|
Post by yelman on Jul 27, 2023 0:53:58 GMT
100 years from now, every antique sword still in existence will become a very old antique (VOA)
Also, 100 years from now, every current sword still in existence will become newly antique (NA): every reproduction, every fantasy sword, every wall hanger, all antiques.
Now it’s apparent that value increases for any object that survives long enough to become antique, and so with swords, which brings to mind some thoughts and questions, assuming 100 years from now people are still collecting swords:
For instance, 100 years from now, will sword manufacturers be making reproductions of VOAs or NAs?
If NAs, they would essentially be making a reproduction of a reproduction, but since the NAs are themselves antiques, and therefore “legit” would their forms, with whatever their (slight) inaccuracies, or apparent flaws, be the new “model” for sword reproductions? Or would they still use VOAs as models?
Also, might a very rare NA wall hanger be actually become more valuable than a relatively common VOA?
100 years from now the sword market will be in the midst of this unprecedented overlap. Curious as to your answers to these questions and any more you can think up.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Jul 27, 2023 1:10:10 GMT
all of the Victorian-era "fakes" are now real antiques
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jul 27, 2023 4:42:22 GMT
My only complaint about this 22nd Century repro of an antique Windlass is that they got the distal taper wrong!
|
|
|
Post by larason2 on Jul 27, 2023 11:50:45 GMT
The phenomena already exists in archaeology. They often find artifacts that they know aren't "as good" as others. Still artifacts, but there's a hierarchy of importance. Antiques are sorted by selection bias. Wall hangers are generally thought to not be good, so it's less likely someone will put the effort into attempting to preserve them, so their numbers will decrease relative to now. It will be interesting to see what "antiques" future generations will think are good, but I'm guessing they will agree with what we currently think is good!
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Jul 27, 2023 12:17:32 GMT
The phenomena already exists in archaeology. They often find artifacts that they know aren't "as good" as others. Still artifacts, but there's a hierarchy of importance. Antiques are sorted by selection bias. Wall hangers are generally thought to not be good, so it's less likely someone will put the effort into attempting to preserve them, so their numbers will decrease relative to now. It will be interesting to see what "antiques" future generations will think are good, but I'm guessing they will agree with what we currently think is good! IMHO, given the direction "civilization" is currently heading in, the main concern 100 years from now will be the same as mine is now. For what it will cost me, "How well will this blade kill?"
|
|
|
Post by demonskull on Jul 27, 2023 13:20:20 GMT
all of the Victorian-era "fakes" are now real antiques 100% correct. As to pricing, inflation will make the price of today's wall hangers, increase dramatically. If swords are legal anywhere, you'll find collectors of cheap reproductions. Books will be written about Windlass, Darksword, Del Tin and the companies promoting them. We currently have people who just collect Randall, Corby, Hibben and other custom and production knives. It will be no different, people will collect what their interest is and what they can afford.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Jul 28, 2023 1:23:54 GMT
Since my first "real" sword was a Del Tin reproduction of a Victorian-era reproduction (sounds better than fake) in the collection of the MET, it is good to know it is at least a copy of an antique.
|
|
tera
Moderator
Posts: 1,661
|
Post by tera on Jul 28, 2023 3:55:27 GMT
"Now it’s apparent that value increases for any object that survives long enough to become antique..."
I respectfully disagree with this assumption. Not all 100 year old firearms are worth more than $50 US. Who will want 100 year old stainless steel Ikea cutlery? Age does not always, or even usually, add value.
|
|
|
Post by toddstratton1 on Jul 28, 2023 3:57:35 GMT
In 100 years I won't be alive to care much either way lol, but it is interesting to think about for sure.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jul 28, 2023 12:05:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Jul 28, 2023 13:26:55 GMT
"Now it’s apparent that value increases for any object that survives long enough to become antique..." I respectfully disagree with this assumption. I don't. Here's evidence for the assumption:
|
|
|
Post by yelman on Jul 28, 2023 16:33:27 GMT
"Now it’s apparent that value increases for any object that survives long enough to become antique..." I respectfully disagree with this assumption. Not all 100 year old firearms are worth more than $50 US. Who will want 100 year old stainless steel Ikea cutlery? Age does not always, or even usually, add value. Age always increases value for those items that are already deemed to have value whether antique or not. If you’re an Ikea collector, the 100 year old Ikea stainless has additional value. If you don’t collect Ikea it wont. If you are a sword collector a 100 year old sword has additional value. If you don’t collect swords it wont. I might add I’m not even a gun collector but I would pay $50 for any antique gun.
