Richard Plaud, who spent eight years constructing the 706,900 matchstick model, made the announcement in a Facebook post last month alongside a photo of the structure with the word “NO!!”
“The Guinness Book judges have delivered their verdict, without actually seeing my tower in real life,” Mr Plaud wrote on the social media platform.
“BIG DISILLUSION, DISAPPOINTMENT AND INCOMPREHENSION,” he continued. “[They] tell me that the 706,900 rods stuck one by one are not matches!!?? And they are too cut to the point of being unrecognisable!!??”
The artist then poked fun at the London-based organisation. “Clearly, the English are really different……” he said, adding: “No offence to the English.”
Officials with the world records organisation told him that the model did not qualify for a world record because he used matches that were not commercially available and therefore did not qualify as matches.
According to the guidelines posted by Mr Plaud, the matches must be available commercially. Proof of this must be provided as evidence. The matchsticks must not be cut, disassembled or distorted beyond its recognition as matchsticks.
“As the matchsticks were not commercially available, and were not recognised as matchsticks, the attempt has been disqualfiied.”
According to NBC News, Mr Plaud contracted a matchstick supplier after he decided he wanted to stop buying matchsticks at the supermarket and manually remove the heads. The supplier agreed to sell Mr Plaud 33-pound boxes of headless matches.
Though, it appears that this decision might’ve prompted the Guinness ruling. The current record for tallest Eiffel Tower built from matches is held by Toufic Daher, who used 6 million matches to build his 21.4 feet high model.
Guinness officials said they might’ve been “heavy handed” in judging Mr Paul’s tribute to the French monument.
“It’s the job of our records management team to be thorough and fastidious in reviewing evidence to make sure the playing field is level for everyone attempting a Guiness World Records title,” Mark McKinley, director of Guinness’ central records services told the outlet.
“We will make contact with the record holder again as well as review rules for similar records as a priority, to see what can be done.”