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
