[ariel]

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.