Reproductions

[Jim McDougall]

Great ideas Ed! I think we all have considerable experiences in the "hall of shame" as we fell prey to clever and innovative 'treasures' which were indeed too good to be true. Still the optimist and romantic in us compelled is to believe the 'stories' which surrounded the item.

I have always felt the best defense, indeed the most powerful weapon to keep us from further being victimized, is KNOWLEDGE, which actually is what these forums are all about. One of the drawbacks is that often, as noted, many do not enter detailed observations so as not to provide 'training data' for those out there concocting these artificial antiquities.

The elephant in the room however, is that of legality, and potential issues with declaring an item 'fake' etc. and to host a venue specifically to display a rogues gallery with examples, while obviously helpful, would unleash nightmarish complications in my opinion.

The only thing we can do is prudently make observations and comparisons with known other examples with provenance noting the differences without direct accusation. As our core of knowledge grows, as it has here in the past years, the 'trolls' will find it less lucrative to enter here as they realize our awareness.

I feel and well know the frustration, plenty of scars !
Nevertheless, well said and thought out ideas, and great attachment! Thanks Ed!

[werecow]

I like the idea of a suspected fakes forum. There's a lot to be learned from comparing forgeries to the real thing. We could call it "The oops box".

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by werecow

I like the idea of a suspected fakes forum. There's a lot to be learned from comparing forgeries to the real thing. We could call it "The oops box".

I think we all agree that we should have an awareness of the many fake items circulating and how to recognize them as compared to authentic antiques.
Perhaps the best way to represent these in discussion is to describe them as 'modern interpretations' so as to avoid inflammatory connotation (despite obviously our frustration toward them) .

It seems over the years, regions such as in Afghanistan's Khyber, the production of 'interpretations' of East India Co. components in producing tribal weapons evolved into a modern industry. These weapons are incredibly similar to the authentic examples, almost indistinguishable.

While most of us in the 'game' many years have learned through experience how to recognize 'interpretations' in handling them, however often when examples are assessed only through photos, as here, it is much harder and I admit to often being fooled by images presented.

The idea of a sub forum to compile these 'misteakes' is compelling, but a bit more complex than it would seem. Still the subject examples remaining in proper context I think serve the purpose.

Learning and awareness are the goals here, so I would say status quo remains, but care in wording and presentation of primary concern.

[10thRoyal]

I for one love the idea of a lessons learned folder. I'd love to see a collection of photos of reproductions on there along with an explanation as to why they look like reproductions. For example, show a picture of the smooth steel surface of the inside of a Victorian burgonet, then show a photo of a hammered finish on an original burgonet.

You can look at my profile on the site, my second thread ever was about, *screams internally*, a Victorian burgonet I bought. Man did I want to kick and scream. I was so bitter about it that it's actually funny in hindsight. But the knowledge I gained was worth the price of admission.

We are all on the same side here. We all want more authentic pieces in the hands of people who enjoy researching and enjoy the hunt. There will be bruised egos, there will be experience challenged, and there will be dollars spent. But after all that, we'll figure something new out, we'll look at it soberly after, apologize for harsh words, and go find something cool and undiscovered out in the world. We all at some point have to be a student, a teacher, or someone to pat someone on the back say "sure it might be a reproduction, but it looks pretty good for a fake."

This has been a great community by and large. So we all need to make the case for growing it and keeping it accessible. To keep the person who might have bought a fake, still interested and willing to learn and have fun. And personally I think that a lessons learned folder would be a great way to do that.

[Jim McDougall]

Beautifully said 10th!!!

[kahnjar1]

Hi Jim,
This thread started out with the subject of Repros but seems to have now also included Fakes. I believe that they are two different things.
IMHO a fake is a false copy meant to deceive, whereas a Repro is an (obviously) modern copy. A good example of Repros is the proliferation of samuri swords (for sale on a well known website) and often seen in groups of three on a rack. Personally I have never liked Repros and would not have an example in my collection.
Stu

[Lee]

Ed, I enjoyed reading your paper on fakes and find it potentially very useful reading for all stages of a collecting life.

