Over on an artefact collector's forum near you, a discussion has been going on about an object sold by a dealer on the forum, in particular if it is real or fake. I took one look at it, and (after another to check) decided it was a fake. One reason was that a long while ago I'd written up one of these things (for Antiquaries' Journal no less) so I'd taken a long hard look at how they functioned, and the one on the market was lacking one vital functional feature, the others derive from another area of knowledge I have...
But collectors gathered on the forum to discuss and learn about artefacts won't be able to see whether they agree with my reasoning. I am blocked from Tuppenny Tim's little discussion group, so did not write anything there.
A few days ago I did however mention it in passing (in an email about something else) to a forum member who'd also suggested that there was another feature why it is a fake.. They then asked me why I said so. I promised that when I had my head above water with something I was doing, I'd do a post on this blog this weekend.
Anyway, I am not going to write it up just yet. This is because the guy that bought it was sending it back to the dealer, who promised to take another look and see if he'd not made a mistake and then write it up on the forum. My second name is Schadenfreude, so I am going to bide my time and see what the dealer concludes and why, before adding my own contribution. :>)
No comments:
Post a Comment