Do you mean the very early fakes, in which a lesser known lutemaker
added a famous name to make them worth more, possibly when Baroquing
a lute?
Anthony
Le 5 févr. 09 à 11:24, David Tayler a écrit :
I'm talking about the fakes that no one knows are fakes--the thirty
percent that we know must be fakes, but we don't know which ones
they are.
The ones you are speaking of were the former exact replicas, not the
present ones.
dt
At 03:03 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote:
No, it hasn't! The fakes you are talking about (well, assuming I
understand you correctly, such as all those 'Franciolini's and the
like) are blooming obvious fakes and have nothing to do with 'exact
replicas'. Although, curiously enough, they were considered as such
and / or genuine originals some 30+ years ago and perhaps even now
... in some remote corners of the globe. Anyway, I wouldn't in any
way be taking 'historical' fakes into consideration here but quite
exact, shall I say, subtle things. And in no way I'm trying to
discourage anybody from buying an 'exact replica' nowadays if there
is one up for grabs. One gets what one believes in.
Alexander
David Tayler wrote:
Let's assume that 30 percent of these old instruments are fakes,
which is a reasonable assumption. Maybe the number is higher, maybe
it is lower. But a good percentage of them are fakes, of course.
Then it is possible to make an exact replica, because it has
already been done.
dt
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
