Permanently identifying weapons

fearn · 29th June 2008, 06:09 PM

Hi,

I'm glad for these responses. The tension I see here is between the perfectly reasonable desires to
--Have perfect and complete antiques (which I think is wonderful),
--To know the history of objects, especially how old things are and how they've changed (see the arguments in various threads, notably the Mindanoan kris thread currently),
--To be guaranteed that what you're buying is genuine (see the various recent threads about eBay fakes and cons, for example)
--For genuine antiques to move between international collectors, especially when they contain materials (such as ivory) that are governed by CITES. This last one is problematic because old ivory, feathers, etc. can't be exported without proof of age and provenance (see various posts on ivory-hilted keris staying in SE Asia, for instance)

I don't think we can meet all these desires, because they contradict each other. To me, the important thing is to start arguing about it, as much as to come up with a solution. My proposed solution is ugly to some, but is it worse than some of the other things that could happen, such as frauds, cons, and needless antique destruction in the name of modern conservation?

While I also think that a trustworthy network of contacts is one way to get authentic antiques, it is also remarkably easy to hack into (think of how many con men come across as wonderfully trustworthy and honest).

I also think that one way to protect things is to control the information yourself. It's quite possible that, in 20 years, Vikingsword archives will be an important source of authentication for artifacts that have been discussed here. Perhaps we should start thinking about how information moves?

One thing I'm *NOT* suggesting is that a government body should control permanent information about our collections. Personally, I'd rather that, if there was a registry, we controlled it ourselves. After all, we care a heck of a lot more than any bureaucrat (or hired consultant) possibly could. There's no reason we can't start keeping track, if we want.

F

CourseEight · 29th June 2008, 06:27 PM

I don't know that any such autentication system will take hold within the collecting community at large for precisely the reasons stated above. That said, I do believe the time will come when these sorts of autentication will be done with virtually no loss to the piece. In many ways, phycists already have the technology to answer such questions, but the real problem is what question precisely to ask (c.f. this thread ). This is a realm where collectors within the scientific community could be of great value to the community at large.

Were a noninvasive cheap (enough) test ever developed, it could simply be repeated on each sale. Short of that, I don't see any but the most contravesial pieces being submitted for destructive tests (the "Shroud of Turin" standard if you will).

My two tenths of a penny,

--Radleigh

29th June 2008, 06:09 PM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi, I'm glad for these responses. The tension I see here is between the perfectly reasonable desires to --Have perfect and complete antiques (which I think is wonderful), --To know the history of objects, especially how old things are and how they've changed (see the arguments in various threads, notably the Mindanoan kris thread currently), --To be guaranteed that what you're buying is genuine (see the various recent threads about eBay fakes and cons, for example) --For genuine antiques to move between international collectors, especially when they contain materials (such as ivory) that are governed by CITES. This last one is problematic because old ivory, feathers, etc. can't be exported without proof of age and provenance (see various posts on ivory-hilted keris staying in SE Asia, for instance) I don't think we can meet all these desires, because they contradict each other. To me, the important thing is to start arguing about it, as much as to come up with a solution. My proposed solution is ugly to some, but is it worse than some of the other things that could happen, such as frauds, cons, and needless antique destruction in the name of modern conservation? While I also think that a trustworthy network of contacts is one way to get authentic antiques, it is also remarkably easy to hack into (think of how many con men come across as wonderfully trustworthy and honest). I also think that one way to protect things is to control the information yourself. It's quite possible that, in 20 years, Vikingsword archives will be an important source of authentication for artifacts that have been discussed here. Perhaps we should start thinking about how information moves? One thing I'm NOT suggesting is that a government body should control permanent information about our collections. Personally, I'd rather that, if there was a registry, we controlled it ourselves. After all, we care a heck of a lot more than any bureaucrat (or hired consultant) possibly could. There's no reason we can't start keeping track, if we want. F

29th June 2008, 06:27 PM	#2
CourseEight Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Coral Springs, FL Posts: 222	I don't know that any such autentication system will take hold within the collecting community at large for precisely the reasons stated above. That said, I do believe the time will come when these sorts of autentication will be done with virtually no loss to the piece. In many ways, phycists already have the technology to answer such questions, but the real problem is what question precisely to ask (c.f. this thread ). This is a realm where collectors within the scientific community could be of great value to the community at large. Were a noninvasive cheap (enough) test ever developed, it could simply be repeated on each sale. Short of that, I don't see any but the most contravesial pieces being submitted for destructive tests (the "Shroud of Turin" standard if you will). My two tenths of a penny, --Radleigh