David
I very much doubt whether one could now make an exact copy of
a lute that could be confused with the original.
Even a modern lute maker cannot make two exactly identical lutes.
They may be able to make two fairly similar ones, and they will be
original lutes, by that lute maker. The problem is what you are
meaning by exact copy, or for that matter, original.
As I said earlier, it would have been possible in the past to make a
forgery, by attributing an old Bologna lute to a particular maker, by
forging the name, and this surely was frequently done. Thus one might
wrongly believe this lute is an original by a particular maker, but
surely not identical to another lute by that maker.
My father once, to his great shame (as he considered himself somewhat
of a specialist), bought a fake piece of Hester Bateman Silver
(1709-1794), which had been treated in this way. It was a Georgian
piece, but it had been given the Hester Bateman mark.
The usual practice is to take a piece of silver of the time, and
transfer the Hester Bateman mark from a lesser item, such as a spoon,
or of course to forge the mark. This was often done almost at the time.
My father was taken in, but the fake was eventually recognized by
someone else.
There were newspaper articles and my father had difficulty living it
down, among the other so-called specialists.
It is true that there must still be many of these fakes, not
recognized, but at that time they were not usualy copies, and
certainly not IDENTICAL copies (although there are apparently, some
rather poor copies flooding the market, at the moment).
It would certainly be easier to make a fake silver dish copy, than
something as complex as a lute; but even then it would be hard to
successfully fake the crispness, the patina, and the exact silver
composition that HB would have used.
How much more difficult then for something as complex as a lute?
Pieces may be taken for original, and they may even be copies, but
this does not make them identical copies.
Of course, if we know that a painter only made one painting of a
particular subject, and there are two such paintings in existence,
and considered as original, then one must be a fake, and perhaps it
is impossible to distinguish which one.
Again that does not make them identical.
Anthony
Le 6 févr. 09 à 11:55, David Tayler a écrit :
What I'm saying is that it is possible to build an exact replica
because it has already been done on a large scale for books,
painting, scores, sculpture and musical instruments.
Hey, the Capirola Lutebook could be a forgery. It is a good
candidate. Some of the forgers were true geniuses.
I'm not sayng we should do that--although I prefer copies,
myself--I'm just saying it has been done, wholesale.
People say it isn't possible, but it has been done.
dt
That is hilarious.
Yes, and the rest of the piece is even funnier, but I hope you notice
the similarity between your:
the thirty
percent that we know must be fakes, but we don't know which ones
they are.
and Mark Twain's:
One of the shovels is undoubtedly genuine, but
all authorities agree that the other one is spurious. It is not
known
which is the spurious one, and this is unfortunate
I don't need an explanation of Mark Twain's line, because it occurs
in an essay that is an obvious lampoon of contemporary tourist
guidebooks. But I'd really like to know what you're talking about.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
