Hidden attribution/provenance? A question.

[WJ Miller]

Can someone explain to me the reason behind a common (and what I consider a very odd) practice of withholding the attribution or provenance of an item for sale until AFTER the sale is made?

Alright, I do not mean to pick on anyone in particular, but here is an example... On eBay this morning I see a Chaplain's uniform that has a seemingly legitimate attribution to a former member of the RCCC but the seller is not revealing said name? I have seen this many times over the years from many vendors (both online and off) and to me it seems absolutely counter-productive to the sale?? The vast majority of items of militaria are unattributed surplus (historical orphans), it seems to me that attribution to genuine service would be a HUGE selling feature? Isn't the point of selling the item, particularly in a public auction, to make money?

In other areas of collectibles, an attribution/provenance is always sung "loud and proud". I can't imagine some antiques auction house selling say, a former Prime Minister's office desk, with a description of "will reveal the owner's name to the lucky bidder"??? The value of said desk would vary widely depending on who owned it. Certainly you'd see a much greater value in a Sir John A. MacDonald desk over say a John Turner desk...? I would think the same holds true for militaria (or any collectible). Would you ever see the sale of a VC, where the auction house tells you you'll see the name of the recipient AFTER you buy the item? No, but then again, those are all ethically and or legitimately acquired items (oops, did I say that?).

(Yes, I am familiar with the hoopla around the Konowal VC, but that was openly investigated and publicly returned to the CWM. It was being originally being auctioned in good faith, albeit with shockingly little research done before hand... )

So why the mystery, why the covertness? It always has struck me, that when a seller knows but won't reveal the name of the former owner(s) upfront, there is something dishonest in the transaction. Indeed, in the past I have come across a dealer who when pressed, had a bogus name/story attached to an item (whether he made it up or was just passing along poor information I will not judge) and antiques hunter who was selling a genuine grouping of items, but made me promise not to go back to the veteran's family (if I could find them?). I can make several guesses why, but just that request in itself is very suspicious behaviour. However, I have also seen plenty of items that I think were legitimate and above board sold with this silly practice, seemingly at the expense of a higher profile and more profitable sale?

Maybe I am a rare exception here? Since I really only collect items attributed to a single regiment and I place a very high emphasis on their historical value, am I the odd man out here in my thinking? For me, genuine attribution and clear provenance is absolutely paramount. I would say the majority if not all the collectors on this forum place value on genuine items, not "fakes"... so why not ask for and expect "the proof in the putting"? Sadly, with many items of my interest I have looked at lately, the sellers quickly crumble under scrutiny (the recent 1CACR helmet sale is a prime example). Sorry. It is just not good enough to "say" you know who the owner was.

So in my mind, if you can't openly come forth with a name "when claimed to be known", (to put it bluntly) it's a bullsh*t item.

This could lead to another discussion entirely... Provenance? What is the standard? What are you as collectors doing about recording the history of the items that you are currently the guardian of? But perhaps that's another thread...

Bill M.

[Sonofacqms]

I to have bought items from auctions only to find a "sleeper" amongst the lot which is extremely interesting. Obviously researching items is a lot easier if you have a name or starting point. But you try to get any auctioneer to disclose who the vendor is, no chance!

I have explained that I am trying to trace a name, for historical interest, but no, auctioneers discretion does not allow this. I have said give them my name and address and let them contact me, no chance.

Is this because they are honest discreet people or is it the fact that they have sussed out that you have found a gem on the cheap and they have lost out. Auctioneers are never slow to volunteer the information on so and so's sword/helmet etc to boost the price, but they may be losing out on future gems by not helping the collector.

[boots and saddles]

I recently sold a WW2 tunic given to me by the owner ,It was an Irish Regiment of Canada tunic & some of his family is still alive & I doubt if they knew he gave it to me, Maybe didn't care at that time. Now the tunic is worth $500.00 & someone in the family sees it on auction with name & serial #, so all of a sudden this family member becomes interested in this tunic he dosen't want to pay $500.00 for it he WANTS TO GET 500 FOR IT, SO DEMANDS THROUGH EBAY THAT THEY RECOVER THE TUNIC FOR HIM OR HER, & IT CAN BE DONE. This didn't happen but it could have.
LIKEWISE, I SPOTTED A ww1 TUNIC ON AUCTION BY SOMEONE FROM REGINA THE ITEM BELONGED TO A FELLOW FROM Pai.... Ont. I called a person I knew (same name) & asked him if he knew this fellow who owned the tunic & he said heck yes I knew him he was my Dad , I said I just say his uniform for sale on ebay He said I don`t know how it ended up in Regina, my Mother donated that to the museum in South...... Ont. He wanted the particulars & an investigation was started. When you list the owner you are notifing the public at large that you have this mans property. Ray

[WJ Miller]

Originally Posted by boots and saddles

When you list the owner you are notifing the public at large that you have this mans property.

Yup. And there should be nothing wrong with disclosing that.

Both of your examples prove my point that there is something suspicious with a transaction in the first place if a vendor needs to resort to any amount of secrecy to sell it. I as a buyer should be thinking twice about acquiring an item in which it's history is not fully disclosed. Ultimately, doesn't that hurt the vendor's sale (especially if your aim is sales for profit)??

