UV Faded Ornithoptera [need more verification and help!]

Are you the seller trying to cover yourself, or helping him?

I have seen, possessed, and sold blue OVR and none of them looked like the specimen in question. It is possible that an odd-color specimen appear, however the remaining green where the wings overlap is a clear indication that the coloration is artificially fabricated.

I don't know who fabricated it, or how. Maybe the seller did it. Maybe it was done in Gizo. But that is not the buyer's problem. The specimen is clearly misrepresented. This may or may not be fraud. Recently I sold a specimen in good faith that turned out to NOT be what I believed it to be. I gave a full (and substantial) refund.

Chuck

standacer, and to my mind that's exactly YOU who is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, and MONUMENTALLY WRONG, and that's you who might have used some common sense.
Surely, Nature does produce FREAKS and BASTARDS, but there is always at least some extent of bizarre logic, however horrible, but still.
In your case, there's NONE.
Supposedly, the seller may not have known the specimen was "hand-made", but again: THIS IS NOT THE BUYER'S PROBLEM.

P.S. BTW, it very much looks like exoticimports is damn right: "standacer" = 99dmitry99... That's the whole story.

Dear Nick,



I have been asked to contact you concerning a seller's attempt to recover payment for an item that is not as described in the Ebay auction.



This involves a rare form of butterfly, the Queen Victoria Birdwing, scientifically known as Ornithoptera victoria (the species name, "victoria" is, by scientific standards, not capitalized, so I follow that convention.) The seller CLEARLY identified this particular specimen as a very rare form- a color morph- known as "niclasi" of the subspecies "rubianensis". Ordinary Ornithoptera victoria rubianensis typically sell for about $350-$500. However, the rare form "niclasi" sell for over $2000, and this buyer paid $2,450. See www.ebay.com/itm/BLUE-ORNITHOPTERA-VICTORIAE-RUBIANUS-MF-NICLASI-MALE-SUPER-RARITY-RANONGGA-/221701898231?rmvSB=true

s been




The short of the matter, as you have undoubtedly been informed, is that the item in question, is indeed the $350 Ornithoptera victoria rubianensis. However, it has been intentionally and artificially modified to superficially resemble the $2450 form "niclasi".



Let me establish my credentials. I am an entomologist with a US Fish & Wildlife Service import/ export license. I have lived in Solomon Islands, the undisputed source of this specimen. During 2001-2005 I also exported more Ornithoptera victoria (including the niclasi form) than everyone else worldwide combined. I have identified two new previously unknown species of Solomon Islands' butterflies, and expanded the known range of more than 30 species. In short, I know all about Ornithoptera victoria, including subspecies rubianensis and form niclasi. I do not know, and have had no prior contact with the buyer or seller. I have not been retained, paid, or otherwise compensated by the buyer; I simply want to put a wrong to right.



Furthermore, I direct you to a website dedicated to the study of insects, that being Insectnet.com. At this link insectnet.proboards.com/thread/6273/scammed-changed-color-ornithoptera-help you will find an analysis of this specimen, including photos of a like faked specimen. In addition, there is a discussion of how to alter (fake) the color variation of Ornithoptera here insectnet.proboards.com/thread/3200/birdwing-frustration?page=1



The latter link above established that a more common specimen can be altered to resemble the rare form niclasi. This leaves the question if the specimen is an original form niclasi, or has been modified to resemble it. To answer that, I defer to the former link, which clearly shows that the alteration failed to be comprehensive, leaving some of the original green as shown below:





P4231629.JPG



That green patch is not to be found on form niclasi; rather, it is a mistake of the forger for failing to alter the coloration on the area of the hind wings that was concealed below the forewings during the alteration. There is absolutely NO doubt that the specimen in question has been altered. Furthermore, since this alteration cannot happen "accidentally" it is clear that the specimen was altered with the intent to defraud.



So now we have established that the specimen is the more common form; is NOT the form niclasi and has been intentionally altered with the intent to defraud. It is not clear who altered the specimen; I am not saying the seller did so, as we will never know. But the fact remains that the specimens is NOT as described in the Ebay auction.



Subsequent to the sale and buyer's complaint, the seller blamed the buyer, stating that the standard process of preparing the specimen damaged it. This is not possible. Nothing the buyer could do- short of following the same fraudulent processes of the original offending party- could replicate the fraudulent alteration. The preparation processes followed by the buyer are standard processes that have been followed for some two hundred years and are accepted procedures throughout the scientific community. The seller's claims that the specimen was damage have absolutely no merit. The fact that the seller attempted to redirect the dispute onto the seller tells me that the seller is complicit in the fraud.



Let me draw an analogy: this is as if a seller advertised a bright red 1963 Split Window Corvette, 100% original and instead supplied a 1967 Corvette with a split rear window installed. And then the buyer opened the hood noticed that the paint under the hood was blue, but the seller claimed the buyer did it. It is, in plain English, absolute rubbish.



In summary, the seller advertised and sold a rare butterfly that had been fraudulently altered to resemble a far more rare and expensive item. The buyer's money should be refunded in total.



Thank you for your attention to rectifying this matter.



Chuck Derr

Exotic Imports

Ebay ID ExoticmportsUSA

You are still arguing toward something that is not relevant here.
To summarize what the buyer is asking:

Value of the specimen purchased: 350$
Value paid for assuming it was 'niclasi': 2500$.
Actual value after remounting from the buyer: 50$ (altered specimen)

Thus refund by seller upon return of specimen from buyer: 2500-350+50=2200$.
Does that make sense to you or NOT?

The guy advertised a FAKE specimen.
The buyer GAVE sufficient evidence for this.
The seller should refund for the lost value.
SIMPLE... Problem solved.
Chuck email does it very nicely.

I agree, they are the same person.
And I had "arguments" with 99dimitriy99 in the past because I refused to put him in Collector's Secret best ebay sellers selection...

I doubt ebay will refund Wzinke as he indeed "modified" the item quality (not knowing it was a fake niclasi).
But the seller, 99dimitriy99, should refund him. That would be professional.

This item should have been sold as a "UV form / Don't rehydrate it".

Agree but hard to explain to Ebay

Chuck,

Your excellent post, presumably which has been or is about to be sent to eBay would be much more convincing if the name rubianus was used instead of the incorrect "rubianensis".

Adam.