Chinese bazaar copies

ariel · 2nd May 2009, 05:34 PM

As we know, they include everything, from poorly copied Nihonto, Russian swords and fantasy-inspired German, French etc sabers to brass casts of supposedly ancient Chinese weapons. The thing that insults all the real collectors is the supposedly brazen description of all of those fakes as real, and failure to mention their modern origin.
We view it as a shameless attempt to dupe the buyer.
But is it?
Over the years I mentioned that practice to some of my colleagues from China, and I was astonished by their reactions. They did not seem to view it as a deception at all: in their view, if the object was similar to the original, it was legitimate.
And just now I read a new Russian book about military culture of Vietnam. The author, a trained historian of weapons, describes a practice in Vietnamese museums to exhibit copies of the same sword in several museums. The astonishing thing is that some of them are made of gypsum and crudely painted. And nobody is perturbed by that.
Here we enter a territory totally different from our usual discussions: cultural attitudes. Not being familiar with the topic, I would like somebody knowledgeable to explain to me whether Sinic ( or other) cultures have different reference points toward authenticity of ancient objects as a guidepost to their cultural, historical, traditional etc. value?
Yes, I know that museums everywhere keep real things and that authenticated objects belonging to a famous historical person are valued very highly. But no Louvre or Hermitage would ever dream of exhibiting gypsum copies without ever mentioning the fact, and no Western collector would willingly purchase a modern replica and regard it as a legitimate object. Thus, there must be different cultural perspective of authenticity.

Jim McDougall · 2nd May 2009, 08:00 PM

A very interesting topic Ariel, and I agree it does seem disturbing that an obvious reproduction would be displayed in a museum without proper qualification in description. I think everyone is aware of the volume of items from India and China among others that reproduce traditional weapon forms, however I doubt that they are commercially marketed without being aware of the difference between these and the actual antique items. It does not seem possible that museum authorities could possibly consider that items on display could be other than reproductions if they are not indeed authentic.

Many countries have become acutely guarded of thier antiquities in recent decades, and the volume of purloined items held in museums that have been repatriated to the country of their origin is increasingly large. It has been illegal to export antiques out of China as far as I have known for many years, though I do not know particulars, but it seems the constant commercial sales of items advertised as such would draw immediate attention if they were actual antiques.

It seems that most reproduction weapons, in the west at least, are pretty good copies, and in most cases represented as interpretations of the original weapon. Naturally there are unscrupulous enterprising individuals who artificially age and combine composite elements to be sold as original to unwary collectors, and even museums have been burned, but for the most part, such composite items are so described.

I think there is a broad assumption that the public at large may not be considered particularly well versed in identifying antiquities, and that may lead to the placement of certain items as originals. In that sense I would suppose they accomplish the ideal of portraying the weapon originally used as an inspirational display, rather than a commercially for sale item, therefore perhaps considered relatively harmless. That would be the sense I would consider plausible as far as attitude held in these circumstances. As far as the commercial activity, as always..caveat emptor!

All the best,
Jim

VANDOO · 2nd May 2009, 10:07 PM

MANY MUSEUMS THE WORLD OVER HAVE REPLICAS ON EXHIBIT, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL IN STORAGE AND SOMETIMES NOT. DINOSAUR SKELETONS ARE A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS. MANY ON DISPLAY ARE REPLICAS OF AN ORIGINAL WHICH MAY BE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. fOR DISPLAY PURPOSES THIS IS FINE IF THEY ARE GOOD ACCURATE REPLICAS THE VISITORS WILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND OFTEN THE REPLICA ELIMINATES THE MISSING PIECES AND FLAWS OF THE ORIGINAL AND MAKES A BETTER DISPLAY.
HIGH PRICED AND RARE STONE POINTS ARE OFTEN PLASTIC REPLICAS BUT TODAY LOOK SO GOOD YOU CAN'T TELL UNLESS YOU ACTUALY PICK THEM UP. MUSEUMS OFTEN DO THIS BECAUSE THE ITEMS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE TO GET AN ORIGINAL OR IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AS THERE ARE VERY FEW ORIGINALS IN EXHISTANCE.
THE ATTITUDE OF ANYONE WHO MAKES A REPLICA AND THEN SAYS IT IS REAL AND DEMANDS THE PRICE OF AN ORIGINAL IS ALWAYS" I DO NOTHING WRONG WHY PICK ON ME". A CHINESE COLLECTOR WHO IS VERY KNOWLEGABLE WILL NOT BUY SUCH ITEMS AND YOU CAN BE SURE HE WILL NOT SAY ITS ALL RIGHT AND AS GOOD AS AN ORIGINAL. WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO SUCH A SELLER TRYING TO SELL HIM A HIGH PRICED REPLICA AS ORIGINAL WOULD NO DOUBT MAKE YOUR EARS BURN.

fearn · 3rd May 2009, 02:17 AM

It's an interesting question, the one about how "genuine" a copy is.

