27982Re: Historical Authenticity?
- Apr 3, 2006This thread is an authentic reproduction of very similar threads seen
in woodworking (or antiques, or ... pick whatever involves 'stuff'
that is older than you are).
An 'original' piece from the period can certainly be faked. Sort of
what we are all doing? BTW, is the USS Constitution original -- let's
sucker those Naval types into this discussion. I've heard it said
there's not an 'original' timber left in her!? So is she still a
reproduction after a couple centuries ?
There are reproductions of furniture, which look similar to
originals, but are fabricated with modern methods and using plywood
in some less visible places. So does this mean my coatee can never
be 'authentic', if the hidden seams were sewn on a machine? This
naturally begs the question, would they have used a sewing machine if
they had one? Same argument about using plywood -- would the Shakers
have used it if they'd had it? Of course, but does not mean my piece
is not a authentic reproduction. Like most things in life -- depends
on whose paying, and what they're asking for.
And obviously we have a problem locating 200-year old timber (except
maybe in the USS Constitution? :-) So if we do locate 200 year-old
timber but use modern machines, modern manufactured finish and
authentic 'reproduction' hardware, then is our furniture piece
authentic, or a reproduction, or a 'authentic reproduction'.
Another in this thread had offered dictionary definitions -- but
these aren't always that useful in the real world. Actually, in point
of fact, museums often decide these matters -- or whomever is paying
the bill. So it's a sliding scale -- do we use 200 year old wood (not
likely!); are we using hardware made in the period (or certain to
have been made of same material in same manner); are we using the
same tools used 200 years ago; are the tools over 200 years old (come
on!); are we using the exact same methods ... are we working in a 200
year old shop without modern lights and air conditioning ? ... Maybe
only in colonial Williamsburg (or fill in your blank ____
favorite 'original' but "restored" place). But my "ad nauseum, ad
absurdum" (help me, Latin scholars) digression into similar arguments
elsewhere shows that "authentic" and reproduction is not so easily
defined by looking it up in Webster or Wikipedia or whatever.
Quick! Someone shoot this battered horse, and put it out of its
misery! D*a!m&%n!!!, stepped on that original bayonet again. Do I not
also bleed ?
--- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "mccombs98" <macomb@...> wrote:
> Sorry, but they ARE "period", but reproduction and not authentic.
> PS I like your analogy though:)
> "Phil Graf" <phil_graf@> wrote:
> > If you stub your toe on an original bayonet sticking out of a
battleground, should your name be added to the casualty lists of that
> > Phil
> > So to my question I know they are not PERIOD but
> > are they authentic or reproduction?
> > Cheers
> > Tim
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>