Tweet
Folks,
Just my two cents worth on a topic I have personal interest in as a researcher in the area of Civil War Material culture. This is the text of an older piece I put together a couple of years ago but never did anything with at the time.
"Authenticity" – Can it go too far?
I have considered posting on this subject some time but never gathered my thoughts until now. At the risk of being declared a heretic or being dropped by the moderators from the forum, I still believe that this subject is worthy of discussion. Is there a risk in pursuing absolute authenticity in replicating items of Civil War material culture particularly uniforms, equipment, and weapons? A great deal of the focus of discussion on this forum is on producing better, more accurate replicas of these items. A noble pursuit, and one that furthers not only the quality of individual impressions but research and knowledge in the subject as well. The overall availability of highly accurate raw materials (yard goods, finishes, etc) and of well crafted replicas through serious vendors is really amazing at least compared to 40 or 50 years ago. This, however, begs the issue of whether the quality is so good that items produced today could easily become the “fakes” of tomorrow?
Let me say, up front, I do not mean to imply in any way that the fine craftsmen and craftswomen producing these items would engage in or support illegal or unethical activities. Nor would their customers or other serious hobbyists do so. In fact, my real concern is not specifically with unscrupulous individuals today at all, but rather in what can happen 30, 40, or 50 years in the future. Having been around in this hobby for that long I have seen what the passage of time can do naturally to items to age them particularly to an item that has already been used in “field-like” conditions. Further complicating the problem, over the years it is easy to lose track of the provenience of an item since it can pass through multiple hands. What ends up in a box in someone’s basement 50 years from now may not have a clear or traceable history.
Can’t happen you say. While it can be argued that experts will not be fooled easily, how many times today are new “discoveries” vetted before changing hands. Sales on eBay, for example, indicate the relative lack of control in this regard. Also, some of the most knowledgeable current subject matter authorities are themselves producers of such items and strive to make their products authentic to a high degree of detail. In the future, this serious attention to detail can easily lead to mistaking an honestly produced replica for an original. In more mature and “mainstream” areas of the art and antiques marketplace it happens all the time. Notable examples of “faked” antiquities have slipped past experts, connoisseurs and even museum staffs for years. This is, in fact, my biggest concern. That is, future “discoveries”, if good enough, may serve to contaminate the legitimate pool of genuine original items thereby impacting future research. Remember I am not talking in a year or two; I am talking in a couple of decades or five.
As a personal case of this type of an occurrence, recently in a discussion with old friend Les Jensen, now at the West Point Museum, he related a story of someone approaching him at an Antiques show and telling him of a recently discovered rare Federal haversack inner-liner bag that he had come upon, asking if Les would be interested in seeing it. When the bag was produced, Les observed the “contractor” stamp on the piece and was amused to inform the individual that he was quite aware of the specific “contractor” and talked with him occasionally. The stamp on the then confused person’s inner-liner read “R.M. Milstead Washington City.” This bag was one I had made in the 1960’s when reproducing an original haversack that I owned at the time.
I believe that there are things that can be done to medicate this problem. For example, the insistence by the consumers (that’s us) and distributors that craftspeople sign and date their work is an approach. Done in an appropriately subtle way there should be no worry relative to the impact upon the authenticity of the replica. Charlie Childs has done this in his work for years and it is widely recognized for the level of authenticity he achieved. Also, slight but obvious modifications to reproduced makers marks or inventing non-existent makers achieves the same result and is a very clever trick. However, the result is achieved, I would submit that serious, historically focused enthusiasts should be concerned that the quest for authenticity can go too far."
As I said my $0.02 and perhaps some food for thought.
Dick Milstead
The Company of Military Historians
Hardaway's Alabama Battery
Just my two cents worth on a topic I have personal interest in as a researcher in the area of Civil War Material culture. This is the text of an older piece I put together a couple of years ago but never did anything with at the time.
"Authenticity" – Can it go too far?
I have considered posting on this subject some time but never gathered my thoughts until now. At the risk of being declared a heretic or being dropped by the moderators from the forum, I still believe that this subject is worthy of discussion. Is there a risk in pursuing absolute authenticity in replicating items of Civil War material culture particularly uniforms, equipment, and weapons? A great deal of the focus of discussion on this forum is on producing better, more accurate replicas of these items. A noble pursuit, and one that furthers not only the quality of individual impressions but research and knowledge in the subject as well. The overall availability of highly accurate raw materials (yard goods, finishes, etc) and of well crafted replicas through serious vendors is really amazing at least compared to 40 or 50 years ago. This, however, begs the issue of whether the quality is so good that items produced today could easily become the “fakes” of tomorrow?
Let me say, up front, I do not mean to imply in any way that the fine craftsmen and craftswomen producing these items would engage in or support illegal or unethical activities. Nor would their customers or other serious hobbyists do so. In fact, my real concern is not specifically with unscrupulous individuals today at all, but rather in what can happen 30, 40, or 50 years in the future. Having been around in this hobby for that long I have seen what the passage of time can do naturally to items to age them particularly to an item that has already been used in “field-like” conditions. Further complicating the problem, over the years it is easy to lose track of the provenience of an item since it can pass through multiple hands. What ends up in a box in someone’s basement 50 years from now may not have a clear or traceable history.
Can’t happen you say. While it can be argued that experts will not be fooled easily, how many times today are new “discoveries” vetted before changing hands. Sales on eBay, for example, indicate the relative lack of control in this regard. Also, some of the most knowledgeable current subject matter authorities are themselves producers of such items and strive to make their products authentic to a high degree of detail. In the future, this serious attention to detail can easily lead to mistaking an honestly produced replica for an original. In more mature and “mainstream” areas of the art and antiques marketplace it happens all the time. Notable examples of “faked” antiquities have slipped past experts, connoisseurs and even museum staffs for years. This is, in fact, my biggest concern. That is, future “discoveries”, if good enough, may serve to contaminate the legitimate pool of genuine original items thereby impacting future research. Remember I am not talking in a year or two; I am talking in a couple of decades or five.
As a personal case of this type of an occurrence, recently in a discussion with old friend Les Jensen, now at the West Point Museum, he related a story of someone approaching him at an Antiques show and telling him of a recently discovered rare Federal haversack inner-liner bag that he had come upon, asking if Les would be interested in seeing it. When the bag was produced, Les observed the “contractor” stamp on the piece and was amused to inform the individual that he was quite aware of the specific “contractor” and talked with him occasionally. The stamp on the then confused person’s inner-liner read “R.M. Milstead Washington City.” This bag was one I had made in the 1960’s when reproducing an original haversack that I owned at the time.
I believe that there are things that can be done to medicate this problem. For example, the insistence by the consumers (that’s us) and distributors that craftspeople sign and date their work is an approach. Done in an appropriately subtle way there should be no worry relative to the impact upon the authenticity of the replica. Charlie Childs has done this in his work for years and it is widely recognized for the level of authenticity he achieved. Also, slight but obvious modifications to reproduced makers marks or inventing non-existent makers achieves the same result and is a very clever trick. However, the result is achieved, I would submit that serious, historically focused enthusiasts should be concerned that the quest for authenticity can go too far."
As I said my $0.02 and perhaps some food for thought.
Dick Milstead
The Company of Military Historians
Hardaway's Alabama Battery
Comment