To me, it seems similar to the debate about copyright and intellectual property that's going on right now. For copyright, of course, the issue is ownership of information, and the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate use and copying of such information. Some people are pushing for some form of ultimate control, even though that's totally unattainable, while others are finding mechanisms, such as creative commons licenses, to cede control of some rights and keep others.

For objects, it's evident that there are a couple of ways to look at it. In "our" culture, ownership and control of an original is important, but there's no reason to assume that our attitude is the only one, or (dare I say it?) even the best one.

If the futurists are right, we're entering an era where the copying of real objects will become increasingly cheaper and more accurate, and it's not too far-fetched to start thinking about what will happen when a factory in China can cheaply produce something that's indistinguishable from a real antique without radiocarbon dating. Whose standards will be primary in this copying? Will originality matter, or not? I don't have any answers, but it's something worth thinking about.

F

Nathaniel · 3rd May 2009, 07:04 AM

Chinese weapons collectors are concerned with fakes...in fact on of the Chinese forums I know has a specific titled something like fake antique/ replicas, etc

I remember taking the Chinese art history class in Hong Kong...and one thing I remember the teacher saying with Chinese painting originality was not valued necessarily but how it compared a recognized masterpiece.

For museums, I can understand the use of replica's...as people highlight the use of the copy for dinosaur bones, but I do think it sad to see there is such a market for the knock offs...some know and they are find with this..but always it is buyer beware/ educated....the knock off our of china do seem to be getting better.

I know for even some of the modern Chinese smiths there are knock off's of their swords...like Zheng Wu Tang.

2nd May 2009, 05:34 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Chinese bazaar copies As we know, they include everything, from poorly copied Nihonto, Russian swords and fantasy-inspired German, French etc sabers to brass casts of supposedly ancient Chinese weapons. The thing that insults all the real collectors is the supposedly brazen description of all of those fakes as real, and failure to mention their modern origin. We view it as a shameless attempt to dupe the buyer. But is it? Over the years I mentioned that practice to some of my colleagues from China, and I was astonished by their reactions. They did not seem to view it as a deception at all: in their view, if the object was similar to the original, it was legitimate. And just now I read a new Russian book about military culture of Vietnam. The author, a trained historian of weapons, describes a practice in Vietnamese museums to exhibit copies of the same sword in several museums. The astonishing thing is that some of them are made of gypsum and crudely painted. And nobody is perturbed by that. Here we enter a territory totally different from our usual discussions: cultural attitudes. Not being familiar with the topic, I would like somebody knowledgeable to explain to me whether Sinic ( or other) cultures have different reference points toward authenticity of ancient objects as a guidepost to their cultural, historical, traditional etc. value? Yes, I know that museums everywhere keep real things and that authenticated objects belonging to a famous historical person are valued very highly. But no Louvre or Hermitage would ever dream of exhibiting gypsum copies without ever mentioning the fact, and no Western collector would willingly purchase a modern replica and regard it as a legitimate object. Thus, there must be different cultural perspective of authenticity.

