Greetings Fellow Members,
A topic has arisen in another thread which I would like to expand upon and open for opinions and discussion. Specifically, I am referring to copies in collections.
First, I would like to point out that I am not referring to what we know as “wearing copies” such as what are often found among PlM’s and Iron Cross grand crosses; but outright copies. Like most collectors, I have both knowingly and unknowingly bought copies over the years. I would like to confine the discussion to those knowingly bought as copies.
For me, these fall into two categories. The first would be the pieces bought to fill holes in my collection. Twice, I have bought copies to fill holes in my collection for display purposes because the pieces which they duplicated are so rare that I figured that I would never get a real one. In the first case, I eventually did get a real one and sold the copy to another collector whom I have known for years . As I said in the other thread = “I pointed out to him that it was a copy, which was kind of dumb because it was such a bad copy (probably a theatrical piece) that we had a laugh over it; but he didn’t care because he had a hole in his collection and...”. With regard to the question that naturally arises at this point, I bought this piece from a well known auctioneer in a private sale who made it clear that it was a copy and sold it to a collector who I can not imagine reselling it someday as anything other than as a copy. In the second instance, having finally gotten the real thing am still keeping the copy for display purposes; it is a good one and the original, being one of six awarded, is just too rare to be easily accessible.
Of course, one of the main points concerning this subject is admission or acknowledgment of such pieces. As I see it, this subject comes up under two circumstances. First when showing your collection to other collectors, you would be a damned fool not to point out the copies. By not doing so, you are putting them in the embarrassing situation of to whether they should tell you that a piece is bad or not; and I have found that more often than not, other collectors welcome the opportunity to examine known copies. Furthermore, I welcome negative opinions of the pieces in my collection. This is how we learn and I won’t be offended.
The second instance is when you dispose of a copy. Innocent mistakes can be made; but if you know that a piece is a copy, why not identify it as such? To do so will only enhance your reputation while not doing so, especially in obvious cases can only harm it.
I thank you for your interest and invite your comments,
Wild Card
A topic has arisen in another thread which I would like to expand upon and open for opinions and discussion. Specifically, I am referring to copies in collections.
First, I would like to point out that I am not referring to what we know as “wearing copies” such as what are often found among PlM’s and Iron Cross grand crosses; but outright copies. Like most collectors, I have both knowingly and unknowingly bought copies over the years. I would like to confine the discussion to those knowingly bought as copies.
For me, these fall into two categories. The first would be the pieces bought to fill holes in my collection. Twice, I have bought copies to fill holes in my collection for display purposes because the pieces which they duplicated are so rare that I figured that I would never get a real one. In the first case, I eventually did get a real one and sold the copy to another collector whom I have known for years . As I said in the other thread = “I pointed out to him that it was a copy, which was kind of dumb because it was such a bad copy (probably a theatrical piece) that we had a laugh over it; but he didn’t care because he had a hole in his collection and...”. With regard to the question that naturally arises at this point, I bought this piece from a well known auctioneer in a private sale who made it clear that it was a copy and sold it to a collector who I can not imagine reselling it someday as anything other than as a copy. In the second instance, having finally gotten the real thing am still keeping the copy for display purposes; it is a good one and the original, being one of six awarded, is just too rare to be easily accessible.
Of course, one of the main points concerning this subject is admission or acknowledgment of such pieces. As I see it, this subject comes up under two circumstances. First when showing your collection to other collectors, you would be a damned fool not to point out the copies. By not doing so, you are putting them in the embarrassing situation of to whether they should tell you that a piece is bad or not; and I have found that more often than not, other collectors welcome the opportunity to examine known copies. Furthermore, I welcome negative opinions of the pieces in my collection. This is how we learn and I won’t be offended.
The second instance is when you dispose of a copy. Innocent mistakes can be made; but if you know that a piece is a copy, why not identify it as such? To do so will only enhance your reputation while not doing so, especially in obvious cases can only harm it.
I thank you for your interest and invite your comments,
Wild Card
Comment