CloseUp at 7 - Mon 23 May 7pm TV1

This is where you can read any threads which have been closed by site admins. This forum is read only.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 15014
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 2:25 am
First Name: Alfie
Location: Otago

Post by digidog » Mon May 23, 2005 7:51 am

I think Vink's philanthropy developed in direct response to criticism.
And I believe that the combined figure for all three identities totalled
nearer $150k... but don't quote me on that.

And keep in mind that many of the people who won a single
Vink bought two or more off the man by private agreement.
Then there are the people who worked out the "easy as ABC and
XYZ" line on most of his Q&As and contacted him directly to buy
their investment art.

Knowlegable people who have viewed his "recent works" describe them
as awful. I think Miss Kim-Su may be to blame ;-)

User avatar
Assistant ScamBuster
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 12:56 am
Location: Taranaki

Post by bumbleguts » Mon May 23, 2005 7:54 am

Lots of good questions asked in here.

Yes it certainly appeared TM were looking after their butt.

No contact with vink? why not?

Did they actually try to contact him, I doubt it as they would normally say.

Im also glad to see Clive wasnt wearing his mohawk, it always made me duck for cover.

Lets just hope other media pick up on this and do some investigative work.


User avatar
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 7:26 am
Location: queenstown

Post by chinaqt » Mon May 23, 2005 7:54 am

Clive has actual figures 115 for vink and 22 for chelsea. I don't think all the early ones were listed perhaps, or before Clive twigged. All of chelsea's are still in the expired listings. Hope someone is keeping track.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9880
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:16 pm
First Name: Peter
Location: Lower Hutt


Post by Foggyone » Mon May 23, 2005 8:11 am

I had a Radio NZ reporter on line earlier in the day.

She did ask how to contact Mr Vink. I advised her of the email address on his website. She didn't think that would work. I had to give her a quick Whois lesson so she could check out his website registration, to see if that would provide another avenue.

Don't know the outcome, but Mr Vink suddenly seems a little bit AWOL and hard to contact.
Google, the answer to so many questions!

Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 5:14 am

Post by SuperMama » Mon May 23, 2005 8:14 am

Ok - So when these ppl who have viewed his recent works have been less than complimentary - how on earth does that explain the oodles of over the moon buyers? Some almost seem to act as though life is now finally worth living since purchasing a Peter Vink number.

I also want to see that this is chased down. You know I hope this isn't the end. Some think - trademe have dropped the guy hes gone, lets all get on with life. But this guy needs tracking a little further. Fair Go style. If he is this dishonest and greedy he wont have gone away altogether unless prosecuted or faced charges or whatever. He's just gone to ground. And I'd bet quids he is reading all and everything he can online to try and stay ahead of the game.

Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 5:14 am

Post by SuperMama » Mon May 23, 2005 8:18 am

And does he sign his work?
Has he ever entered an art competition?
Is he a member of any art society?

A few weeks ago as I was in awe of this guy, from watching his success on TM I was in the art gallery that takes some of my art and asked them "Have you heard of Peter Vink?" And they just blanky shook their heads. Which made me wonder if he ever submitted work for competitions. Many legit successful artists enter competitions.

Did PV just sort of spring up out of nowhere?

Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:35 am
Location: Auckland

Post by trisheart » Mon May 23, 2005 8:36 am

Super Mama -I do recall a while ago someone asked him if he had considered entering the affordable arts exhibition in Wellington. ( the price range there is from $100- $5000). His reply was that , no he hadnt as his art was not what many would consider 'affordable'
Either he genuinely felt he was too good , or scared to let his art near scrutiny of a genuine art panel.
A little similar to his apparent disdain of galleries, because he really doesnt want to be famous , just wants to bring love and joy to peoples lives
surely a house unkept could not be so distressing as a life unlived

User avatar
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Palmerston North


Post by mings » Mon May 23, 2005 8:55 am

Be in no doubt. The only kind of artist Peter Vink is is a con artist.

And bumbleguts, here's my theory as to why Trade Me haven't contacted him ... they don't know and likely never did know any more than was what was on his website.

Like all others, they have a cellphone number, a PO Box and an IP address.


Perhaps it's time Trade Me REQUIRED address verification BEFORE a trader can list anything and a number of successful purchases as well.

It's not perfect, but it would be alot better than the current open arms / we don't need to know or verify anything about you.

Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:51 am

Well I have been thinking about this way too personal.

Post by artist » Mon May 23, 2005 9:10 am

But HELLO all supporters of Peter Vink, I am yelling because you all must have a visual disability - one which includes not understanding or simliar to modern visual art, .

