SCAMS AND FAKES

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Thank you so much for your kind words, Battara and Jim (in alphabetical order)


Oh, the stories I could tell from backstage ...

Yes, at least about one third of all items in the Wallace Colln. are part fakes or complete forgeries! The staff started to realize a good deal of these facts since our first contacts back in the 1980's but a lot of work still remains to be done.

Best,
Michael

Michael

I absolutely do not believe that one third???? of the Wallace Collection is 100% False or contains faulty components. This can simply not be true!

I'll see the curator Tobias Capwell in february in London at the parklane A&A I will ask him.

​​Anton Konrad made only bladed weapons, swords and daggers, for which he used old blades and other old components, he skillfully "upgraded" the hilts with old techniques.
Iam unaware of any firearm from his hand.

The fakes arms he made are extemely difficult to distinguish from real, often one sees a difference between color and oxidation of the newer hilt and older blade.
at first it was thought that Konrad made the hilt/grip, too big, but research has shown that this was not the case.
The commission to make the falsifications he recieved from arms dealer Kahlert, Kahlert sold these weapons to private collectors and museums, direct and via auctionhauses as Sothebys London with a faked provenance.
The examples and inspiration Konrad took from the museum in Dresden, where he had been given free access to the arms ,this was arranged by Kahlert.
Occasionally I'll still see work from his hand at dealers , in collections and in museums.
For example, a medieval sword and silver hilted saxon rapier in the solingen klingen museum are displayed as work from his hand.

here are some other examples from the Hans Schedelmann publication.

best,
Jasper

[cornelistromp]

some more

[cornelistromp]

two more

[Matchlock]

Hi Jasper,



I normally know what I'm talking about, and I never state facts that cannot be proven.

In as early as 1986, A.V.B. Norman, who also guided me around in the Wallace, published hic critical third volume on the Wallace A&A, European Arms & Armour Supplement, where he first tried to mention all things about their weapons that were not 'kosher' as far as the Wallace staff had learned from critical visitors like me.


Just leaf thru each item in there and look at the comments. Many fakes are uncommented because still unconcscious to them, just like A1135, the double wheellock Wender pistol dated 1554 that I posted here, with the inept lemon butt from a long pistol (ca. 80 cm) of ca. 1610, replacing the original straight grip that either terminated in a 'dagger' style or symmetrical 'fishtail' finial.
Nobody except me seems to have detected this phenomenon yet, and such is the case with many, many of their guns, swords, etc.! A great many of their seemingly 'fine' powder flasks are complete 19th c. fakes.

Next there is this vey curious, highly decorated wheellock blunderbuss (!), the long barrel with a hoizontally flattened muzzle shaped like a 'duck's bill', labeled 'late 16th c.' It is only when you realize that such muzzles had not existed before the 18th c. - and you got all the correct measurements readily in your mind - , that the scales fall from your very eyes and all of a sudden you grasp that this late-16th c. stock has been crudely mounted with the barrel of an Austrian cuirassiers blunderbuss of ca. 1760 (österreichisches Kürassiertromblon M 1759). From the outside, the bone inlay of the stock perfectly follows all the very unusual contours of the barrel. Somebody deliberately made a curiosity in the 19th century, ruining two original guns for his perverse idea!

Just one more example:
A1094, another seemingly highly decorated wheellock gun of the late 16th c.: the dog of the wheellock mechanism is an association of ca. 1680 - which is about 100 years later than the gun was actually made! The lock plate does not belong either and was cut down to fit, all the encrusting on the lock plate is 19th c. - and so on and so forth ... As I said: complete and part fakes!



Best,
m

[Fernando K]

Hello:

in the key (lock) of Gun uploaded by Matchlock I think that distinguish the top of the wheel has been added a sheet of brass, suitably decorated. Also in the spring from the clamp-pyrites strange working with lime and a punch mark sees a circle (this is also in the clip holder pyrite) and engraving (engraving) in the latter is reduced to the only flat surface. The end of the spring clip holder pyrites, ends in two strange arrows

The bone or ivory inlay on the box (stock) added just seem to give more importance, and in line with the handle.

Affectionately. Fernando K

[Matchlock]

Hi Fernando,


All the other instances cited by you are in my opinion alright and stylistically apt for this unusually early mid-16th c. wheellock pistol. You know this is my special fleld of expertise.
The inlay in the stock is not of ivory, as many people still tend to think, but either consists of mammal bone or staghorn.


Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

This ca. 1560 double wheellock wender pistol and a ca. 1555 three-shot superimposed-load pistol, both in the Vienna museum collection, show how the grip of their 1554 wender 'companion' A1135 in the Wallace in all probablity originally terminated before today's inept lemon-shaped pommel of ca. 1610 was associated to it: either in a symmetrically flattened 'fishtail' butt finial or in a 'dagger-style' pommel.
The long engraved bone sleve on the grip is not original either, the style of its engraving being mere fantasy.

m

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Jasper,



I normally know what I'm talking about, and I never state facts that cannot be proven.

In as early as 1986, A.V.B. Norman, who also guided me around in the Wallace, published hic critical third volume on the Wallace A&A, European Arms & Armour Supplement, where he first tried to mention all things about their weapons that were not 'kosher' as far as the Wallace staff had learned from critical visitors like me.


Just leaf thru each item in there and look at the comments. Many fakes are uncommented because still unconcscious to them, just like A1135, the double wheellock Wender pistol dated 1554 that I posted here, with the inept lemon butt from a long pistol (ca. 80 cm) of ca. 1610, replacing the original straight grip that either terminated in a 'dagger' style or symmetrical 'fishtail' finial.
Nobody except me seems to have detected this phenomenon yet, and such is the case with many, many of their guns, swords, etc.! A great many of their seemingly 'fine' powder flasks are complete 19th c. fakes.

Next there is this vey curious, highly decorated wheellock blunderbuss (!), the long barrel with a hoizontally flattened muzzle shaped like a 'duck's bill', labeled 'late 16th c.' It is only when you realize that such muzzles had not existed before the 18th c. - and you got all the correct measurements readily in your mind - , that the scales fall from your very eyes and all of a sudden you grasp that this late-16th c. stock has been crudely mounted with the barrel of an Austrian cuirassiers blunderbuss of ca. 1760 (österreichisches Kürassiertromblon M 1759). From the outside, the bone inlay of the stock perfectly follows all the very unusual contours of the barrel. Somebody deliberately made a curiosity in the 19th century, ruining two original guns for his perverse idea!

Just one more example:
A1094, another seemingly highly decorated wheellock gun of the late 16th c.: the dog of the wheellock mechanism is an association of ca. 1680 - which is about 100 years later than the gun was actually made! The lock plate does not belong either and was cut down to fit, all the encrusting on the lock plate is 19th c. - and so on and so forth ... As I said: complete and part fakes!



Best,
m

Hi Michael,

yes, I can give you some more examples, but you talked about 33% of the collection, this very high 33% cannot been proven!

Tobias Capwell has revised most of the collection descriptions and published this in 2012 (digital memory stick) together the previous two descriptions, so you can see the difference insight over the last 100 years.
Do you have this publication? it is a beautiful piece of work with a loads of high resolution photo material, you can see the smallest details spots and cracks from all angles, it is an amazing reference work.
I highly recommend anyone to purchase this work.

best,

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Hi Michael,

yes, I can give you some more examples, but you talked about 33% of the collection, this very high 33% cannot been proven!

Tobias Capwell has revised most of the collection descriptions and published this in 2012 (digital memory stick) together the previous two descriptions, so you can see the difference insight over the last 100 years.
Do you have this publication? it is a beautiful piece of work with a loads of high resolution photo material, you can see the smallest details spots and cracks from all angles, it is an amazing reference work.
I highly recommend anyone to purchase this work.

best,

Hi Jasper,


I do have their latest publication. I was hoping you might have noticed that some images I posted here were taken from it, and I was one of the very first people worldwide to receive them, way before the publication was out. The book is not of the least use to me, with almost no firearms in it, the USB stick helped clarify just some very few things.

And: no! Single images are of a maximum resolution of about 2 MB which is definitely not enough to discern every single detail! In order to enable a third party to judge the real quality of their pieces they ought to have completely dismantled the lock mechanisms and shown their respective parts from various angles (!). After all, all it would mean is take out some screws.

And: yes, I have just proven that I do know a whole lot more on their pieces than they seem to.

I am both too old and sick to travel to London another time but I am open to any discussion on the grounds of the images published.


If you will kindly remember, I was the first to recommend their latest publication on the forum in a thread of its own; I would definitely do that no longer. The price they charge is way too high for the average user who is just interested in a few special details. People who are especially fond of armor and edged weapons may be much luckier with it though.



Best,
m

[Fernando K]

Hello:
Referring to blunderbuss wheel (wheelock), D. R. Baxter, in his "Blunnderbusses", page 11:
Fernando K