So which ones are shills, and which ones whistle-blowers? Or do we have here genuine could-not-care-less collectors bidding for a dodgy bit of antiquity on sale again because eBay is not at all bothered about such niceties as whether their sellers truly have legal title to the items they flog off?
Starting price Oct-13-13 06:59:24 PDT : US $100.00
Bidder: a***e ( 4 ) Oct-19-13 05:45:07 PDT US $100.00
Bidder: o***e ( 55) Oct-19-13 05:45:07 PDT US $102.50
Bidder: a***e ( 4 ) Oct-19-13 05:45:22 PDT US $150.00
Bidder: o***e (55) Oct-19-13 23:06:51 PDT US $152.50
Bidder: o***e (55) Oct-19-13 23:06:51 PDT US $155.00
... and the "winner" was, bidder: l***c ( 83 ) Oct-20-13 06:59:19 PDT US $157.50.
He or she'll be finding out about now from the seller (ebuyerrrrr) that, unless things have changed since last time somebody asked, there's no export licence for it...
Now, tell me, honestly, what can a collector actually do with a piece of decontextualised crap like that? Anybody care to read it for us?
[Just in case this is unclear, this is the same papyrus bought a week earlier by a bidder, who on finding out the seller had no export licence (and lied to her about it not needing one) posted negative feedback, stating why, which eBay then removed allowing the seller to continue flogging off his dugup papyri on their portal:
'Opportunity to Take Part in Illicit Export of Antiquity via EBay - Official', PACHI Tuesday, 15 October 2013,
'Exposing More Untruths in Dark Parts of the Antiquities Trade' PACHI 11th October 2013].