I myself cannot always resolve authenticity even with an object in hand; indeed it is more accurate to say that increasingly I rarely can confirm or denounce with certainty and I have not made a significant antique arms acquisition in over a decade. When I will give an opinion, it is either that I am "enthusiastic about" or "afraid of" an item with the caveat that in order to reduce the risk of acquiring a fake, I have "calibrated" myself to walk away from maybe the best opportunities.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Hi Jim,
This thread started out with the subject of Repros but seems to have now also included Fakes. I believe that they are two different things.
IMHO a fake is a false copy meant to deceive, whereas a Repro is an (obviously) modern copy. A good example of Repros is the proliferation of samuri swords (for sale on a well known website) and often seen in groups of three on a rack. Personally I have never liked Repros and would not have an example in my collection.
Stu

The line is blurry though, and a lot of aged repros end up being used as fakes by unscrupulous dealers. For that reason alone it's good to be aware of repros even if you have no interest in owning them.

[ulfberth]

Originally Posted by 10thRoyal

I for one love the idea of a lessons learned folder. I'd love to see a collection of photos of reproductions on there along with an explanation as to why they look like reproductions. For example, show a picture of the smooth steel surface of the inside of a Victorian burgonet, then show a photo of a hammered finish on an original burgonet.

You can look at my profile on the site, my second thread ever was about, *screams internally*, a Victorian burgonet I bought. Man did I want to kick and scream. I was so bitter about it that it's actually funny in hindsight. But the knowledge I gained was worth the price of admission.

We are all on the same side here. We all want more authentic pieces in the hands of people who enjoy researching and enjoy the hunt. There will be bruised egos, there will be experience challenged, and there will be dollars spent. But after all that, we'll figure something new out, we'll look at it soberly after, apologize for harsh words, and go find something cool and undiscovered out in the world. We all at some point have to be a student, a teacher, or someone to pat someone on the back say "sure it might be a reproduction, but it looks pretty good for a fake."

This has been a great community by and large. So we all need to make the case for growing it and keeping it accessible. To keep the person who might have bought a fake, still interested and willing to learn and have fun. And personally I think that a lessons learned folder would be a great way to do that.

I would be very selective about who you share this information with about what specifically doesn't look right and why and certainly never post it on a forum for everyone to see.
I have no doubt that this is with the best intentions but that information can be used for other purposes and isn't that exactly what we want to avoid?

[Lee]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

I have no doubt that this is with the best intentions but that information can be used for other purposes and isn't that exactly what we want to avoid?

That has always been the conundrum with projects like this website and forum. As a student/collector gains experience, he/she will likely come to recognize little clues that something isn't right. Unfortunately, when one publicly shares these insights, forgers will take notice and soon those criteria cease to be reliable and separating the wheat from the chaff will only become more difficult.

Hopefully, the potential harm of presentation of authentic examples is more than offset by positive educational benefits. Similarly, presentation and identification of forgeries, labeled as such, hopefully carries more benefits than harms. But, detailed publication of easy to recognize and easily corrected features of forgeries likely carries much greater potential for harm than good to future collectors.

So, for this reason I have held many of my own observations in this regard close over the years despite the urge to share them. An aspiring collector needs to directly experience as many authentic examples as possible, as well as known fakes, and will, by this process, develop his/her own conscious and unconscious sense about items encountered.

[Jim McDougall]

I agree again, there is a great deal of potential adverse effect if we offer a 'course' in production with more authenticity for the wares of those creating to deceive. Those here with experience of course recognize the features and nuances in examples that pretty much scream 'fake', but then there are those which have been refurbished in their working lives to serve as ersatz versions of weapons required.

It is truly hard to tell without hands on examination. I always try to remember to issue observations with the caveat, 'from photos, this APPEARS to be such and such' and then detail whatever particulars I can add toward the use etc of authentic examples.

Some of these 'contrived' examples created in often rural or remote settings as ersatz weapons can be so outlandish that there can be no notion they were ever intended to deceive. Case in point, this Mexican composite likely put together in a frontier area using a most unlikely assembly of components.
Someone trying to produce a deceptive espada ancha would have at least 'tried' to come close.

It is a conundrum indeed, and I have known dealers who avoid posting for these very reasons, 'giving away information'.