(From Breyer History Diva, January, 2012)
Instead, let’s complain about something else today - like that second dubious Red Pegasus that sold on eBay for an undeserving amount of money. There’s something I can get good and righteous about!
Sigh. There are some models that just set me off. You know about the Black Adios, and I’ve (so far) spared you the ugly details about why I don’t own an SR Buckskin Adios. I’ve already done a post about my annoyance over people claiming they have Kansas City Shams, and someday soon you’ll know why I feel the same way about the "Trakehner Society" Trakehners.
This week, the Red Pegasus has entered that hallowed canon.
I’ve written before about my frustration about giving advice to people about the authenticity of rare or questionable models. All too often, it’s merely a formality: what the owner is seeking is validation of their purchase. Tell them that you have serious doubts about a model's authenticity, and some of them will either (a) tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about, or (b) go find someone else that will tell them it’s authentic.
Not a lot, mind you, but enough to give me pause.
So anyway, in spite of the fact that the seller’s story was extremely dubious to begin with - and some details later proven demonstrably false, on Blab - the second one still sold for almost $400.
What I fear most is not that it will encourage this seller - and others of similar moral caliber - to mysteriously "discover" more Red Pegasi in the attic. That’s a given. No, it’s that these auctions will be used as proof of the authenticity of future auctions to come. "Gosh, two other ones just like it sold on eBay for mucho bucks, so it’s gotta be real! Collectors must know something I don’t know!"
Ah, if only that were so. I won’t point out anyone in particular, or name any names, but there are some profoundly uninformed hobbyists out there. The kind that buy first, and ask questions later. (A philosophy that I have recommended in the past - but only in smaller, more affordable doses.)
As far as I know, there’s only one Red Pegasus that I - and most other model horse historians - would consider above reproach. All we have is one model, and some theories. No ephemera, no other corroborating evidence of any kind.
This is not the kind of evidence to bet big money on.
Showing posts with label fake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fake. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Fake Glossies
(from Breyer History Diva, 2009)
True Breyer Gloss Finishes are extremely variable. Some are thin, some are thick, some are smooth, and others are uneven. Drips are uncommon, but not unknown, especially with earlier models. While most glosses are applied over the painted surface, sometimes the paint or the surface of the plastic itself gives the model its glossy appearance.
In other words, it’s very difficult to make blanket assumptions about Breyer Gloss Finishes, and to determine if a rare or obscure piece is authentic. There’s no standardized checklists to follow, and no esoteric formulas in which to enter objectively obtained data and come up with a nice, neat answer. Authentication is a little bit art, a little bit research, and a little bit intuition.
Unfortunately, with the overheated market for Glosses right now, far too many hobbyists are giving in to temptation and "invest" glosses of a dubious nature. Because of the variable nature and quality of Breyer’s Gloss finishes, it’s very easy for hobbyists to rationalize their concerns away.
The majority of the inquiries I get regarding authentication involve rare or very lightly documented Glosses. Because there are so many variables to take into consideration, and the stakes are so high, I prefer to look at such a model in person before I make a hard and fast determination of the its authenticity. I can tell you if I’ve heard or seen such a thing before, and possible degree of its authenticity, but that’s the best I can do without an in-person evaluation.
Alas, sometimes an honest, in-person evaluation of a questionable Gloss is no help either. The allure of the Gloss is so powerful - and the emotional and financial rewards so lucrative - that some hobbyists will shop around until they find the expert to help them rationalize their investment.
It’s a cliché, but it’s also the truth: if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I know, I know, we all want something rare, pretty and valuable in our collections, but we really have to be more skeptical of these things. And I have to tell you, that the majority of dubious Glosses I’ve inspected in person have been fakes.
Some of these Glosses were deliberately designed to deceive; others were not. However, a fake is a fake, regardless of the alterer's intent. An intent that could easily be lost, forgotten or overlooked when a model exchanges hands. ("Silly me. Did I forget to tell you I think he might be faked?")
Until Reeves comes up with a better way reduce the incidence of Counterfeit Glosses (Proprietary decals under the gloss? Carved brand or stamp?) the best advice I can give any hobbyist regarding oddball Glosses is this: if it's rare, beware.