|
|
tera
Moderator
Posts: 1,661
|
Post by tera on Jul 28, 2023 17:07:27 GMT
"Now it’s apparent that value increases for any object that survives long enough to become antique..." I respectfully disagree with this assumption. Not all 100 year old firearms are worth more than $50 US. Who will want 100 year old stainless steel Ikea cutlery? Age does not always, or even usually, add value. The value increases for those items that are already deemed to have value whether antique or not. If you’re an Ikea collector, the 100 year old Ikea stainless has additional value. If you don’t collect Ikea it wont. If you are a sword collector a 100 year old sword has additional value. If you don’t collect swords it wont. I might add I’m not even a gun collector but I would pay $50 for any antique gun. I used to work in Firearms Operations for a national chain that also dealt in used firearms. We did have some 100+ year old guns that were either so common or in such sad condition that they were $100 or less. That includes a little flintlock we had from the 1800s. Terrible condition, no identifying marks of note, so no real investment value. Now, that's still more than the original sticker price of course, but considerably less than the original price when adjusted for inflation, so a net loss. Value tends to come from WHAT it is, WHO made it (when and where), any ID/proof markings, and Condition. We also had old firearms worth $26k and up, and people bought them happily. Apples to oranges, I know, but as someone whose job was acquiring and selling firearms for the company's FFL license, I can say age does not directly correlate with value at least in that collector market. I don't mean to be too contrarian, just trying to raise a flag that any statement based in "Now it's apparent" or "It's common knowledge" is argumentum ad populum, an unsound foundation for any proposition. I supplied counter examples in the Firearms collection world as the statement was so broad to include anything over 100 years old, but I invite collectors of authentic swords of any national origin may also chime in.
|
|
|
Post by yelman on Jul 28, 2023 17:44:33 GMT
The word “apparent” was chosen in this context as an overall observation, not as a “foundation” for all instances.
Of course there are exceptions to every rule, that goes without saying.
I do collect antique edged weapons and but I also collect reproductions because I enjoy having them both, and provenance or investment value are of little interest to me.
I would happily pay for ‘ a little flintlock from the 1800s’ for its sheer historical significance . Not everything should be judged by its current utility or resale value.
|
|
tera
Moderator
Posts: 1,661
|
Post by tera on Jul 28, 2023 18:50:35 GMT
Regardless of specific word choice, the foundation of the argument remains the same and (as-yet) unsubstantiated by data. I also provided an entire market which runs counter to the premise showing it is, at least, not universally true of ALL 100 year old objects (premise quoted below):
"Now it’s apparent that value increases for any object that survives long enough to become antique..."
That is still an appeal to common knowledge, a logical fallacy. I only voice caution because using a false premise as a base for financial investment/speculation is dangerous, indeed.
As long as we all agree and are aware that this premise is not universally true, and we aren't misleading people into believing modern production swords are guaranteed to accrue value after 100 years of existence, I really have no further comment. Caveat Emptor, etc.
|
|
|
Post by yelman on Jul 28, 2023 19:12:56 GMT
Nothings ever “guaranteed” but ‘misleading people’ Ok, then I’ll mislead: its a fair bet that if your heirs hang on to your swords they will increase in value. that type of misleading is pretty harmless…
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 977
|
Post by seth on Jul 28, 2023 20:16:34 GMT
It is a fun topic to think about. I thought a lot about it in the context of toys. I grew up in the 80s and had a lot of star wars toys. Some of those were in storage when my own kids got old enough to play with them, and they were happy to do so.
Someone over at my house saw that and asked if they were valuable. They really weren't valuable because they had been opened, and heavily played with. If my parents had known how valuable they would become in mint condition, they likely would not have given them to me. Probably few people thought that which is why mint condition action-figures are rare and therefore valuable.
When the prequels came out, collectors bought up every toy they could and stored them because they were going to be extremely valuable. However, lots of people did that so they weren't rare and therefore not as valuable as speculated.
We had a vintage toy store in our town that my kids loved because it had so much star wars stuff. They could buy in-package action-figures for really reasonable amounts. The owner had some newer ones that were valuable only because of their rarity (limited runs). Albions that have hit their limit also have increased in value.
Anyway, sorry for the novel. I am looking forward to the future discussions over whether someone has bought an original Gallowglass or one of the later reproductions.
|
|
tera
Moderator
Posts: 1,661
|
Post by tera on Jul 29, 2023 3:02:59 GMT
I think you described things pretty well, Seth. It's hard to gauge what will become collectable and what won't.
I have a bamboo flute by Patrick Olwell I bought on a whim for $25 20-years ago. The same flute is listed at $500+ now, if you can find one. He made a name for himself, so they became collectable.
Similarly, I have a Munetoshi Viper (unokubi zukuri). As far as I can tell, it is from the last batch before they stopped making them. SwordNArmory hasn't notified them as being back in stock for the last two years or so. Does that mean the Viper is more valuable now?
Who knows. If it's exceptionally well made, like my Olwell flute, people may pay above new pricing for it. If it's fine, but other makers can produce something similar, is it really worth any more than list price?
It all comes back to us consumers fixating on whatever. Maybe the Vipers will develop some sort of mystique because of their spring temper and be desirable. Maybe they'll only depreciate as newer, possibly better models are made 100 years from now.
There are chinese made fake "Nihonto" over 100 years old that some may find valuable for the historical quirk of it BEING a fake. There is a unique aesthetic to tourist fakes that old. You can absolutely see the Chinese cultural influences. Then again, to others, they may be so far from a true Japanese aesthetic as to hold no value at all.
So yeah, I am of the mind that it's ok to take our swords out of the package and play with them. I also wouldn't buy production swords and put them away. Something by a notable smith like Howard Clark, maybe, but it'd be a darn shame for his works not to see competent use.
|
|