Collectors’ Dilemma: Selling the Stories We Once Bought

[Turkoman.khan]

Dear friends,

We are all aware of the power of storytelling in promoting artworks—how it sparks the passion and imagination of collectors and serves as such a powerful tool. Yet, in my personal view, it can often be misleading and sometimes disappointing when you switch sides: from being a buyer inspired by such stories to becoming a seller—when the time inevitably comes to say goodbye to our beloved weapons.

When that moment arrives, you often find yourself repeating what you once heard or believed, and it can sound weak and far less convincing than the polished presentations some of our dealer friends can deliver. Most of the arguments end up relying on showing something “related” in a stack of published albums, hoping it will be persuasive enough—at least to recover the money spent.

Of course, I am speaking about certain pieces acquired on the art market, not those obtained through fortunate encounters or travels. It was fascinating for me to learn that this phenomenon is not unique to our generation but was also common in the 19th century, for example. I recently heard that a couple of swords from the Wallace Collection were studied using extensive modern research: data exchange with international institutions and access to worldwide digital archives—including the so-called Tipu sword and the so-called sword of Ranjit Singh. Yet even with such impressive resources, the exact methods behind their conclusions remain a mystery to me.

I love an article that clearly and precisely explains the research process and arguments, and I think it is brilliant. I believe this kind of rigorous approach should become standard in studying our collections. Of course, it will inevitably devalue some inappropriate stories, but it will also elevate other objects, revealing their true value and historical importance.

Good news, gentlemen!

https://objet.art/as/articles/68cab0d7c10119a7a51483ee

[Tim Simmons]

Personely bull shit either means too expensive or it is rubbish. I will only buy on a plain discription and sell the same way.

[Jim McDougall]

Turkoman, very well said, and I totally agree. As you note, material which presents all the details and criteria and systematically explains the process of researching and moving toward a plausible solution.

It is often frustrating when an item is presented for identification or a question asked regarding some element, and the reply is a simple sentence with no supportive detail. While of course the answer is laconically given, little is learned.

For me, it is about learning from the weapons over simple descriptions in order to buy and sell, but Tim is right, superfluous embellishment should raise red flags in those circumstances. It is incumbent on the buyer to do his homework and be aware of just what he is buying, while the seller has a responsibility to represent the weapon being sold prudently.

Going to the presentation of weapons of great historical importance in exhibitions, museums and collection catalogs, it is much the same, perhaps even more so, as these are the references we all rely on in our studies of historic arms.

This linked article in OBJET.art is brilliant and offers important details in the study of the weapons of the Mughal ruler Tipu Sultan, whose defeat at Seringpatam in India by the British was a pivotal event in the history of the evolution of the British Raj. Naturally the weapons of this flamboyant Mughal ruler became highly desirable as souvenirs, then high status collectibles.

The detail of the character of the tiger, the leitmotif of Tipu Sultan, seen on one of the examples shown is seen as clearly from a later period, and that the weapon inadvertently acquired and displayed in a prominent museum after exhibitions reveals the 'story' being bought. The presentation of why this is likely the case is pure forensics, which in my opinion is the true wonder in arms study.

I have always heard the axiom, 'buy the weapon, NOT the story'.

In our many years of discussions here, we have often had such rigorous interaction, and the knowledge base of the many who have contributed here in those discussions has been phenomenal. I know that I am ever grateful to all of them for what I have learned from these interactions, as I am sure others who have participated here have felt.

To see other venues using this approach is wonderful, and enhances the advance of the serious study of arms history, aesthetics and related topics is fantastic.

[Turkoman.khan]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Turkoman, very well said, and I totally agree. As you note, material which presents all the details and criteria and systematically explains the process of researching and moving toward a plausible solution.

It is often frustrating when an item is presented for identification or a question asked regarding some element, and the reply is a simple sentence with no supportive detail. While of course the answer is laconically given, little is learned.

For me, it is about learning from the weapons over simple descriptions in order to buy and sell, but Tim is right, superfluous embellishment should raise red flags in those circumstances. It is incumbent on the buyer to do his homework and be aware of just what he is buying, while the seller has a responsibility to represent the weapon being sold prudently.

Going to the presentation of weapons of great historical importance in exhibitions, museums and collection catalogs, it is much the same, perhaps even more so, as these are the references we all rely on in our studies of historic arms.

This linked article in OBJET.art is brilliant and offers important details in the study of the weapons of the Mughal ruler Tipu Sultan, whose defeat at Seringpatam in India by the British was a pivotal event in the history of the evolution of the British Raj. Naturally the weapons of this flamboyant Mughal ruler became highly desirable as souvenirs, then high status collectibles.

The detail of the character of the tiger, the leitmotif of Tipu Sultan, seen on one of the examples shown is seen as clearly from a later period, and that the weapon inadvertently acquired and displayed in a prominent museum after exhibitions reveals the 'story' being bought. The presentation of why this is likely the case is pure forensics, which in my opinion is the true wonder in arms study.