The weird faith on Trade Me at first had been that Peter has painted them.

I live within an artist group of fluences.

All whom I have seen over the last few months has been made to see this artist's work on trade me, and in the flesh.

I went to Wholly Bagel. I saw the 7. I chatted to the staff, who let me in the cafe in closed hours, I took a dozen photos. I had a fellow law student with me.

On the journey to finally seeing his works, with my own eyes, I had wondered if I had been wrong about him - so many people were raving about him - these people owned them,

I felt so strong about all my thoughts on the whole matter and it did get so heated, and there was much to lose.

But it was personal when he threaten me.

I am disappointed Trade me have still not given me my full rights back.

User avatar
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 8:51 am
Location: Christchurch NZ

IF you missed the Interview ........

Post by CliveHill » Mon May 23, 2005 11:50 am ... ormat=html

(Close Up: Art for Money's Sake (5:26))
Honesty and Integrity are always the best Policies !

Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Hawkes Bay


Post by ionet » Mon May 23, 2005 12:23 pm


Probably a good contact would be none other than good friend Narelle

Undoubtedly they must have a treasure trove of questions to ask

The Web Design firm must also be a very good contact


Honorary Scambuster
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 10:01 pm
Location: Nelson

TV Doc.

Post by checkpal » Mon May 23, 2005 8:17 pm

So it was the copyrights issue that concerned TM, and that was what they got "taken off" for. What about the untruths in their listings, do they not matter??


John M

Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:03 pm

Post by nononsense » Mon May 23, 2005 9:32 pm

Why didn't Trade Me pick up the phone (or email) Richard, Rolf and Mike themselves .... how come the owners of the copyright were expected to contact Trade Me? Trade Me had the links to the copyright sites for these photographers
When a crime is committed, it is for the person who has been hurt/violated to lodge the complaint. No action, legal or otherwise can nor will be taken until the victim him/herself officially complains. That's how TM deals with Copyright violation. That makes sense to me.

Re: Rolf Maier in Switzerland. Rolf was the photographer, but Daniel from Edenpics Website is the legal Copyright Holder as he bought Exclusive Rights to the photo from Rolf some time back. Daniel has a contract to prove it. Both Daniel and I have now written to Mike O Donnell and awaiting reply as some correspondence over the past 2 weeks doesn't add up.

User avatar
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Palmerston North


Post by mings » Mon May 23, 2005 9:43 pm

You point is:

When a crime is committed, it is for the person who has been hurt/violated to lodge the complaint. No action, legal or otherwise can nor will be taken until the victim him/herself officially complains. That's how TM deals with Copyright violation. That makes sense to me.

Not quite right for TM. When you hit the Community Watch button on a fake pair of Nike shoes, or a fake Rolex; TM does not wait to hear from the copyright or IP rightholder. They can remove the listing immediately.

I can see absolutely no reason why they did not take a proactive approach in these cases. Their failure to respond as a good corporate citizen meant that the scams continued for some weeks following known breaches. We all know Rolf's frustration at not being able to contact them... i.e. getting the proverbial automated response from their customer support team.

Keep us informed on how things work out with Rolf's claim.

Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:03 pm


Post by nononsense » Mon May 23, 2005 10:32 pm

In the case of photos & Copyrights, the legal owner has to prove they OWN the legal Rigths to the photo!!! ANYONE can have a photo/image on their website that they lifted from someone else's site and claim they own it. I'm sure it ahppens a lot. Chelsea Finn put a 'Copyright' on her 'paintings' yet seems to have been found to lift photos off the Net too! To say to TM "look that photo is on that website therefore this painting is in violation of Copyright" is not providing proof that website owns the photo! That's why TM needs to hear and get unrefutable proof from the legal Copyright owner. That's why Richard Spranger was successful in having the Pohutukawa auction removed. He had to fax some details to TM to prove his claim. As soon as he did that, the auction was gone. I know personally of one other NZ Painter who was also successful doing it the same way (nothing to do with Vink & Co).

Also some Copyright owners do allow use of their photos for a fee, Craig Potton being one of them. So TM still needs to know for a FACT whether the 2 parties have a legal agreement or not. Someone may not own a house, but they might have the legal right to live in it by way of Tenancy Agreement! Some photos are also indeed Royalty free.

As for the Nike immitation etc, I won't comment without specifics details. If an auction says they're immitation then TM needs look no further do they? TM needs to be convinced that rules have been breached or they would be removing auctions right, left & center just because someone on TM doesn't like someone else, or it's competition to them or the one reporting may not have ALL the facts.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest