Fake kilij and pala

ALEX · 17th January 2015, 10:55 AM

Kubur, Thanks for sharing the pictures. Always nice to see this info and closeups. Personally, I'd not call these "fakes". Even with new/newer hilts and crossguards, these are restored blades, the fact that they sell as genuine antiques, and some improperly matched

, does not make them total fakes

As Sancar pointed out, there are completely new swords (including blades) out there in thousands, and those are fakes IF selling as antiques. The burden of knowledge is always on the buyer

estcrh · 17th January 2015, 08:36 PM

Faking a spiral stitched scabbard would be much harder, has anyone seen that done?

ALEX · 17th January 2015, 11:26 PM

of course it is done. But once again, "faking" is only when it is made/sold to deceive. Most antique arms underwent restorations many times, and it is ok if done properly and skilfully. Should one call sword a fake if it has restored scabbard, stitching, hilt scales or crossguard? I do not think so. fakes have AssadAllah cartouches on brand new blades

estcrh · 18th January 2015, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

of course it is done. But once again, "faking" is only when it is made/sold to deceive. Most antique arms underwent restorations many times, and it is ok if done properly and skilfully. Should one call sword a fake if it has restored scabbard, stitching, hilt scales or crossguard? I do not think so. fakes have AssadAllah cartouches on brand new blades

If a sellers fails to mention known restorations in their description and instead sells an item as if it were an untouched original.....the item then becomes a fake. If the seller unknowingly sells a restored item as an untouched original it is a fake. It could be on purpose or accidental but the result is the same, the purchaser does not get what he paid for, on the other hand if the restorations are pointed out to the purchaser it is not a fake.

Kubur · 18th January 2015, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

If a sellers fails to mention known restorations in their description and instead sells an item as if it were an untouched original.....the item then becomes a fake. If the seller unknowingly sells a restored item as an untouched original it is a fake. It could be on purpose or accidental but the result is the same, the purchaser does not get what he paid for, on the other hand if the restorations are pointed out to the purchaser it is not a fake.

I totaly agree!

ALEX · 18th January 2015, 11:17 AM

Interesting discussion

I think it's too subjective and a matter of personal taste. I recently saw a Ludovisi collection of ancient Roman statues. 90% of those have replaced heads and other extremities, some are as new as late 19th, early 20th C. some paintings were re-touched and damaged/missed parts re-painted. Some do not even mention this in their descriptions. Noone would even dare to call them fakes, regardless of how they're named. They were properly and professionally restored, and it does not matter if the dealer sold them as completely genuine, it does not make a restored item a fake regardless of price or disclosure, these pieces are NOT fakes by any mean. So why would one call properly restored sword a fake? If such, most of us collect fake swords as most were restored at one point of time or another, whether 100, 20 or 2 years ago... just saying

Kubur · 18th January 2015, 03:38 PM

I completly follow estcrh.
It is not subjective. Alex, there is a big gap between restoration and replacement.
PLus, restoration should be reversible and to be seen.
If objects are sold as originals, without mention of the added parts,
they are fake. Or at least they don't have the value of genuine objects...

ALEX · 18th January 2015, 08:32 PM

the object cannot become fake depending on how or how much was it sold for. It is either fake, properly restored antique or improperly restored antique (including mistakes like altered or mismatched items). Good/proper restoration should not be obvious. It should be just as original and properly belong. The replacement, if done correctly, would not make the whole item fake. it's commonly done with damaged antiques of all kinds. Most museums do it. They employ professional restorers and some do repairs that are totally invisible, they are not fakers or an item becomes fake after that. Apart from temporary effect on value, the item gets a new life and remains what it is, IF properly done.
As for above items, one is restored and another is mistake. just because they are sold as 17th C genuine antiques does not make them fakes. It'd make a buyer as such if he/she agrees with the seller

Just my opinion

17th January 2015, 10:55 AM	#1
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Kubur, Thanks for sharing the pictures. Always nice to see this info and closeups. Personally, I'd not call these "fakes". Even with new/newer hilts and crossguards, these are restored blades, the fact that they sell as genuine antiques, and some improperly matched, does not make them total fakes As Sancar pointed out, there are completely new swords (including blades) out there in thousands, and those are fakes IF selling as antiques. The burden of knowledge is always on the buyer

17th January 2015, 08:36 PM	#2
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	Faking a spiral stitched scabbard would be much harder, has anyone seen that done?

17th January 2015, 11:26 PM	#3
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	of course it is done. But once again, "faking" is only when it is made/sold to deceive. Most antique arms underwent restorations many times, and it is ok if done properly and skilfully. Should one call sword a fake if it has restored scabbard, stitching, hilt scales or crossguard? I do not think so. fakes have AssadAllah cartouches on brand new blades

18th January 2015, 11:17 AM	#6
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Interesting discussion I think it's too subjective and a matter of personal taste. I recently saw a Ludovisi collection of ancient Roman statues. 90% of those have replaced heads and other extremities, some are as new as late 19th, early 20th C. some paintings were re-touched and damaged/missed parts re-painted. Some do not even mention this in their descriptions. Noone would even dare to call them fakes, regardless of how they're named. They were properly and professionally restored, and it does not matter if the dealer sold them as completely genuine, it does not make a restored item a fake regardless of price or disclosure, these pieces are NOT fakes by any mean. So why would one call properly restored sword a fake? If such, most of us collect fake swords as most were restored at one point of time or another, whether 100, 20 or 2 years ago... just saying

18th January 2015, 03:38 PM	#7
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	I completly follow estcrh. It is not subjective. Alex, there is a big gap between restoration and replacement. PLus, restoration should be reversible and to be seen. If objects are sold as originals, without mention of the added parts, they are fake. Or at least they don't have the value of genuine objects...

18th January 2015, 08:32 PM	#8
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	the object cannot become fake depending on how or how much was it sold for. It is either fake, properly restored antique or improperly restored antique (including mistakes like altered or mismatched items). Good/proper restoration should not be obvious. It should be just as original and properly belong. The replacement, if done correctly, would not make the whole item fake. it's commonly done with damaged antiques of all kinds. Most museums do it. They employ professional restorers and some do repairs that are totally invisible, they are not fakers or an item becomes fake after that. Apart from temporary effect on value, the item gets a new life and remains what it is, IF properly done. As for above items, one is restored and another is mistake. just because they are sold as 17th C genuine antiques does not make them fakes. It'd make a buyer as such if he/she agrees with the seller Just my opinion