Provenance, what is it worth?

Swordfish · 15th May 2012, 07:18 PM

In my thread: The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword, I have established the somewhat provoking thesis, that in most cases a provenance is worth nothing. This is surely not correct in all cases, but is appropriate in many cases.
Now I want to confirm this thesis at some examples, which were sold at auction in the last years. Additional this demonstrates that many collectors can only be called stupid. It could happen to every collector that he once acquires a fake, but if the facts are clearly obvious, this can only be explained by lack of knowledge and stupidness.

1.
A gothic full armour in excellent condition, sold at galerie fischer 2008 for Euro 100.000 but very obviously a 19th century fake. Provenance Collection Max Kuppelmayr, former the armoury of Törringer zu Jettenbach. I had the opportunity to take a look at the sale catalogue of the Kuppelmayr collection, which was once in the posession of Hans Schedelmann, a very renowned expert in arms and armour. He has made comments to every item in the catalogue, nearly the half of the more expensive items were fakes.
No complete genuine Gothic armour is availiable for such a price, but the buyer in Mexico probably never saw it before he bought it.

2.
A Geman medieval Sallet, sold at Galerie Fischer 2009, lot 260, for Euro 20.000 inclusive premium. Provenance: The collection of the Duke of Brunswick, exhibited at the Tower of London 1952.This sallet looked very good to me on the photo, so I travelled to Lucene at the day of the auction. But after close examination I was very disappointed. The upper half of the sallet was genuine, but the lower half was replaced in the 19th century(not mentioned in the description). I refused to bid, but the sallet was sold to a telephone bidder, who probably never saw it in reality. The buyer recognised his mistake an sold the sallet again at Christie's November 2011, where it was described correctly. Nevertheless an even more crazy bidder paid Euro 39.000 incl premium for it.

3
A pavise, a primitive example, sold as a 19th century item at Christie's Dez. 2006 lot 104 for Euro 3000.
The same pavise with provenance: Count Hector Economos and William Randolph Hearst, failed to sell at Hermann Historica October 2007 with an estimate of Euro 20.000.
The same pavise with the same provenance sold at Galerie Fischer September 2011 for Euro 48.000. The provenance brought the dealer nearly 40.000 Euro, but genuine it is therefore not.

These examples demonstrate again, a good provenance may be helpful, but in no case replaces close examination of the items and sufficient own knowledge.

Thus much for today.

Best

cornelistromp · 15th May 2012, 09:59 PM

well there is certainly a provenance that is always better than no provenance because then it may be a recently made forgery.

Not the Victorian and early 20th century replica's are a danger to the collector but the newly manufactured high level counterfeits.

My hypothesis is that a verifiable provenance is always more valuable than no provenance.

best,

Jim McDougall · 16th May 2012, 04:59 AM

Provocative topic, and quite understandably placed as altogether too often provenance presented is mostly circumstantial and ill substantiated. It seems this has come up on numerous occasions in museum displays which have relied primarily on descriptions and information provided by item donors where further research to confirm details has not been completed.
In the case of auctions obviously there is often a wide range of description and provenance, which in most cases seem accurate, yet there will always be exceptions. With private sales and independant matters clearly the rule is caveat emptor in capital letters.

In these times antiquities are a powerfully lucrative field and the means of deception ever more powerful as well. I dont believe 'stupidity' as a term I would apply in unfortunate acquisitions, but entirely agree that knowledge is of utmost importance for those venturing into these treacherous fields.
That is why we are here, and why I always implore all who read and contribute here to share openly thier expertise in thier chosen specialties, to help all of us keep from falling prey to the hawkers of misrepresented or fake items, of all forms.

Much like history itself, provenance must always be reviewed and reconsidered and research always continued for new evidence and clues. Personally in my opinion, with most cases provenance is simply a benchmark, and research always goes on.
For collectors and all involved with antique arms and armor, in my opinion the foremost weapon one will possess is knowledge, and one can never let thier guard down.

