🔍 AntiqueSnap – Antique Identifier & Appraisal App Turn your vintage curios…
Brite Technologies LLCSome warnings 8 users report a free trial turning into a charge. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 339 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 3.2.13 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 3.2.13, updated 2026-10-25.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
🔍 AntiqueSnap – Antique Identifier & Appraisal App
Turn your vintage curiosity into discovery with AntiqueSnap – the ultimate antique identifier, appraisal app, and item identifier by picture. Instantly identify antiques, collectibles, old coins, stamps, jewelry, books, and vintage treasures with just one snap using advanced AI technology.
Whether it’s a mysterious antique lamp, a Victorian chair, a rare coin, or family heirloom jewelry, AntiqueSnap helps you identify, value, and understand your items in seconds.
✅ Key Features
📷 Instant Identification
Snap a photo of any antique or collectible and let AntiqueSnap instantly recognize it. Works for coins, stamps, jewelry, watches, furniture, vintage books, banknotes, and more.
💰 Appraisal & Value Estimation
Get accurate price estimates based on real market data and comparisons with similar items.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Trial converts to a charge: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 42 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The free trial demands a payment method up front and/or rolls into a paid subscription with no usable warning.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
339 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
I got charged 6 dollars and some change for my three day free trial! so mad I want my money back😩
I signed up for the three day free trial of this app and was immediately charged for it! I am extremely disappointed in this shady business practice. Also, I scanned three different antique items and the app identified them as the wrong…
WARNING: NO FREE TRIAL! I installed the app this morning and in less than an hour I discovered the app does not work. I immediately contacted Google there was no free trial they charged me right away. I also contacted the developer and…
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 3.2.13 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 3.2.13, updated 2026-10-25.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
Appworthy
antique-identifier-appraisalAssessed 2026-10-27 from 339 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.