what is your view on reproductions?

Rick · 12th July 2008, 09:06 PM

Okay, I'll accept that Kai .

You are right .

The Moro pieces are indeed more like interpretations by a non-Moro smith .
Let's toss them out .

The Filipino pieces though seem to be more familiar to the makers .
I guess my point was that blademaking has a long tradition in the P.I. and this fact would negate these as true reproductions compared to say Arms and Armor's swords .

ward · 12th July 2008, 09:18 PM

I do not have much use for repoductions as a collectable. I collect antiques because I like the workmanship and arstisan asthetics of the pieces. Reproductions go down in price generally antiques go up. Reproductions also have a bad habit of trying to pretend to be antiques down the road.

Now this does not mean I do not appreciate modern handmade work but that really does not fall into the reproduction market.

kahnjar1 · 12th July 2008, 10:48 PM

Personally I do not like reproductions but do appreciate the skill which goes into making (some of) them.
If a collector, particularly of guns, needs a certain item to complete a collection (say) of Colt Revolvers, and can not , either due to the high cost, or lack of availability of the very rare item he is missing, chooses to include a replica of that item, then there is definately a place for these. The same reasoning would follow also in the collecting of blades.
Bottom line is that it is probably personal preference rather than anything else which decides this issue.
Stuart

Jim McDougall · 12th July 2008, 11:24 PM

If I were to describe my perspective on antique weapons, I would say I would be considered an arms and armor historian, and my objective has always been to try to identify examples as well as learn from the weapon as it stands. Therefore I have little interest in reproduction weapons as I cannot learn from them, and I do not any longer collect weapons, just study them. The only thing I can usually learn from these is to review the data often researched by those who make them, and in most cases quite reliable historically in a general sense.

While I admire the beautiful work done by those who create many of the modern reproductions, they really serve no purpose for examination for historic content. On the other hand, they do serve nicely for displays or often in reenactment groups, and typically give good representation in the study of martial dynamics and recreating historic events. Essentially they are typically (hopefully) well researched and reasonably faithfully fashioned.

I think one of the main problems with reproductions in I think limited cases, are those fashioned too well, that is intended to deceive. Some makers are really that good! In the 19th century, the almost legendary case of the German artisan Ernst Schmidt, who created such amazing copies of medieval and renaissance arms and armor for Victorian collectors and the smoking rooms of the gentry, many could not be discerned from originals. These products have now become antiques in thier own right, and on some occasions have still provided unfortunate surprises for even knowledgable collectors.
Most of this type of problem today are the 'mules'. That is a weapon comprised of composite components, often period components, though some reproduced, and the weapon represented as homogenous and original.

I do know of a number of individuals who faithfully restore authentic historic pieces, and who maintain conservative application to preserve the integrity of the weapon. They are straightforward in thier work, and openly describe whatever work is done. It is essential to learn as much as you can and research the weapons you are acquiring, and deal with known dealers and individuals...caveat emptor!

VANDOO · 12th July 2008, 11:53 PM

FROM LOOKING AT THE ITEMS IN THE SANDATA LINK I WOULD CLASSIFY THEM AS MARTIAL ARTS WEAPONS MUCH LIKE THOSE FOR SALE TO PRACTITIONERS OF THE MANY CHINESE FORMS.
USUALLY THESE ARE MADE OF COMERCIAL STEEL AND FORMED USING STOCK REMOVAL THE GRIPS MAY BE SIMPLE OR BEAUTIFUL BUT SHOULD ALWAYS BE STURDY AND GOOD FOR USE IN PRACTICE. THE BALANCE SHOULD BE GOOD AND THEY MAY BE MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE WEAPON BUT SHOULD BE OF THE PROPER SHAPE AND SIZE AND CAN BE SHARP OR DULL EDGED. THE PRICES SHOULD BE LESS ON THESE AS THEY DO NOT MEET MY STANDARD OF A TRUE REPLICA WHICH SHOULD HAVE AS GOOD TRADITIONAL DETAIL AS AN ORIGINAL. THIS LACK OF PROPER DETAIL AND WORKMANSHIP IS ESPECIALLY EVIDENT ON THE CARVING ON THE KRIS.
SOME OF THE ITEMS COME CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL FORMS THAN OTHERS AND THEY ALL MAY BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO GET THE FEEL OF THE TYPE OF WEAPON, THEY MAY ALSO MAKE GOOD BUSH KNIVES FOR WORK AS WELL AS TRAINING.
I CONSIDER THE ITEMS I OWN LIKE THESE TO BE RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF OLDER FORMS AND SOME CROSSING OVER INTO FANTASY KNIVES. THE PRICES WERE REASONABLE BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO GET A REAL MORO KRIS FOR A REASONABLE PRICE IF YOU ARE NOT ONLY INTERESTED IN DATU GRADE. SO FOR COLLECTING A MORO KRIS OR KAMPILIAN AN ORIGINAL IS BEST BUT FOR TRAINING PERHAPS ONE OF THE MARTIAL ARTS VARIETY IS BEST.