David · 16th May 2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordfish

These examples demonstrate again, a good provenance may be helpful, but in no case replaces close examination of the items and sufficient own knowledge.

Forgive me Swordfish, but this seems so obvious as to hardly be worth mentioning. The bottom line is that for the most part, people who can throw 40 or 50,000 euro at items sight unseen based on auction descriptions are usually not real collectors at all, they are investors. Of course provenance is no substitute for accumulated knowledge and hands-on inspection. You don't buy the story, you buy the item, something any seasoned collector understands. And lack of knowledge is not the same as stupidity and i see no positive side to accusing collectors who make mistakes in judgement as being stupid.

Jim McDougall · 16th May 2012, 05:17 PM

Well made point David, in current times with the volatility of the world economy there has been dramatic increase in investing in material goods such as antiquities, and the escalation of prices to ridiculous levels has brought out the worst in circumstances for collectors. Naturally this has completely muddled the field with 'ambitious' items and devious sellers who have reached remarkable skills in thier treachery.
While it seems patently obvious to most of us who have long been 'in the game', there are constantly new enthusiasts joining us who may not be as aware as many of us with years of experience. I think the term stupid as used in Swordfish's post is simply borne out of the frustration we all feel or have felt with the often maddening events and circumstances that reflect poor research, devious description and presentation etc.

As always, I think more of the thousands of readers out there who read our pages and are often new or not yet that well informed, but read here in hopes of advancing thier knowledge from more experienced individuals.
To them I say read carefully, learn all you can, and caveat emptor!

All best regards,
Jim

fernando · 16th May 2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

... And lack of knowledge is not the same as stupidity and i see no positive side to accusing collectors who make mistakes in judgement as being stupid.

Absolutely !
Lack of knowledge or, for the same matter, natural believe on other party's good faith, is hardly a characteristic to be measured with the same gauge as IQ levels.

cornelistromp · 16th May 2012, 07:28 PM

I did made some stupid purchases during the beginning of my collectors career.
I file it under the cat. learning money.

best,

Swordfish · 16th May 2012, 08:47 PM

I'm sure that every collector has already made mistakes by paying too high prices or acquiring fakes, me too. But my loss was tolerable and I learned from my mistakes. This is not what I call stupid and I probably used the wrong term. But it is also not only lack of knowledge.
For example the sallet sold at Christie's 2001. The catalogue mentioned that the lower half of the helmet was replaced. How shall I call someone who nevertheless paid Euro 39.000 for it?
Also there is a hard rule that every collector should learn at first: you can trust neither any antique dealer nor any auction expert.

Best

fernando · 16th May 2012, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordfish

... How shall I call someone who nevertheless paid Euro 39.000 for it? ...

Try money laundering

David · 17th May 2012, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordfish

Also there is a hard rule that every collector should learn at first: you can trust neither any antique dealer nor any auction expert

While there are no doubt many nefarious dealers in the world of antique arms i find the extreme of you statement patently untrue. I buy the vast majority of my antique keris for just a couple of trusted dealers. These are relationships built over time and i trust these dealers implicitly. I am sorry that you have yet to find such a dealer for your own needs, but i can assure you that they do exist out there.

I am sure that what ever the reasons for someone buying an item for 39,000 euro that was clearly revealed as being partially replaced, stupidity was not among them. You simply don't have that kind of money to spend on purely luxury items like antique armor by being stupid. The rich do as they please with their money, who are we to judge? We will never know the buyers reasoning, but i am sure he had one. Maybe he just liked it. Is there some reason that it bothers you so much?

Dmitry · 17th May 2012, 06:25 AM

Link to the sallet -
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/a...2-7d935fd5d8ff

I wonder how and why the lower portion was attached to the top. You can clearly see the uneven line where the two meet, but I don't see any signs of welding. Perhaps this sallet was restored after being squashed.. Anyway, the rivets look new, the rest of the photo looks quite cohesive.

