A Crudely FAKED Wall Gun, in the Style of ca. 1500!

[Matchlock]

Well said, Marcus,

But I am entitled to utter my opinion freely, which I of course do. Other experts, e.g. dealers or people from auction houses, do just the same: they state their thoughts, whatever their intention or expertise may be (!).
It's all part of a democracy.

Best,
Michl

[Marcus den toom]

Exactly Michl

Hopefully people will understand (and accept) that auctionhouses are not providing their services to benefit the humble collector, but only their own interest

[Matchlock]

No doubt about that!
m

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

... Hopefully people will understand (and accept) that auctionhouses are not providing their services to benefit the humble collector, but only their own interest

Amen,
They have in their rules that, if the seller gives a false description of a piece and they find out, they will widraw the piece from the auction, ask for a compensation for image losses and all that.
The other day i emailed an auctioner, denouncing a false statement in an item's description and they replied thanking me for the information. Nothing else happened; the piece remained in auction with the original description and the for same value.
... And they knew, after my email, even if not from the beginning, that they selling cat for hare.

[Matchlock]

I have experienced much the same reaction from international sales houses for decades.
So I just gave up commenting on their pieces or those offered by any dealer; I just accept or deny, without providing an explanation. Even when they ask for my opinion, all they will get is a grin. I'm just fed up.

With friends, the forum community, or private collectors seeking advice, I will of course share my knowledge.

m

[Matus]

Hello Michael, all,

what has been stated here it sadly very true. There are both objective and subjective causes for such behavior. Speaking about auction houses, they want to make profit (which company doesn't?) and that says it all. However business ethics is something, what is long dead not only in this industry.
Subjectively, there are 2 dimensions - I want to have a nice piece, I am able to spend that money, so the easiest way is to "rely" on an auction house.
But as Michael said, people do it without knowledge (even without trying to gain the knowledge), because to study means to spend effort and time (a lot of). And then there are people, who buy items, find out later it's fake, so they want to get rid of it without loosing money on that piece... so the wheel keeps turning...

The earlier the pieces we are looking at, the more insight one must have. Not many people are willing to take this learning path...

Regards,
Matus

[Matchlock]

Absolutely, Matus,

Thank you for your great post, I'm all on your side!

Best,
Michael

[Raf]

Sorry to muddy the water on this one. Yes , the pan certainly looks Indian and the distressing / stamp on the hook is obviously spurious and recently added. But are we absolutely certain that their isn't a precedent for early Indian matchlocks (with or without hooks ) following directly of European patterns of the late 15 / 16 century ? The use of matchlocks in India is well recorded from C 1480 and by 1550 standards had been introduced regarding the manufacture and proof firing of matchlocks.

The reason for re raising this issue is that I posted the barrel from a faked up European style matchlock with a barrel which probably was Indian but with what I thought was an unusual termination to the breech . That is a large lug on the rear of the breech secured presumably to a stock by a transverse pin , not unlike it appears , the example above. Although I cant think of a precedent for it you could argue it might be a rational transition between the earlier spike or socket and the lug under the breech found on early European matchlocks , which survives in a smaller form on later Indian matchlocks.

My point being that once something is outside of the supposedly established European chronology we simply haven't a clue .