True Breyer Gloss Finishes are extremely variable. Some are thin, some are thick, some are smooth, and others are uneven. Drips are uncommon, but not unknown, especially with earlier models. While most glosses are applied over the painted surface, sometimes the paint or the surface of the plastic itself gives the model its glossy appearance.
In other words, it’s very difficult to make blanket assumptions about Breyer Gloss Finishes, and to determine if a rare or obscure piece is authentic. There’s no standardized checklists to follow, and no esoteric formulas in which to enter objectively obtained data and come up with a nice, neat answer. Authentication is a little bit art, a little bit research, and a little bit intuition.
Unfortunately, with the overheated market for Glosses right now, far too many hobbyists are giving in to temptation and "invest" glosses of a dubious nature. Because of the variable nature and quality of Breyer’s Gloss finishes, it’s very easy for hobbyists to rationalize their concerns away.
The majority of the inquiries I get regarding authentication involve rare or very lightly documented Glosses. Because there are so many variables to take into consideration, and the stakes are so high, I prefer to look at such a model in person before I make a hard and fast determination of the its authenticity. I can tell you if I’ve heard or seen such a thing before, and possible degree of its authenticity, but that’s the best I can do without an in-person evaluation.
Alas, sometimes an honest, in-person evaluation of a questionable Gloss is no help either. The allure of the Gloss is so powerful - and the emotional and financial rewards so lucrative - that some hobbyists will shop around until they find the expert to help them rationalize their investment.
It’s a cliché, but it’s also the truth: if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I know, I know, we all want something rare, pretty and valuable in our collections, but we really have to be more skeptical of these things. And I have to tell you, that the majority of dubious Glosses I’ve inspected in person have been fakes.
Some of these Glosses were deliberately designed to deceive; others were not. However, a fake is a fake, regardless of the alterer's intent. An intent that could easily be lost, forgotten or overlooked when a model exchanges hands. ("Silly me. Did I forget to tell you I think he might be faked?")
Until Reeves comes up with a better way reduce the incidence of Counterfeit Glosses (Proprietary decals under the gloss? Carved brand or stamp?) the best advice I can give any hobbyist regarding oddball Glosses is this: if it's rare, beware.
Cast Iron Knock-Offs
(from Breyer History Diva, 2009)
Like running keyword searches on Google for cast iron doorstops.
Like this one:
It's part of an extended series of Breyer knockoff doorstops. In one of my luckier days at the flea market, I found a small collection - five pieces, to be precise. I sold most of them off for my own safety: they were extremely heavy, and I am extremely clumsy and value my feet.
I did keep the Old Timer: I have a modest interest in Breyer knockoffs, and I was a little obsessed with the Old Timer at that moment in time. He was also in the best condition of the bunch, and he still had his hat. (Cast Iron Doorstop with removeable hat = cool. 'Nuff said.)
I do know a little bit about these cast iron knockoffs For the record, there are at least eleven of them:
4510 St. Bernard
4511 Horned Hereford Bull
4512 Bassett Hound
4513 Appaloosa Foal (Lying Down Foal)
4514 Tennessee Walking Horse (Midnight Sun)
4515 Fighting Stallion (Alabaster)
4516 Arabian Stallion (Palomino FAS)
4517 Famous Thoroughbred (Traditional Man o War)
4518 Clydesdale Stallion
4519 Jumping Horse
4520 Old Timer
I know this much about them because I have multi-generational copies of two pages from a catalog that lists them by these names and numbers. It's obviously some sort of wholesale or manufacturer catalog, because the copy states: This new handsome group of animal reproductions in Cast Iron is becoming a popular and fast-moving line among our customers.
There's some truth in the statement about their popularity, because they do turn up with some frequency in antique stores, on eBay, and on antique web sites that don't know what they are talking about.
Those antique websites usually identify them as being very old. They can't be: they're all copies of models made from the 1950s onward; the St. Bernard wasn't introduced until 1972! My guess would be that they date from the mid- to late 1970s: cross-reference the manufacturing dates, and you'll find that these models were all current and available from 1972 through 1980.
