2nd Caucasian Kindjal for comment

katana · 15th June 2008, 01:29 PM

I have followed this thread with interest and as my knowledge of Kindjals is very limited, I will not comment on the age authenticity of Gav's piece. However, I do feel there has been a number of comments regarding the accessment of the Kindjal that are relavent to a number of threads.

In a learning environment it is far better that negative and positive comments ...are backed up with evidence. This 'enriches' the debate and adds to our 'collective' knowledge. It would be extremely useful in all threads that short comments such as .....this is likely mid 20th century ....is expanded into the reasons why.
I have great respect for a number of Formites and 'bow' to their undoubted knowledge, but we/they are only human and mistakes can happen, especially when you have only a description and pictures to 'go on'.
Also, as collectors we have to accept that we can be 'fooled' in believing we have something that is totally authentic, to discover that others disagree. Unfortunately, this sometimes can be 'taken personally', afterall not only the piece has become questionable but also the collector's belief and knowledge.

As a footnote, AFAIK auction house's descriptions of items are not necessarilly totally correct, the 'small print' always carries a disclaimer protecting them from repocussions. Unless an Auction house will totally guarantee an object's description, to the extent of offering a refund (if found to be incorrect) and some sort of compensation to cover your expenses etc I would take their accessment with a 'pinch of salt'.

Very famous Auction house's have sold items, that their experts have deemed 'totally authentic', but later have been discovered to be fake

It happens. Therefore, I personally would not accept the Auction House's description as evidence of its authenticity or age.

All the best

David

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

15th June 2008, 01:29 PM	#29
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	I have followed this thread with interest and as my knowledge of Kindjals is very limited, I will not comment on the age authenticity of Gav's piece. However, I do feel there has been a number of comments regarding the accessment of the Kindjal that are relavent to a number of threads. In a learning environment it is far better that negative and positive comments ...are backed up with evidence. This 'enriches' the debate and adds to our 'collective' knowledge. It would be extremely useful in all threads that short comments such as .....this is likely mid 20th century ....is expanded into the reasons why. I have great respect for a number of Formites and 'bow' to their undoubted knowledge, but we/they are only human and mistakes can happen, especially when you have only a description and pictures to 'go on'. Also, as collectors we have to accept that we can be 'fooled' in believing we have something that is totally authentic, to discover that others disagree. Unfortunately, this sometimes can be 'taken personally', afterall not only the piece has become questionable but also the collector's belief and knowledge. As a footnote, AFAIK auction house's descriptions of items are not necessarilly totally correct, the 'small print' always carries a disclaimer protecting them from repocussions. Unless an Auction house will totally guarantee an object's description, to the extent of offering a refund (if found to be incorrect) and some sort of compensation to cover your expenses etc I would take their accessment with a 'pinch of salt'. Very famous Auction house's have sold items, that their experts have deemed 'totally authentic', but later have been discovered to be fake It happens. Therefore, I personally would not accept the Auction House's description as evidence of its authenticity or age. All the best David