Man spends eight years making 23ft matchstick Eiffel Tower before it’s rejected by Guinness World Records

"What hurts most is that they don't acknowledge the work that I put in."

Richard Plaud used more than 700,000 matchsticks to create his replica masterpiece, but was left heartbroken after the officials refused to accept his entry as valid due to one tiny detail.

"The Guinness Book judges gave their verdict, without having seen my tower in real life," he told his followers on Instagram

"It's pretty astonishing, and actually rather annoying. Not exactly fair play.

"What hurts most is that they don't acknowledge the work that I put in, the time I spent, the mental energy - because I can tell you it was not easy."

Plaud explained that the company were refusing to acknowledge his efforts due to a technicality - the matches used must be available commercially, whereas the ones he used were not.

"As referenced in the guidelines: The matches used must be commercially available. Proof of this must be provided as evidence," he wrote in the translated statement.

“As the matchsticks were not commercially available, and were not recognized as matchsticks the attempt has been disqualified.

“BIG DISILLUSION, DISAPPOINTMENT AND INCOMPREHENSION.

"Tell me [how] the 706,900 rods stuck one by one are not matches!!?? And they are too cut to the point of being unrecognizable!!??

“Clearly, the English are really different......

"My matchstick tower is still tall and will be 7.19 meters for a long time!!!!! No offence to the English.

"They reckoned that my matches weren't available for sale. So they didn't qualify."

The Director of Central Records Services at Guinness World Records Mark McKinley responded to Plaud's failure to qualify.

"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 Guinness World Records title, however it does appear we might have been a little heavy handed with this application."

He added: "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."