Who the manufacturer is, is the mystery here. The antique web sites and references sometimes identify them as Hubley, which is impossible since Hubley stopped manufacturing in the mid-1960s. They did make a few horses, but they don't look anything like the Breyer knockoffs. It's just wishful thinking on the antiquers' part: Hubley pieces are very collectible, and often very pricey.
The only clue to the real manufacturer is a logo that appears in the upper corner of the two catalog pages: a Currier and Ives-styled horse with the letters ASC.
I've done several different keyword searches looking for this company, with no usable results. At this point I think randomly typed keyword searches would probably be just as fruitful.
Like running keyword searches on Google for cast iron doorstops.
Like this one:
It's part of an extended series of Breyer knockoff doorstops. In one of my luckier days at the flea market, I found a small collection - five pieces, to be precise. I sold most of them off for my own safety: they were extremely heavy, and I am extremely clumsy and value my feet.
I did keep the Old Timer: I have a modest interest in Breyer knockoffs, and I was a little obsessed with the Old Timer at that moment in time. He was also in the best condition of the bunch, and he still had his hat. (Cast Iron Doorstop with removeable hat = cool. 'Nuff said.)
I do know a little bit about these cast iron knockoffs For the record, there are at least eleven of them:
4510 St. Bernard
4511 Horned Hereford Bull
4512 Bassett Hound
4513 Appaloosa Foal (Lying Down Foal)
4514 Tennessee Walking Horse (Midnight Sun)
4515 Fighting Stallion (Alabaster)
4516 Arabian Stallion (Palomino FAS)
4517 Famous Thoroughbred (Traditional Man o War)
4518 Clydesdale Stallion
4519 Jumping Horse
4520 Old Timer
I know this much about them because I have multi-generational copies of two pages from a catalog that lists them by these names and numbers. It's obviously some sort of wholesale or manufacturer catalog, because the copy states: This new handsome group of animal reproductions in Cast Iron is becoming a popular and fast-moving line among our customers.
There's some truth in the statement about their popularity, because they do turn up with some frequency in antique stores, on eBay, and on antique web sites that don't know what they are talking about.
Those antique websites usually identify them as being very old. They can't be: they're all copies of models made from the 1950s onward; the St. Bernard wasn't introduced until 1972! My guess would be that they date from the mid- to late 1970s: cross-reference the manufacturing dates, and you'll find that these models were all current and available from 1972 through 1980.
Who the manufacturer is, is the mystery here. The antique web sites and references sometimes identify them as Hubley, which is impossible since Hubley stopped manufacturing in the mid-1960s. They did make a few horses, but they don't look anything like the Breyer knockoffs. It's just wishful thinking on the antiquers' part: Hubley pieces are very collectible, and often very pricey.
The only clue to the real manufacturer is a logo that appears in the upper corner of the two catalog pages: a Currier and Ives-styled horse with the letters ASC.
I've done several different keyword searches looking for this company, with no usable results. At this point I think randomly typed keyword searches would probably be just as fruitful.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Fakes or the Real Deal?
(Breyer History Diva, 2010.)
One of the items I picked up this past Sunday was a passable Black Bucking Bronco. He was nothing special - a later piece with some paint skips and flaws. He was cheap, he needed rescuing, and I harbor a strong fondness for the mold, simple as that. (So strong a fondness that once upon a time, when the prospect was presented to me, I asked for a test color Wedgewood Blue Bucking Bronco. I didn’t get it, though: it’s another one of My Long Stories.)
As I was cleaning him up, some of his paint flaked off. Since he was already in not-collectible shape, it wasn’t a big deal. Some black paint jobs from the 1970s have a tendency to do that; I tend to chalk it up as either the consequence of poor prepping and cleaning, or the heavy-handed application of the paint, both common occurrences back then. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a bad batch of paint, too.
He is genuinely OF - fake black paint jobs used to be as common as fake gloss jobs are now, but there was nothing here to indicate anything amiss. No weirdness going on over or under the paint. Just bad paint, period.
