What started as an online violin trade between a Texas buyer and a Scioto County seller eventually produced expert disputes, angry emails, social media warnings and a trip to Common Pleas Court.
A violin deal involving just over $1,000 somehow managed to produce enough drama for a symphony.
What began as an online transaction between Texas violin buyer and seller John Downing and Scioto County fiddle dealer Steven Parsons eventually turned into a bitter two-year dispute involving PayPal claims, competing opinions about the instrument, accusations flying in both directions, Facebook warning posts, messages promising business trouble — and finally a lawsuit in Scioto County Common Pleas Court.
When the case eventually went to trial, the judge found in favor of Downing and ordered Parsons to pay him $950 plus court costs. Court records later show a certificate of judgment for a lien was filed for the $950, plus interest and costs.
And even after the judge ruled, the argument apparently kept going.
It Started With a “Master” Violin
According to court documents, Downing sued Parsons over a violin represented to him as a master violin. The complaint said Downing entered into a $1,050 transaction with Parsons and alleged that an expert examination later found the instrument fell far below both Downing’s expectations and Parsons’ representations.
Downing’s complaint accused Parsons of fraud and violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act. He sought the original $1,050, along with potential punitive or treble damages, attorney fees and court costs.
The underlying deal was a little more complicated than simply handing over $1,050 in cash.
In an October 2023 email attempting to settle the dispute before court action, Downing said he had paid $250 through PayPal and applied an $800 credit from a violin he had traded to Parsons toward what he described as an “1863 Master German violin.”
Downing said the instrument he received was nothing like what he believed he had purchased. He alleged that it had cheap varnish, repairs around the bridge, a crack in the top plate and other problems. He even claimed the varnish had not completely dried before shipping and that packing material had stuck to it.
Downing offered to return the violin if Parsons refunded the full $1,050.
That did not end things.
“You Are an Idiot”
The emails quickly stopped sounding like routine customer-service correspondence.
Parsons disputed Downing’s version of the transaction and repeatedly questioned both Downing’s violin knowledge and the expertise of people Downing consulted.
In one October 2023 response, Parsons wrote, “You are an idiot,” told Downing not to contact him again and suggested that if Downing wanted to resolve the matter, he knew where Parsons lived. Parsons also threatened to file his own lawsuit.
When Downing later identified another person as an expert who had examined the violin, Parsons responded with profanity and said the man was not an expert.
Screenshots supplied to SCDN show the dispute also spilled into Messenger. In one exchange, Parsons wrote, “You won’t sell a fiddle. I promise.” In another, he wrote, “Paybacks a bitch. I promise you.”
Downing regarded those statements as threats against his business.
Parsons characterized the dispute much differently.
Parsons: This Was a Project Violin
In later emails, Parsons said Downing was distorting what had happened.
Parsons maintained that Downing had wanted a project violin, that instruments needing work were sold “as is,” and that Downing waited about 90 days before raising his objections. He accused Downing of changing his story, using different violins in his allegations and trying to damage Parsons’ reputation.
“It was never my intentions to do you wrong whether you believe me or not,” Parsons wrote in one lengthy exchange.
He also argued that opinions about old violins are not always clear-cut. Parsons said he had handled thousands of violins during more than 35 years in the business, although he expressly said, “I have always told you I’m no expert.”
Parsons said Downing and his expert were wrong about the instrument and maintained that the violin trade is a business in which buyers will not always come out ahead.
“You will never always win on a violin deal,” he wrote.
PayPal Added Another Layer
There was even a separate battle over money paid through PayPal.
Downing told his attorneys that he had made two purchases from Parsons and later received buyer-protection refunds. According to Downing, one involved a $1,000 transaction in May 2023 and the other was the $250 cash portion of the later violin trade.
Downing maintained that those refunds did not give him a windfall because Parsons still had the Oliver Fraser violin Downing had traded as the $800 portion of the disputed transaction.
Parsons disputed Downing’s interpretation of the PayPal proceedings and accused him of manipulating the process.
That difference of opinion ultimately became part of the much larger disagreement the court had to sort through.
Then They Took the Fight to Facebook
By this point, the argument was no longer private.
Screenshots reviewed by SCDN show both sides posting warnings in online violin communities.
Parsons posted a warning about Downing and Revivo Violins, telling violin buyers and dealers to beware and claiming Downing caused trouble for businesses he contacted.
Other Facebook posts warned buyers about Parsons. Some commenters also claimed to have experienced problems with instruments purchased from him.
Those third-party complaints were not part of the Common Pleas Court judgment reviewed by SCDN, and SCDN has not independently established their claims. But the posts show how far the original dispute had spread beyond the two men.
Parsons complained repeatedly that Downing was “bashing” him online and damaging a reputation he had built over decades.
The Judge Finally Heard It
The case ultimately reached a trial before Scioto County Common Pleas Judge Howard H. Harcha III on November 10, 2025.
Downing appeared with his attorney. Parsons represented himself.
After hearing the evidence, the court found for Downing.
The judgment was straightforward: Parsons was ordered to pay Downing $950, and Parsons was also assessed all court costs.
That distinction is important.
Downing’s lawsuit alleged fraud and deceptive consumer practices, but the final judgment entry supplied to SCDN does not contain a detailed written finding declaring Parsons “guilty of fraud.” This was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. The court’s entry simply says it found for Downing based on the evidence presented at trial and awarded damages.
Parsons himself repeatedly emphasized that distinction afterward, writing to Downing, “This case is not criminal.”
He also maintained that the court had treated him unfairly, alleging problems with the proceedings and even complaining that the case had been heard in the wrong courtroom.
Winning the Case Didn’t End the Fight
The judgment apparently did not bring the expected finale.
Court docket information provided to SCDN shows that on December 5, 2025, a certificate of judgment for a lien upon lands and tenements was filed for $950 plus interest and costs.
The docket also shows Parsons was billed $331.94 in court costs, with 30-day and 60-day past-due notices issued in January and February 2026.
Downing told SCDN this week that he still has not received the $950 judgment.
Parsons’ own emails at least acknowledge that payment remained an issue. In February, he wrote that he had been told he needed to pay through the court and could make payments. In another message, he urged Downing to stop attacking him publicly and wrote, “why not stop the nonsense and ill get you paid?”
So, nearly three years after a deal involving one old violin, the two men were still arguing about experts, reputations, Facebook posts, court procedures and money.
The violin itself may have been worth less than advertised.
The drama surrounding it has proved considerably more durable.
