Reproductions

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

All very good points, and there is decidedly a difference between reproductions and fakes. Reproductions are made to represent examples of certain sword forms for collectors who wish to assemble examples of their favorite types but cannot afford or have access to authentic antiques.

They are not made to deceive typically, but I knew a guy who did make them and became so good at producing them authentically, they could easily be passed off as such. He responsibly would place his mark to avoid this, but unscrupulous dealers would eliminate it and cover over.

Fakes are varied, but of course have more nefarious purpose. Some sellers feign unawareness, but dealers handling many weapons certainly know better you would think. Its truly hard to determine what the case might be.

Knowledge is the most valuable weapon we can own.

[A. G. Maisey]

"Knowledge is the most valuable weapon we can own."

Knowledge is acquired through education.

Education costs.

[urbanspaceman]

Life is one continuous education; sometimes expensive - sometimes absolutely free; always necessary. Except when you already know everything, which is more common than is good for us.

[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'.