Andrew Tater Petterson Frogskins

[Joseph Smith]

Lastly, here is a Google Drive Link, with the 61 MegaPixel images that I personally shot of every pair. You are welcome to zoom and pixel peep each and every pair. They are all authentic. The link should allow you to view them automatically, but you are welcome to request access if it asks you for that and I will grant it.

Taters - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Previous Owners that I could find in my records:
#9 and #45 were owned by Thomas Sorrells
#37 from UserID hagench on eBay (name Barbara Hagen on PayPal records as who the individual is)
#18 from Carey Taylor
#8, #13, and #28 from Gabriele Zanni

and I will see if I can find others. Cheers!

 

[the_owl]

@cacatman

 

[cacatman]

@cacatman

I saw what you did there. LOL.

I have a friend who has a 2 carat diamond ring. She wears a replica for daily use but still owns the real deal. If you're stupid, I'll spell it out. The principle is this - Just because someone owns valuable authentic stuff doesn't mean that they are selling you said authentic stuff.

I admit that I had problems with this seller. But it doesn't mean that you will.

As always, onus is on the buyer to somehow authenticate their received high value purchased items (regardless of who the seller is).

 

[Oakley G]

I saw what you did there. LOL.

I have a friend who has a 2 carat diamond ring. She wears a replica for daily use but still owns the real deal. If you're stupid, I'll spell it out. The principle is this - Just because someone owns valuable authentic stuff doesn't mean that they are selling you said authentic stuff.

I admit that I had problems with this seller. But it doesn't mean that you will.

As always, onus is on the buyer to somehow authenticate their received high value purchased items (regardless of who the seller is).

Well said, all of it. It is unfortunate the responsibility now falls on the buyer. It used to be you could put trust and faith in another’s claims. Simpler times, funner times.

 

[the_owl]

So someone 'splain the shill bidding. We know its happening

 

[the_owl]

So someone 'splain the shill bidding. We know its happening

This particular user. On your trophy auction.

30-Day Summary Total bids: 450 Items bid on: 73 Bid activity (%) with this seller: 100% View attachment 788124 Bid retractions: 2 Bid retractions (6 months): 20

 

[Oakleygarth]

Tater said he would be willing to verify any pair and is trying to figure out a way he can verify them and maybe do a new very of authenticity

 

[Nucchem]

This particular user. On your trophy auction.

30-Day Summary Total bids: 450 Items bid on: 73 Bid activity (%) with this seller: 100% View attachment 788124 Bid retractions: 2 Bid retractions (6 months): 20

Yes exactly and I know who that is. I reported it and it did no good. I'm sure I over paid by a couple hundred due to that, on a few items

 

[Nucchem]

This person, if the shadow bidder won the auction, it just gets reported as a retraction or the bidder didn't pay, and they realist it until a bidder exceeds their set price which is auto bids.

 

[Smurf_AZ]

Tater said he would be willing to verify any pair and is trying to figure out a way he can verify them and maybe do a new very of authenticity

There is a little more to add to this. Andrew would like $325 for each pair he verifies. After the verification is determined that they are indeed his work, he would like to add a serialized, holographic, tamper-proof "sticker" near the signature then provide the current owner with a COA card.

My thoughts are simply this, this will in no way increase the value of the glasses. Most likely, it is going to hurt the resale value as the glasses will no longer be as they were from Oakley and there will be no way to remove the holographic without damaging the finish on the frames since they are already sensitive as they are.

I appreciate the fact that he would be willing to authenticate his own work but not at a cost of $325 per pair.