Fake kilij and pala

[estcrh]

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

[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

[estcrh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

the object cannot become fake depending on how or how much was it sold for.

Alex, you are missing my point I think. It is not that the item by itself is a fake due to being restored, but in the mind of a buyer who finds out that the item he purchased as an untouched original antique has been substantially reworked (as in the swords in this post) then these items in the buyers mind can become fake/fradulent/diminished in value etc.

If I purchased an item as an untouched original then later found out that someone worked it over I would not be pleased with myself for not seeing this in the first place and secondly I would not be so very happy with the item if it were purchased on the basis of being unrestored.

If I were to purchase the exact same item knowing in advance that it had been worked on or if I knew that there was the possibility that an item was not an in untouched condition then that would made a diference in how the item was preceived.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. The kilij pictured below was sold a while back, the owner specifically mentioned "minor restoration" (can you spot it?). Since the restoration was mentioned, if I were to purchase it I would have no reason to be disappointed if someone pointed out to me that it had been restored. On the other hand if someone were to purchase this same sword as an unrestored original condition item and then later found out that it had been worked on, the buyer may not be so happy with his purchase as would most people who find themselves in a similar position, that is my personal opinion of course.