2nd May 2009, 08:00 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	A very interesting topic Ariel, and I agree it does seem disturbing that an obvious reproduction would be displayed in a museum without proper qualification in description. I think everyone is aware of the volume of items from India and China among others that reproduce traditional weapon forms, however I doubt that they are commercially marketed without being aware of the difference between these and the actual antique items. It does not seem possible that museum authorities could possibly consider that items on display could be other than reproductions if they are not indeed authentic. Many countries have become acutely guarded of thier antiquities in recent decades, and the volume of purloined items held in museums that have been repatriated to the country of their origin is increasingly large. It has been illegal to export antiques out of China as far as I have known for many years, though I do not know particulars, but it seems the constant commercial sales of items advertised as such would draw immediate attention if they were actual antiques. It seems that most reproduction weapons, in the west at least, are pretty good copies, and in most cases represented as interpretations of the original weapon. Naturally there are unscrupulous enterprising individuals who artificially age and combine composite elements to be sold as original to unwary collectors, and even museums have been burned, but for the most part, such composite items are so described. I think there is a broad assumption that the public at large may not be considered particularly well versed in identifying antiquities, and that may lead to the placement of certain items as originals. In that sense I would suppose they accomplish the ideal of portraying the weapon originally used as an inspirational display, rather than a commercially for sale item, therefore perhaps considered relatively harmless. That would be the sense I would consider plausible as far as attitude held in these circumstances. As far as the commercial activity, as always..caveat emptor! All the best, Jim

2nd May 2009, 10:07 PM	#3
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	MANY MUSEUMS THE WORLD OVER HAVE REPLICAS ON EXHIBIT, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL IN STORAGE AND SOMETIMES NOT. DINOSAUR SKELETONS ARE A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS. MANY ON DISPLAY ARE REPLICAS OF AN ORIGINAL WHICH MAY BE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. fOR DISPLAY PURPOSES THIS IS FINE IF THEY ARE GOOD ACCURATE REPLICAS THE VISITORS WILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND OFTEN THE REPLICA ELIMINATES THE MISSING PIECES AND FLAWS OF THE ORIGINAL AND MAKES A BETTER DISPLAY. HIGH PRICED AND RARE STONE POINTS ARE OFTEN PLASTIC REPLICAS BUT TODAY LOOK SO GOOD YOU CAN'T TELL UNLESS YOU ACTUALY PICK THEM UP. MUSEUMS OFTEN DO THIS BECAUSE THE ITEMS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE TO GET AN ORIGINAL OR IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AS THERE ARE VERY FEW ORIGINALS IN EXHISTANCE. THE ATTITUDE OF ANYONE WHO MAKES A REPLICA AND THEN SAYS IT IS REAL AND DEMANDS THE PRICE OF AN ORIGINAL IS ALWAYS" I DO NOTHING WRONG WHY PICK ON ME". A CHINESE COLLECTOR WHO IS VERY KNOWLEGABLE WILL NOT BUY SUCH ITEMS AND YOU CAN BE SURE HE WILL NOT SAY ITS ALL RIGHT AND AS GOOD AS AN ORIGINAL. WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO SUCH A SELLER TRYING TO SELL HIM A HIGH PRICED REPLICA AS ORIGINAL WOULD NO DOUBT MAKE YOUR EARS BURN.

3rd May 2009, 02:17 AM	#4
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	It's an interesting question, the one about how "genuine" a copy is. To me, it seems similar to the debate about copyright and intellectual property that's going on right now. For copyright, of course, the issue is ownership of information, and the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate use and copying of such information. Some people are pushing for some form of ultimate control, even though that's totally unattainable, while others are finding mechanisms, such as creative commons licenses, to cede control of some rights and keep others. For objects, it's evident that there are a couple of ways to look at it. In "our" culture, ownership and control of an original is important, but there's no reason to assume that our attitude is the only one, or (dare I say it?) even the best one. If the futurists are right, we're entering an era where the copying of real objects will become increasingly cheaper and more accurate, and it's not too far-fetched to start thinking about what will happen when a factory in China can cheaply produce something that's indistinguishable from a real antique without radiocarbon dating. Whose standards will be primary in this copying? Will originality matter, or not? I don't have any answers, but it's something worth thinking about. F

3rd May 2009, 07:04 AM	#5
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Chinese weapons collectors are concerned with fakes...in fact on of the Chinese forums I know has a specific titled something like fake antique/ replicas, etc I remember taking the Chinese art history class in Hong Kong...and one thing I remember the teacher saying with Chinese painting originality was not valued necessarily but how it compared a recognized masterpiece. For museums, I can understand the use of replica's...as people highlight the use of the copy for dinosaur bones, but I do think it sad to see there is such a market for the knock offs...some know and they are find with this..but always it is buyer beware/ educated....the knock off our of china do seem to be getting better. I know for even some of the modern Chinese smiths there are knock off's of their swords...like Zheng Wu Tang.