Responding to August 17 posting by James Martin about marking fraudulent
objects, I'll repeat what I said in my August 3 response in case it
disappeared into the electronic ether.
Regarding the marking of fraudulent objects, I have often encountered this
issue in a philatelic context. Postage stamps (mint and used) are routinely
marked on the back by expertizers to certify authenticity or to warn of
forgery. In cases of authenticity, usually the small marks are simply the
expertizer's name or logo, applied by a tiny rubber stamp, with the mark's
location on the item communicating assorted bits of information. Some
philatelic items have multiple expertizing marks from multiple expertizers.
I am unfamiliar with the types of ink used.
Expertizers mark some types of philatelic material, such as envelopes
bearing a stamp and postmark, on the front (the side normally displayed to
observers). The mark might be partially on the stamp and partially on the
envelope, "tying" the stamp to the envelope. This is rather like an
archives rubber stamp across the signature on a letter. I am unaware of any
controversy in philatelic circles about having expertizing marks on the
front.
Controversy does exist, however, about expertizing marks proclaiming an item
to be fake. Many dealers are indignant about the practice. Some argue than
an expertizer is a fallible human being and has no right to mark an item
indelibly as fake, making sale of the item impossible even if some other
expertizer thinks the item is genuine. Some collectors argue that such
dealers want the right to resell a questionable item that has been returned
for refund, without having to inform the new customer about its questionable
authenticity.
A museum (or sales gallery) context may allow that controversy to be
resolved simply by putting an accession number on an object, with the
register noting questions of authenticity. The item doesn't have to be
marked as fake; it just has to be marked so decades later an interested
person can look up information about that specific item. The information is
as likely to be reassuring about authenticity as not, so I see no
controversy about such a marking. If, however, the marking itself is
supposed to condemn an item as fake, the sorts of complaints made by some
philatelic dealers would apply.
It's hard to please everyone, but I think custodians of our civilization's
objects must come down on the side of doing the best to inform present and
future generations about an object's nature. If there are doubts about what
an object is, people deserve to know about the doubts. If the choice is
between no marking and a marking that says "possible fake," I'd be inclined
to mark the object.
Richard Lawrence Miller
P. O. Box 7038
Kansas City MO 64113-0038
(816) 444-2383
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
