Opinion in article in ME 4665
|Nicholas Farr||03/08/2021 08:52:25|
2999 forum posts
Hi I've just been reading Postbag in M 4670, John Bauer's opinion of Noel Shelley's question in his article in ME 4665 as to whether his casting of of a plate is fake or not. In my opinion, and this is no disrespect to Noel Shelley or anyone else's opinions, that the answer to Noel's question is; yes it is a fake. The reason being that although the casting was made from the original makers pattern, a plate with the number 7868 made from this pattern was never attached to a production locomotive. Had Noel cast a plate with a number that was used on a production locomotive, then that plate could be classed as a replica. Any plate cast from the pattern by any authority owned or authorised by any company that may own the original company or its rights, with an original production number, could be classed as a genuine replacement part. This is my opinion, but of course I could be wrong.
The photo of Noels cast plate in ME 4665 looks good though.
|Nick Clarke 3||03/08/2021 09:11:41|
1256 forum posts
While personally not being majorly concerned with the differences between representations, models and fakes - in the above scenario, if the exact original never existed, then the new plate is a fake of what?
|Martin Kyte||03/08/2021 09:43:09|
2567 forum posts
So then if a plate was recast from the scraps of a broken original using the manufacturers pattern what would that be. Maybe a repaired original. OK so it's cleaving the keratin but passes the time.
|Michael Gilligan||03/08/2021 09:57:48|
18972 forum posts
I think you have come fairly close to the definition of a fake, there ^^^
Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/08/2021 10:01:00
|Nicholas Farr||03/08/2021 09:59:40|
2999 forum posts
Hi Nick Clarke 3, I would say fake representation, because that number only existed on a simpler pattern.
|Dave Halford||03/08/2021 10:00:15|
|1746 forum posts|
This sounds familiar, wasn't there a thread on hear some time ago?
7566 forum posts
John Bauer's letter covers the point for me when he says 'I would be of the opinion that something cannot be fake unless it is presented as something as it is not.'
I suggest items only become fake when used to deceive. For example, an replica engine plate, bought knowing it's a replica, isn't a fake. However, if the same plate is sold on later as an original, then the deception makes it a wrong 'un. The deceit is in the transaction rather than the replica, unless the replica was specifically made to deceive.
Although a model locomotive could be said to be a fake, it's small size makes it unlikely anyone would believe they were buying a full-size engine. Engine plates are in the middle; sold as a replica, no problem; sold as an original, they're crook. Reproducing current bank notes and coins is downright illegal, it always being assumed by the law that the purpose is fraud.
Blurred territory though: people have bought dolls-house furniture from internet auctions under the impression it was full-size. Where they deceived if the true dimensions were in the small print?
Lots of fakery about. Married men know the awful truth about wives. High-heels, corsets, support garments, depilatories, brassieres, lipstick, foundation, perfume, false eyelashes, hair dye, and lipstick.
Though honest, I'm as attractive as Albert Steptoe. You choose!
|Dave Halford||03/08/2021 14:23:41|
|1746 forum posts|
Found it - wrong website it's on Traction Talk
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.