Swordfish · 17th May 2012, 05:16 PM

I have examined the sallet at the auction in Lucerne. The dividing line between the two parts goes round the sallet, on the outside this is only partly visible, but is clearly visible on the inside. Furthermore the inside and outside surface of the two parts differ noticeable. The two parts must have been welded together, perhaps in the 19th century or later.

Best

Lee · 21st May 2012, 09:12 AM

I'll definitely agree with the observation "that in most cases a provenance is worth nothing." Some provenances may be interesting and informative and should be retained and passed along as anecdote, but all eventually must be taken with a forklift load of salt. The gold standard will be items with clear photographs that have been publicly published. This rarely achieved standard can protect somewhat against recent forgeries and faked-up 'enhancements,' but there have been a lot of duds in good collections - public and private - that go unrecognized as such for a very long time. And how many of us have items in our collections that we remain unsure of? We may honestly discuss our suspicions with fellow collectors and collect expert opinions yea and nay but these observations and suspicions are rarely written down to assist whoever ultimately handles the estate.

15th May 2012, 07:18 PM	#1
Swordfish Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 129	Provenance, what is it worth? In my thread: The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword, I have established the somewhat provoking thesis, that in most cases a provenance is worth nothing. This is surely not correct in all cases, but is appropriate in many cases. Now I want to confirm this thesis at some examples, which were sold at auction in the last years. Additional this demonstrates that many collectors can only be called stupid. It could happen to every collector that he once acquires a fake, but if the facts are clearly obvious, this can only be explained by lack of knowledge and stupidness. 1. A gothic full armour in excellent condition, sold at galerie fischer 2008 for Euro 100.000 but very obviously a 19th century fake. Provenance Collection Max Kuppelmayr, former the armoury of Törringer zu Jettenbach. I had the opportunity to take a look at the sale catalogue of the Kuppelmayr collection, which was once in the posession of Hans Schedelmann, a very renowned expert in arms and armour. He has made comments to every item in the catalogue, nearly the half of the more expensive items were fakes. No complete genuine Gothic armour is availiable for such a price, but the buyer in Mexico probably never saw it before he bought it. 2. A Geman medieval Sallet, sold at Galerie Fischer 2009, lot 260, for Euro 20.000 inclusive premium. Provenance: The collection of the Duke of Brunswick, exhibited at the Tower of London 1952.This sallet looked very good to me on the photo, so I travelled to Lucene at the day of the auction. But after close examination I was very disappointed. The upper half of the sallet was genuine, but the lower half was replaced in the 19th century(not mentioned in the description). I refused to bid, but the sallet was sold to a telephone bidder, who probably never saw it in reality. The buyer recognised his mistake an sold the sallet again at Christie's November 2011, where it was described correctly. Nevertheless an even more crazy bidder paid Euro 39.000 incl premium for it. 3 A pavise, a primitive example, sold as a 19th century item at Christie's Dez. 2006 lot 104 for Euro 3000. The same pavise with provenance: Count Hector Economos and William Randolph Hearst, failed to sell at Hermann Historica October 2007 with an estimate of Euro 20.000. The same pavise with the same provenance sold at Galerie Fischer September 2011 for Euro 48.000. The provenance brought the dealer nearly 40.000 Euro, but genuine it is therefore not. These examples demonstrate again, a good provenance may be helpful, but in no case replaces close examination of the items and sufficient own knowledge. Thus much for today. Best Attached Images Last edited by Swordfish; 15th May 2012 at 10:20 PM.

21st May 2012, 09:12 AM	#13
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 914	Buy the item for what is before you; the story is peripheral I'll definitely agree with the observation "that in most cases a provenance is worth nothing." Some provenances may be interesting and informative and should be retained and passed along as anecdote, but all eventually must be taken with a forklift load of salt. The gold standard will be items with clear photographs that have been publicly published. This rarely achieved standard can protect somewhat against recent forgeries and faked-up 'enhancements,' but there have been a lot of duds in good collections - public and private - that go unrecognized as such for a very long time. And how many of us have items in our collections that we remain unsure of? We may honestly discuss our suspicions with fellow collectors and collect expert opinions yea and nay but these observations and suspicions are rarely written down to assist whoever ultimately handles the estate.

