Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Philip
Provenance, if reliable, helps a lot when making that decision to bid or buy. Yet in the long run, nothing beats empirical expertise in the field, and the expert technical analysis, when push comes to shove.
|
I think Philip is absolutely correct and that the first and primary defense against items made to deceive is having seen and handled an adequate number of known genuine artifacts in the particular field or else consulting an expert who has. Technical examination may then help when expert opinion needs to reconcile doubts.
One exciting method is XRF (X-ray fluorescence) analysis. A handheld or bench-top instrument directs a beam of X-rays at one or more wavelengths on an object and different wavelengths are in turn emitted as electrons get disturbed and a built in computer can then calculate a quantitative elemental composition. This technology is used in scrapyards for sorting alloys, in evaluating for lead paint, by precious metal dealers to determine compositions, in prospecting and, of course, in archaeology. The big advantage is that it is nondestructive as the atoms will get over the irritation and so it may be used without significantly altering the object. Significant limitations are that lighter elements are not detected and that it reports on superficial (surface) composition over a fairly large area (~1 sq cm). So a thin gold plating over base metal reads like gold. (Similar technology on scanning electron microscopes can report on tiny targets). Experts will have access, of course to many different analysis techniques but these often involve removing a significant sample besides expense.
I recently rented a handheld XRF unit and took hundreds of readings across my various collections. I have still not done the work of generating statistical reference ranges for the trace elements that may be there. (Perhaps I am afraid?) My technique was truly 'horrible' because I did not clear away rust, verdigris, wax, paint or anything else. I shot the items in multiple spots as is (nondestructive meaning nondestructive). Of course, since much of that overlying 'noise' is mostly lighter elements ignored by the technology, this was not as bad as it may seem.
Where a forger has used a modern alloy to create a fake artifact, then the scrap sorting methodology on a handheld instrument may well report the industrial designation for the alloy and your doubts about an item are unhappily resolved. However, I find that a number of items that I am confident are fakes will overlap sufficiently in elemental composition with genuine artifacts that confirmation of authenticity is not going to be reliable while condemnation will be fairly reliable.
Kronckew, you may be able to find a local business (likely in the metals scrap trade or environmental testing) who will have such a unit and may take a few readings for you for a nominal fee.
For years I have had an attractive 'bird stone' (Native American atl atl counterweight?) On the phone, I asked a specialist antique dealer of my acquaintance if he could give me an opinion as to whether it is genuine or not. Without hesitation he replied - over the phone - "It's a fake!" (This would also later be the opinion of a trained archaeologist with the object in his hand.) The point was that there are probably not more than 5,000 total of these in existence. But, kronckew, the same specialist antique dealer also has a favorite saying about the chances he takes with online purchases - "Every now and then a blind squirrel gets a nut." It just does not happen that often, but I'll hope your pole-arm head turns out to be the real deal.