Fake LAH teapot??

[Adrian Stevenson]

Kris is spot on about these.

I still have these three dishes.

Cheers, Ade

[stuka f]

I still find it amazing how similar the logos are.........!

So do the owner!
It says in theyre desscription;
Monogram Notes: Not to be confused with the 'HAL' steam ship monogram. There are distinct differences in the line detail which can be seen in the close up image. An authenticated example of this monogram can be found online. (Email for link).
Don't think a elite TR organisation would use 1914 made tea pots! "1914" being the date thes pots were made, not a patern number as they pretend!
I can't even imagine ss LAH members drinking tea !! (lol!!) ;-)
Here is the ad;
WWII Military LAH German Guard Teapot, August Wellner & Sohne, from shoppecupere on Ruby Lane
|<

[Wagriff]

But Hey...its Just 500 bucks...what more do you want?

[stuka f]

To expensive for a HAL tea pot!
And a bargain for a LAH one.
|<

[Wagriff]

I don't know if I'd even pay 500 dollars for a L.A.H. teapot! lol

[Seriously]

I was researching something when I ran into this. Very interesting thread!

=1= Interesting that the link to Shoppe Cupere was so readily posted along with the quote:

“An authenticated example of this monogram can be found online. (Email for link).”

And yet no one felt the need to post the link for the authenticated example… even though two people in forum HAVE the link. (I know this. I have record of having sent it to them after they emailed their request).

Here is the link: LSSAH Silver Platter by Krupp Berndorf

Artfully leaving out such information even while making slanderous comments (direct and implied) regarding the listing practices of the Shoppe Cupere store …(‘pretend’ information?)….

Debate or no debate – there is obviously no interest in intellectual or educational discussion here.

And considering all the supposed silverplate collectors on this site – it is amazing that not one of you seems to know even the most rudimentary basics of silverplate marking systems. Nor do any of you seem to understand or recognize even the most elementary differences between engraved or pressed/embossed designs.

=2= Just as interesting: Two members posting here continued to make purchase inquiries (even price negotiations) regarding the item; even while engaging in their childish comments regarding our Shoppe Cupere store or practices. Apparently collecting HAL is just as interesting; but lends itself to being a handy price negotiation tool.

It could easily be misconstrued that their opinions and posts were nothing more than an intent to effect the interest of others or change a market price. Given their complete absence of sharing the exampled link in their public posts… speaks volumes.


=3= Copyrighted photographs were not only published without the owner’s permission (that would be me); they were blatantly exchanged as stolen property. Please see forum rules:

“All postings, and photographs become the property of MHF, and you agree to release, once you post, all material to MHF and release any other claims to your property.”

‘Alikat’ does not hold any legal claim, expressed or implied, to the copyright of these images. Alikat did not have permission to publish them, via any media, let alone give away all rights to them. Giving away legal right to something that you do not own is engaging in the exchange of stolen property. If there should be any question as to international vs domestic copyright law; there is certainly very little question as to what is or is not stolen property.

With anything posted on the internet, there is a certain expected, implied, and accepted level of sharing (in many forms) of all things published via the internet. It is one of the charms of the unique experience that the internet offers above all other publication mediums. But publishing and/or giving away ownership of copyrighted material without a legal release from the owner… these actions cross over and beyond any accepted, expected levels of sharing and into a very well defined area of copyright law.

I should also note that Alikat gained access to the images through misrepresentation of intended use. (Questionable ethics to say the least).

Permission was requested to use the images to have the object in the images ‘authenticated’. Permission to publish or give away copyright claims was not requested, not implied, and certainly not given.

‘Authentication’ has an implied professional and legal definition.

Referring back to board rules:

“We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message.”

That statement, single-handedly, acknowledges that these forums (and the exchange of messages within) are not a means of authenticating any object by any definition. Professional, legal, or otherwise.

= = = = =

We have, many times, given permission to educational sites to use our materials for research publications. Online and in print. Any such permissions always come with a clearly written, legal permission of any materials for which permissions are granted. We have not (ever) given away copyright claims or rights to our own materials even when permission to use them was granted.

We did not give this site or anyone posting on this site, the permission to own, claim, or publish our materials. *If* permission had been requested, then we likely would have given permission for one of the images in question to be published for the sake of intellectual debate. We would not have given away all claims or copyright to the image. We simply would have granted permission to publish that single image for educational or intellectual research purposes. HOWEVER – permission was not requested. It was not given. And considering our property was acquired under false pretenses, published without permission, exchanged as stolen property, and used to slander our shop rather than engage in anything intellectual… such permission would never be granted to this site. We fully support the intellectual and educational exchange of information and ideas. We do not provide support for, or contribute to, sites that engage in the behavior as witnesses here.

===

I am requesting that THIS message remain in this thread; and that this thread be permitted to remain public, exactly as it is, for the same number of days that it has already been posted with the damaging comments and stolen materials. After those days have completed, I am requesting that this thread be removed from the site completely.
If this request is granted, I will consider this to be adequate compensation for any damages or offense that was occurred in the mis-use of our property. If this request is granted, I will be quite happy to let it rest without any further action or comment. And all considerations noted – I think this is very little to ask.

Sincerely,
Sage
Marjorie & Sage Shoppe Cupere

[Scout]

Beautiful tea pot regardless.

[stuka f]

So it is, but I am not going to leave any other comments before I spoke to my lawyer!
;-)
|<

[Adrian Stevenson]

Hi Sage, and welcome to the forum.

I honestly believe these are all "HAL" items, like you say they are interesting in their own right. I have three dishes. But there has been much discussion of these over the years, including several articles in the UK "Armourer" magazine. Collector concenus is now that they are from the shiping line and not from the LAH.

Cheers, Ade.

[Wagriff]

"even while engaging in their childish comments"...hmm...sounds like Slander to me...oops..it's in Writing...make that Libel...I always get the 2 mixed up.. Better run and hide,Kris-they're coming to Belgium to get you!