Topic: Repro or Fake (split from Re: Light weight trailed vase.)

[obscurities]

I see no logical reason to argue that a reproduction of an old piece should not be marked by the current day manufacturer.....  It is a reproduction, and as such will not be value diminished by clearly marking it underfoot. 

Not doing so dilutes the market for the original pieces, and does a disservice to the less knowledgeable collector, allowing unscrupulous dealers to take advantage of their lack of expertise. Understanding that the issue at that point is the unscrupulous dealer, I believe the manufacturers are contributing to the issue by producing an unmarked reproduction that can be misrepresented.

If I as a manufacturer have a reasonable suspicion or knowledge that my product may be used to deceive, and I do nothing to prevent it, then I share a portion of the blame due to my inaction. If I am proud of my reproductions, I should not have a problem "branding" them with my mark.

In the law, if it were a crime we were talking about, the term would be contributory negligence.... Simply taking the position that they can not control what sellers do later, is not a viable position. Especially in light of the fact that a simple mark underfoot could help to reduce the problem substantially.

Ebay tried that position (we can't control what sellers do) with Vitton, Tiffany and others, and it cost them tens of millions of dollars....  they were found to be contributing to the problem through inaction.  I do not really see much of a difference......

Craig

[chriscooper]

Wolfie, similar here I picked up recently, really thought it was something special till I asked on here. It fooled me but then I've always been easily led

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/107067405711297858658/CZECHTRAILEDARTGLASSVASEKRALOVICE#

p.s sold it for peanuts :cry:

Chris

[Lustrousstone]

I see no logical reason to argue that a reproduction of an old piece should not be marked by the current day manufacturer.....  It is a reproduction, and as such will not be value diminished by clearly marking it underfoot. l

Neither do I. I don't think anyone was arguing that they shouldn't. It was producing repros in the first place that was being disputed. It would be nice if all glass was marked, but many companies obviously feel that at the original point of sale a label is enough. They don't see to the secondary market, and why should they in truth.

[obscurities]

I have no issue with the manufacture of quality reproductions whatsoever. I also do not consider them to be "fakes". In many instances it is the only way the average collector could ever have an example of some pieces in their collection.

Although I know most manufacturers feel a label is enough, IMHO as the producer of a quality reproduction, I believe they owe additional due diligence to look to the secondary market, and the impact their product may have on it.... If they are reproducing items with no significant value, then I see no need for them to be concerned. If on the other hand, they are reproducing accurate facsimiles of highly regarded and valued collectibles, I think it is a responsibility that goes hand in hand with the items they have chose to reproduce. I think that for them to ignore the secondary market is, in a way, irresponsible.  Especially in the world market today...

Maybe I am an unrealistic idealist, but I think it is an additional burden and responsibility they should assume when choosing to manufacture that type of product.

Craig

[Jindra8526]

The marking is the question, acid mark or engraved mark should destroy the desired visual impact of replica. So I suppose that pieces are labeled only.
It is easy to wash it out.

I do not believe that exist in this world a man who would trust that so perfect new piece came from middle age and he is so lucky to het it so cheap.
This type of glass is really very popular here and I never seen that it was offered like a original - always it is declared it is replica.

Jindrich
www.webareal.cz/ceskoslovenskesklo