I’ve seen enough model horses in my time that I hesitate to dismiss anything except the most obvious of fakes, as fakes, especially if the only evidence I have is a low resolution JPEG on the Internet. I’ve seen genuine OF models with flaked paint, handpainted details, acetone touchups, bad trim jobs, smudges, drips and fingerprints - all the usual giveaways of fakeness. My SR Solid Black Mustang has a gigantic drip, and I bought him straight off the Bentley Sales Discontinued List!
(He was one of the last ones they had, so I couldn’t get a replacement. I prefer to think of it as a beauty mark.)
It wasn’t the runs, drips and errors seen on some of the models involved in the (still ongoing) Gloss Nokota business that made them dubious in my eyes. I’ve seen those kinds of flaws on genuine OF models, and it’s not the "tell" everyone thinks it is. I’ve gotten a lot of good models by taking long second looks.
A greater indicator of fakeness is the behavior of the seller involved. If it looks like, walks like, and smells like a con job, it’s a con job. After all that’s happened, the minor involved in that deal still has Internet access and is still attempting to wheel and deal. Whether the models involved are real or were somehow legitimately obtained is irrelevant.
The fact that some hobbyists are still debating whether or not she’s even worth dealing with is the strangest, saddest part. Is the prospect of a Gloss that no one else has or has even heard of so tempting that some hobbyists are willing to throw common sense out the window?
If any good comes out of all of this, it’ll be to cool off the overheated Gloss market, and maybe - just maybe - have Reeves reconsider the whole Glossy Prize Model idea in the first place. While it’s mostly hobbyists to blame in this whole mess, Reeves really ought to be stepping up to the plate - to make their Glosses a little less easy to fake, at the very least. (A decal, signature or numbering?)
One of the items I picked up this past Sunday was a passable Black Bucking Bronco. He was nothing special - a later piece with some paint skips and flaws. He was cheap, he needed rescuing, and I harbor a strong fondness for the mold, simple as that. (So strong a fondness that once upon a time, when the prospect was presented to me, I asked for a test color Wedgewood Blue Bucking Bronco. I didn’t get it, though: it’s another one of My Long Stories.)
As I was cleaning him up, some of his paint flaked off. Since he was already in not-collectible shape, it wasn’t a big deal. Some black paint jobs from the 1970s have a tendency to do that; I tend to chalk it up as either the consequence of poor prepping and cleaning, or the heavy-handed application of the paint, both common occurrences back then. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a bad batch of paint, too.
He is genuinely OF - fake black paint jobs used to be as common as fake gloss jobs are now, but there was nothing here to indicate anything amiss. No weirdness going on over or under the paint. Just bad paint, period.
I’ve seen enough model horses in my time that I hesitate to dismiss anything except the most obvious of fakes, as fakes, especially if the only evidence I have is a low resolution JPEG on the Internet. I’ve seen genuine OF models with flaked paint, handpainted details, acetone touchups, bad trim jobs, smudges, drips and fingerprints - all the usual giveaways of fakeness. My SR Solid Black Mustang has a gigantic drip, and I bought him straight off the Bentley Sales Discontinued List!
(He was one of the last ones they had, so I couldn’t get a replacement. I prefer to think of it as a beauty mark.)
It wasn’t the runs, drips and errors seen on some of the models involved in the (still ongoing) Gloss Nokota business that made them dubious in my eyes. I’ve seen those kinds of flaws on genuine OF models, and it’s not the "tell" everyone thinks it is. I’ve gotten a lot of good models by taking long second looks.
A greater indicator of fakeness is the behavior of the seller involved. If it looks like, walks like, and smells like a con job, it’s a con job. After all that’s happened, the minor involved in that deal still has Internet access and is still attempting to wheel and deal. Whether the models involved are real or were somehow legitimately obtained is irrelevant.
The fact that some hobbyists are still debating whether or not she’s even worth dealing with is the strangest, saddest part. Is the prospect of a Gloss that no one else has or has even heard of so tempting that some hobbyists are willing to throw common sense out the window?
If any good comes out of all of this, it’ll be to cool off the overheated Gloss market, and maybe - just maybe - have Reeves reconsider the whole Glossy Prize Model idea in the first place. While it’s mostly hobbyists to blame in this whole mess, Reeves really ought to be stepping up to the plate - to make their Glosses a little less easy to fake, at the very least. (A decal, signature or numbering?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)