I think KLR makes a good point about so-called 'reference' books being really a personal collection rather than based on hard and fast data, K&K being a prime example yet has become the sort of Bible for collectors. At least it used to be. The Arms & Armour Press series is probably another case in point. Certainly the Wilkinson book, maybe also Bloomer. I think Robin Hodges set out to produce a real reference book, but that too is now out of date.
I would agree about not reinventing the wheel, but to use the same metaphor, sometimes the wheel is a different size. The problem is that information doesn't get updated, so one book says this is what it is, and then everybody assumes it to be correct. The next person comes along and writes another book, and uses the previous one(s) as a starting point - and so it goes on. To be accurate you have to go back to primary sources and compare different examples. Are they different because several different manufacturers produced them, even though the War Office or MoD gave them the same specs? Are they locally made, in which case there will be variations and imperfections? Or are they out-and-out fakes?
It's also been said before that the only way to know for sure is with a documented provenance. That being said, without a provenance doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
We could go on and on about this, but to what purpose? I think the bottom line is, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Enough from me!
David
|
26-01-17, 10:01 PM
Linear Mode
