Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

27982Re: Historical Authenticity?

Expand Messages
  • md5_yager
    Apr 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This 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.
      > Murray
      > 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
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic