Provenance, what is it worth?

[Swordfish]

I'm sure that every collector has already made mistakes by paying too high prices or acquiring fakes, me too. But my loss was tolerable and I learned from my mistakes. This is not what I call stupid and I probably used the wrong term. But it is also not only lack of knowledge.
For example the sallet sold at Christie's 2001. The catalogue mentioned that the lower half of the helmet was replaced. How shall I call someone who nevertheless paid Euro 39.000 for it?
Also there is a hard rule that every collector should learn at first: you can trust neither any antique dealer nor any auction expert.

Best

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Swordfish

... How shall I call someone who nevertheless paid Euro 39.000 for it? ...

Try money laundering

[David]

Originally Posted by Swordfish

Also there is a hard rule that every collector should learn at first: you can trust neither any antique dealer nor any auction expert

While there are no doubt many nefarious dealers in the world of antique arms i find the extreme of you statement patently untrue. I buy the vast majority of my antique keris for just a couple of trusted dealers. These are relationships built over time and i trust these dealers implicitly. I am sorry that you have yet to find such a dealer for your own needs, but i can assure you that they do exist out there.
I am sure that what ever the reasons for someone buying an item for 39,000 euro that was clearly revealed as being partially replaced, stupidity was not among them. You simply don't have that kind of money to spend on purely luxury items like antique armor by being stupid. The rich do as they please with their money, who are we to judge? We will never know the buyers reasoning, but i am sure he had one. Maybe he just liked it. Is there some reason that it bothers you so much?

[Dmitry]

Link to the sallet -
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/a...2-7d935fd5d8ff

I wonder how and why the lower portion was attached to the top. You can clearly see the uneven line where the two meet, but I don't see any signs of welding. Perhaps this sallet was restored after being squashed.. Anyway, the rivets look new, the rest of the photo looks quite cohesive.

[Swordfish]

I have examined the sallet at the auction in Lucerne. The dividing line between the two parts goes round the sallet, on the outside this is only partly visible, but is clearly visible on the inside. Furthermore the inside and outside surface of the two parts differ noticeable. The two parts must have been welded together, perhaps in the 19th century or later.

Best

[Lee]

I'll definitely agree with the observation "that in most cases a provenance is worth nothing." Some provenances may be interesting and informative and should be retained and passed along as anecdote, but all eventually must be taken with a forklift load of salt. The gold standard will be items with clear photographs that have been publicly published. This rarely achieved standard can protect somewhat against recent forgeries and faked-up 'enhancements,' but there have been a lot of duds in good collections - public and private - that go unrecognized as such for a very long time. And how many of us have items in our collections that we remain unsure of? We may honestly discuss our suspicions with fellow collectors and collect expert opinions yea and nay but these observations and suspicions are rarely written down to assist whoever ultimately handles the estate.