains, there was a party who didn't know, and another that knew and took advantage. For example, if she knew, she could have started the auction at a much higher price...

by mevile 10y ago

aw3c2 10y ago

Yeah, I thought it sounded very ungrateful when reading: "We said 'Thank you very much, how much was it again?' She said '£9.50', so we said 'Here's a £10 note - keep the change!'"

biot 10y ago
It's like using open source as the foundation of a billion dollar business. "Thank you very much, how much was that fantastically useful library again?" "Free." "Have a nice day."

mckoss 10y ago

That got to me too with the museum representatives smugly ripping off the owner and telling her to "keep the change".

london888 10y ago

Yes the museum could have handled it better so that the owner wasn't made to look stupid.

pkaye 10y ago

Like many collectables, the value will come with how complete and original it is and how functional. Things which are missing parts or modified can lose substantial value.

ams6110 10y ago
Yes -- this also looks like it was just the teleprinter part, not the actual encrypting mechanism.

13of40 10y ago

It would be awesome if she read the article, then dug around and found the motor...

lostlogin 10y ago
She's the obvious person to ask about it so I assume they did. How you ask without revealing that you know what's being sold is valuable is beyond me.
jacquesm 10y ago
If she did I suspect the motor would suddenly become a bit more expensive.
- petecox 10y ago
  Suckers! :) Who would pay 10 pounds for a 75 year old piece of junk that didn't even work? I mean if you're going to be all steampunk, at least interface with a USB-C connector and use the machine to live tweet the announcement.
molmalo 10y ago
Well, if she did, I think she should take legal counsel...

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I understand your emotion but consider it from the owner's point of view. It was junk taking up space, now they have 10 quid and more space. They are quite happy. Sure that junk "might" have been valuable but if you go down that road you end up a hoarder thinking someday velvet paintings of elvis are going to be really really valuable. She could have taken it to the local Antique store and had it evaluated, or asked the museum about it, but instead did what many do, throw it up on Ebay and see if anyone wants it. She's happy, the museum is happy, that really is all that counts here.

aw3c2 10y ago
If I was the owner and would now see my L20 junk written about as valuable artifacts in the news, I would be pissed and angry. Solely because the buyers did not educate me but used my ignorance for their advantage. Maybe she would have simply donated the item, I sure would have. The issue is not money, it is being exploited.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
wwwdonohue 10y ago
You really think they're going to be happy seeing the museum folks bragging about getting it for so cheap in the BBC?
MrJagil 10y ago
I think the problem is the phrasing. "Keep the change" sounds like they exploited her ignorance and ran off with a bargain. It's just not how most people want things to be. Despite the logic of the situation, it doesn't feel right. Attributions are free. Further, though, there are some practical considerations. If they'd shown her appreciation, future dialogue about how it got there, clues to the motor etc should be easier to develop- they obviously asked, but no reason to potentially burn any bridges.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago

I've never quite understood this. I bought a music box at a garage sale for bout $10. It seemed like a good deal at the time. A few months later I noticed a label on the bottom so I did some research and discovered that the same item was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. Should I now go track the owner down and tell her that she should have asked for more money? Counter that with the time I found a Coach trinket at another garage sale for $1.50 and I pointed out to the homeowner that an old gf had bought the same thing from the Coach store for $35. Her answer was "well, I guess you're getting a good deal then." In the end, once the seller and buyer agrees on a price, it's hard for me to see how that's screwing someone over.

tormeh 10y ago
>I bought a music box at a garage sale for bout $10. It seemed like a good deal at the time. A few months later I noticed a label on the bottom so I did some research and discovered that the same item was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. Should I now go track the owner down and tell her that she should have asked for more money? You didn't know. It was a trade among equals. This was different. That said, there are some situations where it's considered OK to rip people off. Finance works like that. But I would've thought that museums had slightly higher standards of conduct than Goldman Sachs...
mynewtb 10y ago
No, your transactions were as you did not secretly use rare knowledge to your advantage.

molmalo 10y ago

There seems to be something strange with that transaction. I don't know there, but where I live, that kind of transaction would clearly be invalidated if taken to court. At least here, for a transaction to be valid, both parties must be in the same kind of conditions, regarding to the knowledge of the thing (if one does not know what the object is, they should explain the other, not just take advantage of the situation). This was clearly not the case. "It may also be sued annulment or amendment of legal acts when one party exploiting the need, lightness or inexperience of the other, obtained through them an obviously disproportionate and unjustified financial advantage." Spending just a few seconds in google, it seems that it is the same in other countries: "When anyone, exploiting the sum ignorance, notorious inexperience or extreme misery of another, obtains an excessive profit that is clearly disproportionate to what he in turn agrees, the injured party is entitled to seek rescission of the contract, and if it impossible equitable reduction obligation." But of course, it all depends of the law of the place. If that that's OK in Essex, well... too bad for the one selling this object. And good for the museum taking advantage of that opportunity (even if it may sound a little bit unfair). At least this machine will be in good hands. In any case, it'd be nice if they stop bragging about that. ----- Edit: And according to wikipedia[1]: In English Law, "unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake" IANAL, but in this case, I think there was obviously one party that didn't know what the object was, and another that did know and was taking advantage of the situation ("It was advertised as a telegram machine ", "keep the change" and all that). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_in_English_law

merb 10y ago
That law won't apply to a auction
- molmalo 10y ago
  Why not? Because he saw the article on Ebay? I don't know if this changes things, but they paid in person, they had every chance to inform the other party if it seemed so strange for them. And the fact remains, there was a party who didn't know, and another that knew and took advantage. For example, if she knew, she could have started the auction at a much higher price...