Dom · 13th July 2008, 12:51 AM

what it's new today, will be old tomorrow
ALL ours antics, have been new one day .....

also, could be nice to define the term of "antic"
how many years old .. minimum

the first one said more than 60 is a DEAD MAN

à +

Dom

Rick · 13th July 2008, 02:03 AM

Now just a second Here !!
I'm 61 and still kicking .

For me it has always been 100 years for an item to be judged 'Antique' .

Bill M · 13th July 2008, 02:22 AM

Hey Rick,

We 60+ guys traditionally call each other "young man!" I'll be 65 on Halloween, but I feel like a 35 year old.

As far as reproductions, I bought a pile of Indian weapons supposedly made by descendants of the guys who have been making them a thousand years or so.

Anyone remember "Shah Jahans?" I have their whole inventory. Now, you must realize that these were all made in the previous century.

Jim McDougall · 13th July 2008, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Now just a second Here !!
I'm 61 and still kicking .

For me it has always been 100 years for an item to be judged 'Antique' .

Right on Rick!!!!
I worked for the airlines for nearly 40 years, retired last year, and remember one day about 7 years ago, we were sending out a Boeing 727 on its last flight, on its way to the desert. The young guy working with me commented it was sad to see this faithful plane going away to the desert.......I noted to him, yeah, worse for me though, I remember when they were new!!

Been 'dodgin' bullets for lots a years now', looks like I'm gonna make 63 ..next month!!! Thats why I like the patinated, worn old warriors.....they're just like me

13th July 2008, 02:22 AM	#8
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Hey Rick, We 60+ guys traditionally call each other "young man!" I'll be 65 on Halloween, but I feel like a 35 year old. As far as reproductions, I bought a pile of Indian weapons supposedly made by descendants of the guys who have been making them a thousand years or so. Anyone remember "Shah Jahans?" I have their whole inventory. Now, you must realize that these were all made in the previous century. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12th July 2008, 09:06 PM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,365	Okay, I'll accept that Kai . You are right . The Moro pieces are indeed more like interpretations by a non-Moro smith . Let's toss them out . The Filipino pieces though seem to be more familiar to the makers . I guess my point was that blademaking has a long tradition in the P.I. and this fact would negate these as true reproductions compared to say Arms and Armor's swords .

12th July 2008, 09:18 PM	#2
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	I do not have much use for repoductions as a collectable. I collect antiques because I like the workmanship and arstisan asthetics of the pieces. Reproductions go down in price generally antiques go up. Reproductions also have a bad habit of trying to pretend to be antiques down the road. Now this does not mean I do not appreciate modern handmade work but that really does not fall into the reproduction market.