Even if someone gives/donates an item, get a signed receipt (ie. proof of ownership). Donations to a museum usually result in the issue of a tax credit. So in the case of the Regina uniform, the Mother (Family) probably did get paid in a sense and ownership was transferred (assumptive, as perhaps the uniform was "loaned", that is a different kettle of fish). That should be the end of the story. (I know that it not always the case, I do live in the real world.)

Hey, if I give a cup to some guy and he discovers it is really the Holy Grail; gets rich and famous... well tough sh*t for me. And if my Sister has a beef with that (and she will, trust me), well she's S.O.L. too. There is a rather offensive term for people who want their "gifts" back... cover your behind and get it in writing. If there are stipulations on a gift either honour them or don't accept it.

With proper paperwork, future family whiners don't have a leg to stand on. Can ebay really enforce the return of an item? I'm not so sure about that, they're an online auction facilitator, not law enforcement. Certainly they can strike down an auction, but beyond that, I think they are too lazy to bother. In my experience, eBay is rather loathe to stop any kind of legitimate fraud on their site let alone, penny ante squabbles over spurious ownership claims. If you truly have legal ownership of an item, you should have nothing to worry about?

Museums have nothing to hide or be ashamed of by deaccessioning items in their collections. Happens all the time. It can be useful to dispose of surplus items for fundraising and exchanging/acquiring more relevant items to a collection. How many generic CVSM's can a museum store/display, or average BD uniforms, or rusty helmets? What may have meaning or priceless sentimental value to an individual family, is likely historically insignificant to a larger, dedicated institution. In some cases, these items would be better off staying with the family (if they truly give a damn) or in the hands of other archival agencies (ie. historical societies) or "us" private collectors. The lesson here is to understand the terms, conditions and implications of donating said items to a "museum".

However, my original post was not so much about the vendor, but the struggle to properly attribute and further provenance of legitimate items. Understand I have a "historian" hat on... I sympathize with your examples Ray, but it does further my argument. If you have a legitimate item to sell, you needn't be looking over your shoulder or veil it in secrecy.

However, you have given me food for thought on HOW I acquire items in the future... perhaps I should be inquiring further into the vendors right to own/sell the item?? Though I am adamant about receipts, I generally take the vendors word for it that it is their item to sell...hmmm. A case in point is the Filip Konowal Victoria Cross I mentioned in my original post. It was stolen from the CWM in the 1970's, forgotten in a bureaucratic shuffle, no doubt travelled around to a few collectors "in secrecy" before resurfacing to be legitimately auctioned off by Hoare's (IIRC) a few year's back. No one checked the background of the item to make sure the current owner at the time was the "legitimate" owner. (I'll ignore the fact that the CWM's shoddy practices allowed the VC to go missing in the first place) After investigation, it was returned to the CWM, and yes the vendor and the auction house were S.O.L.

Receipts... all part of the provenance. Ray, I do thank you for your honest input.

Bill M.

[Moe RCNR]

Hello Bill: I have to agree with your view that if an e-Bay vendor is unwilling to declare the provenance and/or name on the listing of the item, then the listing becomes suspicious.
I have to relate an experience I had with the purchase of a Canadian WWI medal on e-Bay. The medal was attributed and the vendor was personally known to me. After the transaction was completed the vendor sent an e-mail to me with a warning about someone who was also bidding for the item and was attempting to contact me to recover the medal for the family. This person was unwilling to provide proof to the vendor that he was acting on behalf of the family. Thankfully, the vendor refused to give him the information he was looking for.
Could this be a reason that some vendors do not wish to reveal the provenance before the item is sold?
I suspect that some unscrupulous collectors use this ("I'm trying to recover the medal for the family") excuse in an attempt to convince other collectors to part with an item. If a third party is genuinely trying to recover an item for the family they should be willing to provide undeniable proof that this is so; or provide information to enable the collector holding the item to contact the family himself. Most collectors, on facing this sort of situation, would be more than happy to return the item to the family.
Cheers.
Moe.

[boots and saddles]

Thanks Bill, I don't want to drag out this thread unnecessarily but there is something that I should have mentioned earlier, Ebay has their own police & they cooperate fully with any legitimate police force.

[RAChD]

I bought a named British Army chaplains Service Dress jacket on eBay last year in very good condition but minus the rank insignia [captain] which someone had removed.
I researched the name while the auction was running but in my basic searches it came back with nothing. It was at a low price when I decided to bid and I won it for less than £40. No wonder the name did not come back with any "hits" - the seller had mis-spelt the name in the auction! Straight away I retried the London Gazette and got his date of entry into the services. I got further info from the RAChD museum and it turned out he was a Congregationalist chaplain, the smallest denomination and therefore no doubt quite rare/unusual. Superb for my collection and display. So, if the name on an item is dsiclosed, it doesn't always even mean the seller's got it right!
The even better ending to this was I bought a chaplains greatcoat with purple AOS and RAChD buttons at a militaria sale in May. Later I discovered there was a makers label hidden inside the pocket - the same name as the tunic I bought last year from an entirely different dealer!!!
ttfn

[capbadge]

Hey, I know this is late but I thought I would add something:

Certain obsessive collectors will look up the name of the soldier, trace their family and call them repeatedly in order to buy the soldiers other military items so they can have a better grouping - collectors have told me about these dishonorable fellows - not good

I would only mention the name of an owner of a certain item if it would add value to the item, otherwise I would just say in an auction "soldiers name will be disclosed after purchase"

Maybe that cleared a few things up