|
11th October 2023, 06:46 PM | #1 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,101
|
Quote:
|
|
11th October 2023, 07:57 PM | #2 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 910
|
Antiques trade ethics
The scale of the disparity is surely relevant, 33,871x versus 66x (at asking price), as is the absolute amount of money involved! When a typical collector buys from a dealer, remember that the dealer is a professional and part of their profession is knowing what the things they deal in are and what they are worth. When our typical collector has acquired superior knowledge and gets a really good deal, well then, yeah for the collector because it usually does not flow that way. I think though, in the position of being the professional, a dealer does have an obligation to be 'honest' with a "civilian" seller.
A very significant international antique arms dealer told me the story of his purchase of an item that I acquired (at a good markup) and the essence was that he knew that he could quickly place the object and made an offer at least an order of magnitude greater than other offers that had preceded it. He indicated that being willing to pay a fair price brought much more merchandise to him, and often first refusal. Of course, the dealer in the account above made so much there would be little need for future respect in the community, though he would not want me on a jury. As to patrimony issues, decades or centuries later we cannot really know what the actual terms of a transfer were. But many of the diverse items that have found their ways into great museums and collections may not otherwise have survived if left in their place of origin and (hint, hint) we are not going to debate this contentious issue here. |
12th October 2023, 06:19 PM | #3 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 425
|
Quote:
It's difficult to determine ownership of an object created and used in secret; it's equally difficult to ascribe a value. As it's likely that anyone connected with the secret is dead, and the clandestine nature of the root organisation renders it obscure, it becomes impossible to ascertain ownership. Insofar as admitting belonging to a secret organisation would either expose it to view, creating an existential problem, or would be a fraudulent claim by someone hoping to profit from knowledge obtained contrary to the tenets of the secret society, it would seem problematic regarding both ownership and violation of the intended rules of the originators of the object. Throughout history, the pragmatism of the concept "to the victor belongs the spoils" has applied. Complaining about the implicit barbarism of the concept may feel uplifting, but a goodly portion of what folks here, as well as museums and cultural repositories study, collect, buy and sell might fall under question regarding ownership and cultural appropriation. It somehow seems coupled with demonstrating virtue while ignoring reality. Of course, after seven decades of experience on this planet, the veneer of civilisation has probably been ground off of my essential barbarism. Merely an alternative perspective, of course. |
|
|
|