Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThePepperSkull
I do think a lot of this discussion begs the question: "What do you consider a fake"? We have all discussed various definitions: low-quality blades made to be buried in the dirt to speed up some artificial patination, Modern-made blades made outside of the appropriate culture, anriques refitted with more luxuious materials in addition to a forced patination. Which is a definition of 'fake' that most of us can agree upon? I think (if there are any willing participants) we can have a more enriched (or at least more streamlined) discussion about Fakes if we can find time to define the term in one specific way (or multiple specific ways even, so as not to be vague in our discussion) so we have a point of reference.
|
It a good and fair question Pepper. For me "fake" is a matter of representation. There are certainly a lot of reproductions being made these days, but if they are being presented in the marketplace as antique, that's a fake. If a weapon is manufactured for a collectors market, not for ethnographic use, an presented as such, i would call it a reproduction. This is not a statement on quality, as repros can be very nice or not. I think it's a repro even if it's made by Filipinos in a tradtional manner if it is made for the collectors market and not for use. Of course there is a fine line there i suppose, because i have seen photos of modern Moro guerillas in the jungles with what look like modern versions of traditional blades. Certainly these are not "fakes" and they are in use.
As for refitted old blades again i think representation is the issue when deciding what is fake. When an old beater is fixed up with an elaborate hilt with silver and ivory and passed off as a datu kris i would call that a "fake". If the seller is clear that the blade is a rehilted old beater i would just call it inappropriate and misguided.