I have always heard the axiom, 'buy the weapon, NOT the story'.

In our many years of discussions here, we have often had such rigorous interaction, and the knowledge base of the many who have contributed here in those discussions has been phenomenal. I know that I am ever grateful to all of them for what I have learned from these interactions, as I am sure others who have participated here have felt.

To see other venues using this approach is wonderful, and enhances the advance of the serious study of arms history, aesthetics and related topics is fantastic.

Thank you, Jim, for such a thorough and thoughtful reflection. I completely agree with you. Weapons, as part of our cultural heritage, deserve careful research, and the aggregation of data can provide valuable insights, especially when done in collaboration with the owners. This not only benefits future owners, giving them a foundation to study more deeply, but also inspires further research and understanding. Of course, every individual’s focus and interests are shaped by their own taste and resources.

It is, however, always sad to see the same story repeating itself: under many circumstances, knowledge—whether invented, researched, or documented by a previous owner—disappears along with their name. We are often faced with the unfortunate reality that active dealers or auction platforms, driven by expedience rather than scholarship, attach arbitrary value—true or fabricated—so the new owner starts again in the dark. I have even witnessed pieces from great collections sold with only “plain descriptions,” resulting in a significant loss of information from papers and archives of the late collector.

[Jim McDougall]

This is a truly interesting topic, as clearly evidenced by the over 2100 views in just 4 days on this thread. While what you note is important, that weapons are acquired and researched, often the key material is lost as the weapon changes hands and becomes disassociated. I think it is important for collectors to number, photograph and catalog their items to perpetuate the data and research completed for further progress as required or to substantiate its history.

Regarding the outstanding paper written on the sword purported to have belonged to Tipu, if I might offer an analogy with similar case.

It concerns the sword of Myles Standish (1584-1656), one of the key figures in establishing the colonies in America.

In later years, colonial historians sought to embellish the lore and stories about their history, and presented several items attributed to Standish. The one we are concerned with is a sword of hanger form said to have belonged to him, and with a long, colorful history.

In the New York Times (June 15,1881) an article about Standish, they claimed his sword, now being displayed at a museum, was used in his combat experience fighting Ottomans in Austria, later taken to campaign in Flanders.
It was proclaimed that a Professor James Rosenthal had described mysterious Arabic writing and devices on the blade to be in ancient Kufic, an Arabic script and that the blade dated to hundreds of years before Christ.
It was continued in another version that the sword was given to him by a grateful old armorer in Flanders whom he had saved (Standish was a mercenary fighting for British allied with Dutch in Anglo-Spanish war of 1685-1604).
It is believed that he remained there, where he later made contact with the Puritans.

The problem with this sword, which complies with the Tipu sword example,
is this is clearly a hanger of 18th century, likely with German blade. In the 18th century, these kinds of hangers used as 'hirshfangers' (hunting swords) often carried cosmological devices and symbols intended talismanically or to bring good fortune.

The Arabic devices on the blade are known as 'bedough' and resemble magic squares found in European instance having amuletic values. It is highly unusual to see these Arabic examples, however certainly possible.

The STORY of this sword of Myles Standish was perpetuated once again in the "Virginia Chronicle" Recorder #2, 14 Jan. 1921:
claiming the blade was Damascus, made in Persia, and it had been acquired (presumably from the old armorer in Flanders) who got it from an ancestor in the Crusades.

Obviously all this hyperbole is entirely apocryphal, and intended to heighten the profound character of Standish's sword, as if carrying it to the stature of "Excalibur" with King Arthur (that is another story!).

Research reveals the powerful poetry of America's poet laureate, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who in "The Courtship of Myles Standish" in 1858, included ..." his trusty sword of Damascus, curved at the point and inscribed with its mystical Arabic sentence".

So here was likely the source for this obviously inflated character of the Myles Standish sword. Did Longfellow draw his description from already circulating stories? or interpolate terms to embellish his words?

We know Longfellow often did this, as in the case of his poem "the Wreck of the Hesperus", decribing a catastrophic hurricane in New England in 1839 . In this he described a schooner dashed on the reef of Normans Woe near Cape Cod and the tragic details of the captains daughter lashed to a mast, who was lost just the same.
However while the event did occur, it was an older woman, and the ships name apparently did not ring bells....so Longfellow borrowed the name of another schooner which was damaged in Boston....the HESPERUS, which had a more impacting name with classical character to heighten the impact of the disaster.

With the Standish sword, it is seen in a photo from c. 1870, and these other illustrations (uncited). As far as I know, the swords whereabouts are unknown today.
What puzzles me is, how could people who must have been familiar with hangers like this from the previous century and even similar in their times, have been gullible enough to accept this sword as ancient etc.

This is why arms research is so important, and not only to learn history from the arms themselves, but to secure and preserve it for future generations.