The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

[Army30th]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

This is going to be stupid, and I am sure I will regret it after posting, but I would assume that the highest hallmark of an authentic reproduction would be that you as the consumer and other professionals would not be able to pick out the repop from a pile of originals in exactly the same condition as the reproduced item.

The difference between a replica and a reproduction, need we say it: one approximates the appearance of an item while the other manufactures the item exactly as it was then, using the correct tools, materials, patterns, paints, dyes, metalworking skills, etc.

Why doesn't anyone offer sack coats without buttonhole stitching? Because no one would buy it. Why do sutlers insist on offering "mystery" this or that, or "one of a kind" items to the reenacting world, if only one item like it was ever documented? Because people like to have something special. (maybe) OR maybe they are placing false authentic standards on items that "if one person coulda had it, then everyone could have!"

Kmart and LL Bean were mentioned earlier in reference to seams and stitching not being perfect and our acceptance of those items carried by them. (Would you buy something to wear from them that was not made correctly?) OUR modern standards of control in manufacturing far surpass the control methods in the 19th Century. In time of war, necessity of speed was far more crucial than accuracy. I am far more forgiving in repop clothes than modern ones. However, I will not purchase repop's that look like my four year old sewed them together. Also I will not purchase modern clothing if seams do not align or are pressed incorrectly. Mistakes do happen.

But, if a sutler says "well, it's constructed to reflect haste in assembly", well that tells me something I may or may not want to know.

[cap tassel]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Why doesn't anyone offer sack coats without buttonhole stitching? Because no one would buy it. Why do sutlers insist on offering "mystery" this or that, or "one of a kind" items to the reenacting world, if only one item like it was ever documented? Because people like to have something special. (maybe) OR maybe they are placing false authentic standards on items that "if one person coulda had it, then everyone could have!"

What qualifies as one of a kind? If there was in fact variations from this family's shirts to that family's shirts couldn't such a shirt be said to be one of a kind? Is it more authentic for the community to only wear exact copies of museum pieces? So if there are only a few such items that still exist and sutlers reproduce them exactly would that replicate what you'd find if you traveled back in time, thousands of people wearing the exact same thing? This is where empiricism fails the whole effort. Empiricism is good but too much of it is bad. It halts progression.

I don't think it's a bad thing to make one of a kind items depending on what type of thing it is. We should always suspect sample error until studies into the culture help explain the item being reproduced. People do like to have something special but in a relative sense one of a kind items did exist back then. It's a question of cause, frequency and for us probability which forces a better knowledge of the environment that produced that item. For me at least, it's the culture that gives a nod of acceptability and not simply the museum.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

Hallo!

IMHO, being able to reproduce an item of gear or article of clothing from an original so that the copy could have been set down next to the original when the original was new- is the "B" Grade.

Having the knowledge, skills, and ability to produce an item or article that could be set down among originals and not be taken as anything different, WITHOUT copying an original is having mastered the Material Culture of any Period- and is the "A" Grade.

However, when copying an artifact, it is the copying of that artifact. IMHO, the problem comes in, and the value or standard raised or lowered, when we accept a fraction or percentage of the total and accept that.

The curse is that NOT every Period item or article has survived, and we make assumptions and offer opinions on a small sampling of the overall population. Which, also can quickly become another curse for allowing and excuisng anything and everything since "Everything has not survived, and the one Widget that looks like mine did not survive. " :(

And, of course, items and articles are different than the narrow realm of say muskets...

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Heretic Mess

[cap tassel]

Re: The hallmarks of authentic reproductions

I'd say to only make assumptions after studying the culture that produced the item. It will lead towards a better assumption and consequently better reproductions whether we know it or not due to lack of empirical evidence. Like anything, the lack of empirical evidence shouldn't halt attempts towards reproductions. But those reproductions must be carefully made only after profound investigation.

And then those reproductions should only be brought into the open by someone able to be embarrassed and afterwards have a good attitude and grow from it. :tounge_sm It's unhealthy for progression to fear failure. Failure in earnest shouldn't be seen as the enemy to progression. It's the 'in earnest' part that is the real problem. Dealing with money or egos tends to give rise to conflict in this area.