15th May 2012, 09:59 PM	#2
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058	well there is certainly a provenance that is always better than no provenance because then it may be a recently made forgery. Not the Victorian and early 20th century replica's are a danger to the collector but the newly manufactured high level counterfeits. My hypothesis is that a verifiable provenance is always more valuable than no provenance. best,

16th May 2012, 04:59 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,957	Provocative topic, and quite understandably placed as altogether too often provenance presented is mostly circumstantial and ill substantiated. It seems this has come up on numerous occasions in museum displays which have relied primarily on descriptions and information provided by item donors where further research to confirm details has not been completed. In the case of auctions obviously there is often a wide range of description and provenance, which in most cases seem accurate, yet there will always be exceptions. With private sales and independant matters clearly the rule is caveat emptor in capital letters. In these times antiquities are a powerfully lucrative field and the means of deception ever more powerful as well. I dont believe 'stupidity' as a term I would apply in unfortunate acquisitions, but entirely agree that knowledge is of utmost importance for those venturing into these treacherous fields. That is why we are here, and why I always implore all who read and contribute here to share openly thier expertise in thier chosen specialties, to help all of us keep from falling prey to the hawkers of misrepresented or fake items, of all forms. Much like history itself, provenance must always be reviewed and reconsidered and research always continued for new evidence and clues. Personally in my opinion, with most cases provenance is simply a benchmark, and research always goes on. For collectors and all involved with antique arms and armor, in my opinion the foremost weapon one will possess is knowledge, and one can never let thier guard down.

16th May 2012, 05:17 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,957	Well made point David, in current times with the volatility of the world economy there has been dramatic increase in investing in material goods such as antiquities, and the escalation of prices to ridiculous levels has brought out the worst in circumstances for collectors. Naturally this has completely muddled the field with 'ambitious' items and devious sellers who have reached remarkable skills in thier treachery. While it seems patently obvious to most of us who have long been 'in the game', there are constantly new enthusiasts joining us who may not be as aware as many of us with years of experience. I think the term stupid as used in Swordfish's post is simply borne out of the frustration we all feel or have felt with the often maddening events and circumstances that reflect poor research, devious description and presentation etc. As always, I think more of the thousands of readers out there who read our pages and are often new or not yet that well informed, but read here in hopes of advancing thier knowledge from more experienced individuals. To them I say read carefully, learn all you can, and caveat emptor! All best regards, Jim

16th May 2012, 07:28 PM	#7
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058	I did made some stupid purchases during the beginning of my collectors career. I file it under the cat. learning money. best,

16th May 2012, 08:47 PM	#8
Swordfish Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 129	I'm sure that every collector has already made mistakes by paying too high prices or acquiring fakes, me too. But my loss was tolerable and I learned from my mistakes. This is not what I call stupid and I probably used the wrong term. But it is also not only lack of knowledge. For example the sallet sold at Christie's 2001. The catalogue mentioned that the lower half of the helmet was replaced. How shall I call someone who nevertheless paid Euro 39.000 for it? Also there is a hard rule that every collector should learn at first: you can trust neither any antique dealer nor any auction expert. Best

17th May 2012, 06:25 AM	#11
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	Link to the sallet - http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/a...2-7d935fd5d8ff I wonder how and why the lower portion was attached to the top. You can clearly see the uneven line where the two meet, but I don't see any signs of welding. Perhaps this sallet was restored after being squashed.. Anyway, the rivets look new, the rest of the photo looks quite cohesive.

17th May 2012, 05:16 PM	#12
Swordfish Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 129	I have examined the sallet at the auction in Lucerne. The dividing line between the two parts goes round the sallet, on the outside this is only partly visible, but is clearly visible on the inside. Furthermore the inside and outside surface of the two parts differ noticeable. The two parts must have been welded together, perhaps in the 19th century or later. Best