12th July 2008, 10:48 PM	#3
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,809	Personally I do not like reproductions but do appreciate the skill which goes into making (some of) them. If a collector, particularly of guns, needs a certain item to complete a collection (say) of Colt Revolvers, and can not , either due to the high cost, or lack of availability of the very rare item he is missing, chooses to include a replica of that item, then there is definately a place for these. The same reasoning would follow also in the collecting of blades. Bottom line is that it is probably personal preference rather than anything else which decides this issue. Stuart

12th July 2008, 11:24 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,599	If I were to describe my perspective on antique weapons, I would say I would be considered an arms and armor historian, and my objective has always been to try to identify examples as well as learn from the weapon as it stands. Therefore I have little interest in reproduction weapons as I cannot learn from them, and I do not any longer collect weapons, just study them. The only thing I can usually learn from these is to review the data often researched by those who make them, and in most cases quite reliable historically in a general sense. While I admire the beautiful work done by those who create many of the modern reproductions, they really serve no purpose for examination for historic content. On the other hand, they do serve nicely for displays or often in reenactment groups, and typically give good representation in the study of martial dynamics and recreating historic events. Essentially they are typically (hopefully) well researched and reasonably faithfully fashioned. I think one of the main problems with reproductions in I think limited cases, are those fashioned too well, that is intended to deceive. Some makers are really that good! In the 19th century, the almost legendary case of the German artisan Ernst Schmidt, who created such amazing copies of medieval and renaissance arms and armor for Victorian collectors and the smoking rooms of the gentry, many could not be discerned from originals. These products have now become antiques in thier own right, and on some occasions have still provided unfortunate surprises for even knowledgable collectors. Most of this type of problem today are the 'mules'. That is a weapon comprised of composite components, often period components, though some reproduced, and the weapon represented as homogenous and original. I do know of a number of individuals who faithfully restore authentic historic pieces, and who maintain conservative application to preserve the integrity of the weapon. They are straightforward in thier work, and openly describe whatever work is done. It is essential to learn as much as you can and research the weapons you are acquiring, and deal with known dealers and individuals...caveat emptor!

12th July 2008, 11:53 PM	#5
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	FROM LOOKING AT THE ITEMS IN THE SANDATA LINK I WOULD CLASSIFY THEM AS MARTIAL ARTS WEAPONS MUCH LIKE THOSE FOR SALE TO PRACTITIONERS OF THE MANY CHINESE FORMS. USUALLY THESE ARE MADE OF COMERCIAL STEEL AND FORMED USING STOCK REMOVAL THE GRIPS MAY BE SIMPLE OR BEAUTIFUL BUT SHOULD ALWAYS BE STURDY AND GOOD FOR USE IN PRACTICE. THE BALANCE SHOULD BE GOOD AND THEY MAY BE MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE WEAPON BUT SHOULD BE OF THE PROPER SHAPE AND SIZE AND CAN BE SHARP OR DULL EDGED. THE PRICES SHOULD BE LESS ON THESE AS THEY DO NOT MEET MY STANDARD OF A TRUE REPLICA WHICH SHOULD HAVE AS GOOD TRADITIONAL DETAIL AS AN ORIGINAL. THIS LACK OF PROPER DETAIL AND WORKMANSHIP IS ESPECIALLY EVIDENT ON THE CARVING ON THE KRIS. SOME OF THE ITEMS COME CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL FORMS THAN OTHERS AND THEY ALL MAY BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO GET THE FEEL OF THE TYPE OF WEAPON, THEY MAY ALSO MAKE GOOD BUSH KNIVES FOR WORK AS WELL AS TRAINING. I CONSIDER THE ITEMS I OWN LIKE THESE TO BE RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF OLDER FORMS AND SOME CROSSING OVER INTO FANTASY KNIVES. THE PRICES WERE REASONABLE BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO GET A REAL MORO KRIS FOR A REASONABLE PRICE IF YOU ARE NOT ONLY INTERESTED IN DATU GRADE. SO FOR COLLECTING A MORO KRIS OR KAMPILIAN AN ORIGINAL IS BEST BUT FOR TRAINING PERHAPS ONE OF THE MARTIAL ARTS VARIETY IS BEST.

13th July 2008, 12:51 AM	#6
Dom Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Paris (FR*) Cairo (EG) Posts: 1,142	what it's new today, will be old tomorrow ALL ours antics, have been new one day ..... also, could be nice to define the term of "antic" how many years old .. minimum the first one said more than 60 is a DEAD MAN à + Dom

13th July 2008, 02:03 AM	#7
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,365	Now just a second Here !! I'm 61 and still kicking . For me it has always been 100 years for an item to be judged 'Antique' .