25 + 25 points
Expose a Fraud by alice gray
October 5th, 2006 1:09 PM
I found this task difficult to write about because I realize that there's a certain kind of person who talks about their antiques/other-expensive-possessions in public, and they annoy me. There's a class thing going on with that that sucks. Then again, that's part of why this is a fraud...
I don't know which of you, if any, has had to go through the ponderous estate of a dead relation and fight about wills and heirlooms, but I've done it now twice. I have a nice chiming clock which hasn't worked for years. It came to me from my grandmother's estate. I call it my "grandmother clock," it's pretty and reminds me of how much I loved her house. (My grandmother herself frightened and upset me (and a lot of other people.) I am named after her. Which bothers me less now than then.) Owning and caring for this charming and useless piece of furniture is kind of grotesque, and is borne partly of guilt. Ownership is guilt, isn't it? There was a time when I could fit everything I owned without exception in my car. There was a time I had no car.
Anyway. My brother, who also had an old clock from her, found the local craftsman who could fix his, and referred me. Upon opening the case and looking at the works, he said, "well, this is one of the most charming reproductions I've seen in a long time." Which startled me, because it's my antique! Isn't it? Is it? No.
Clockmaker guy pointed out that the patina is not consistent inside to outside. I happen to have enough experience with brass patina to know a) how easy it is to "distress," and b) how difficult it would have been to polish just the back and insides of the clockworks.
The clock face had to have been designed to fit the evidently respectable, '50s or '60s era works, see how the keyholes in the face line up with this manufactured clockwork.
More convincing yet, though the case is a lovely wood with some well-executed inlay work, there's a piece of lauan composite that's actually holding the works to the case:
All of which is not exactly fraud. There's a line here somewhere between a reproduction and a fake. It moves around sometimes, but it's in the language and the law. I don't know whether my Grandmother Alice bought it as an antique or a reproduction. I do believe it was from an antique shop.
Legally, when I inherited it, it was appraised as an antique (late 18th century or early 19th, if I recall correctly,) and was probably taxed as such. I doubt it made a big difference. I don't have those records here. But the real fraud happened when it was claimed by her for years as an antique and a tacit display of her family's idea of establishment and power. As a vintage clock, I still think it's pretty. But somehow I feel less with the guilt, knowing more about its craftsmanship.
I don't know which of you, if any, has had to go through the ponderous estate of a dead relation and fight about wills and heirlooms, but I've done it now twice. I have a nice chiming clock which hasn't worked for years. It came to me from my grandmother's estate. I call it my "grandmother clock," it's pretty and reminds me of how much I loved her house. (My grandmother herself frightened and upset me (and a lot of other people.) I am named after her. Which bothers me less now than then.) Owning and caring for this charming and useless piece of furniture is kind of grotesque, and is borne partly of guilt. Ownership is guilt, isn't it? There was a time when I could fit everything I owned without exception in my car. There was a time I had no car.
Anyway. My brother, who also had an old clock from her, found the local craftsman who could fix his, and referred me. Upon opening the case and looking at the works, he said, "well, this is one of the most charming reproductions I've seen in a long time." Which startled me, because it's my antique! Isn't it? Is it? No.
Clockmaker guy pointed out that the patina is not consistent inside to outside. I happen to have enough experience with brass patina to know a) how easy it is to "distress," and b) how difficult it would have been to polish just the back and insides of the clockworks.
The clock face had to have been designed to fit the evidently respectable, '50s or '60s era works, see how the keyholes in the face line up with this manufactured clockwork.
More convincing yet, though the case is a lovely wood with some well-executed inlay work, there's a piece of lauan composite that's actually holding the works to the case:
All of which is not exactly fraud. There's a line here somewhere between a reproduction and a fake. It moves around sometimes, but it's in the language and the law. I don't know whether my Grandmother Alice bought it as an antique or a reproduction. I do believe it was from an antique shop.
Legally, when I inherited it, it was appraised as an antique (late 18th century or early 19th, if I recall correctly,) and was probably taxed as such. I doubt it made a big difference. I don't have those records here. But the real fraud happened when it was claimed by her for years as an antique and a tacit display of her family's idea of establishment and power. As a vintage clock, I still think it's pretty. But somehow I feel less with the guilt, knowing more about its craftsmanship.
good writeup.