Original Antique or Fake ?

[svenedin]

In simple terms Reproduction, Original, or Counterfeit are interchangeable.

These terms are not interchangeabl

OK, short story time.. Try replacing the word “original” with “fake” or reproduction in the following sentence and see how the emotion of the storyteller may change depending on the word used. Then see if the phrase that replaces ....... is the same in each case.

“I paid just over half a million dollars for my original Tompion longcase” said Mr Jones. And now I am going to ".........” the person who sold it to me.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is or indeed what Salsagev's point is. We do not appear to be speaking the same language or to be using the same definitions of words.

 

[zedric]

Hi Stephen. My point is the same as yours, the terms are in no way interchangeable...

 

[zedric]

There’s a similar thread going in the watches forum, where fakes are often discussed. They just made reference to the following video, which I confess I haven’t yet had the chance to watch, but sounds like an interesting topic. The video is on Youtube.

 

[svenedin]

Hi Stephen. My point is the same as yours, the terms are in no way interchangeable...

Zedric, Aha! I apologise for my misunderstanding!

 

[Calvin H. Huynh]

My opinion still stands - whether so and so disagrees.

 

[JTD]

OK, short story time.. Try replacing the word “original” with “fake” or reproduction in the following sentence and see how the emotion of the storyteller may change depending on the word used. Then see if the phrase that replaces ....... is the same in each case.

“I paid just over half a million dollars for my original Tompion longcase” said Mr Jones. And now I am going to ".........” the person who sold it to me.

Still doesn't work for me. However, I'm not going to argue any more and we have got far away from the OP's question anyway. Let's leave it.

JTD

 

[Bruce Alexander]

We can call something whatever we want to but that doesn't change what it is. Meaning often depends heavily upon context.

An excellent, skillful reproduction sold for what it is could, in turn, be sold by a criminal as an original, genuine, authentic object. In that context, the object could be called a fake, counterfeit or forgery but those words really define the intent of the owner, not the object itself.

I think that many people skillful at making reproductions will include signatures or obvious signs that their work is not intended to be, and can not be used as, a forgery.

It might be that the use of "Pain" instead of "Rain" on the dial of our O.P.s barometer was not clumsy but intentional. I'm told that Chinese(?) written characters are much more extensive and subtle than is the English alphabet.

Perhaps the use of the word "imitation" would be accurate and less emotive in all instances. Intent doesn't figure into the definition.

 

[JTD]

It might be that the use of "Pain" instead of "Rain" on the dial of our O.P.s barometer was not clumsy but intentional. I'm told that Chinese(?) written characters are much more extensive and subtle than is the English alphabet.

That wouldn't really account for FRIR instead of FAIR. I think it more likely that someone, who didn't know latin letters very well, copied what they thought they saw. We should probably not do much better if we had to copy Chinese characters.

JTD

 

[Bruce Alexander]

That wouldn't really account for FRIR instead of FAIR. I think it more likely that someone, who didn't know latin letters very well, copied what they thought they saw. We should probably not do much better if we had to copy Chinese characters.

JTD

Oops. Forgot about FAIN(?). Let's see, they may have confused the R for a P in Rain, and again confused an R for an N in Fair...You think someone has a real problem with the letter "R", huh? That's certainly possible but it wouldn't explain why they got R exactly right on Stormy, Very and Dry. Perhaps we're looking at the work of more than one person. I have examples of that in my collection.

If someone is really trying to make a counterfeit clock, though, that's a pretty glaring mistake. The Chinese alphabet has tens of thousands of characters. I see a lot of different estimates, one as high as 100,000.

Someone got an apparently nicely made clock with a "unique" dial.
Might be a fun conversation piece that obviously leads to a lot of speculation as it has here.

 

[JTD]

I don't think anyone was making deliberate mistakes, the are just copying words in a language they don't know in an alphabet they are not familiar with.

JTD

 

[Bruce Alexander]

Well, that's certainly possible. It looks to me like the dial wasn't completed by just one person but I could be wrong.. There's no sense in beating a dead horse. The clock is an imitation and you don't have to be an expert appraiser to spot it. Call it a "Chinese Fake" if you want to. 300 Euros (~$365) isn't a lot of money, but I would not have been interested in the clock at any price. I'm out.

 

[Calvin H. Huynh]

300 Euros (~$365) isn't a lot of money, but I would not have been interested in the clock at any price. I'm out.

I agree with the paying decent money for these just because there was still effort put into it and some mechanical thing like that today would cost an upward of hundreds of dollars.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

I agree with the paying decent money for these just because there was still effort put into it and some mechanical thing like that today would cost an upward of hundreds of dollars.

Deleted.

Thought better of it.

RM

 

[Calvin H. Huynh]

Deleted.

Thought better of it.

RM

Deleted?


Edit: Oh, I see.

 

[bruce linde]

My opinion still stands - whether so and so disagrees.

i don't know why you would say such a thing and then double-down on it, when it's instantly/provably incorrect? maybe based on your extensive experience and horological research over the last several decades?

an original is "the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made." an original seth thomas regulator 2 is a clock that was made up to 150 or so years ago... desirable to collectors as a piece of art and in no small part because of it's originality.

a ST #2 reproduction is a copy made to look like the original... a counterfeit, if you will. if it's correctly identified from the start as a reproduction, it's nothing more than that. when someone tries to pass off a reproduction as an original it becomes a fake.

a counterfeit or fake is an exact imitation of something valuable or important made with the intention to deceive or defraud.

Reproduction, Original, or Counterfeit are different words and mean different things... even reproduction and counterfeit are not interchangeable. not all clockmakers patented every piece of their clocks. infringement has nothing to do with it.

you are welcome to your opinions, but might want to re-consider them if/when not a single person agrees with you... truly hope that's not your final answer...

 

[J. A. Olson]

Let originals be fakes and reproductions be rocket engineering, this thread's been so badly beaten to death it's turned into a zombie.
Scooby Doo called and wants his zombie back.