BC Regiment tunic

[edstorey]

I think this or any piece needs to be evaluated on its component items and not who owned it.

[48th]

I agree with you Ed, well said.
The Client's are great people but who really knows what happened before they bought it.

And my earlier statement in this tread covers most of the battle dress this vendor sells.

[Bill A]

Hello Roy, Thanks for your further posts. Agreed that the badge in the image is the 2nd Armoured Car. Without casting any aspersions on any former owner the tunic is only circumstantially attributed to the serviceman named. As it is there is still nothing that undisputabley connects the tunic to the individual in the records. The tunic has no markings that indicate ownership and as has been discussed on other threads, it is easy to add that type of information to the tunic.
We are drifting into areas that could be concern when discussing previous attributions and conclusions.

[RoyA]

Hi Bill,
While all the dots connected your statement is absolutely correct.
The research was a challenge for Arnie and was undertaken only for my personal historical interest.
IMO there was no value added and I simply recovered his $30 fee when I sold it to the collector in Edmonton.
Best regards,
Roy

[Blue Puttees]

The "chain of custody" to use a legal term, would have certainly assisted in the analysis of this tunic. I am curious as to why vendors don't want to name the custodial history of the artifacts (when known)."

Fifty years ago provenance meant very little to most collectors. This began to change in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the past thirty years I have seen provenance adding to items which never had any and fake capture papers (WW II and Vietnam) added to others.

I hear many collectors say buy the item and not the story. Unfortunately they don't understand the possible importance of the story and "chain of custody" (aka chain of ownership). Presuming the vendor knows, failure to disclose full knowledge of an item is fraud.

In 2014 the "chain of custody" proved two very historical items listed for auction had been stolen from the original owners.

In 2002 a very significant WW II Waffen SS group was privately put up for sale and the vendor refused to disclose the full "chain of custody". Further research showed the group at one time had been split up and later reunited. Unfortunately the group was not completely reunited and some others items were added to it. The vendor knew this and failed to disclose it.

I know of a collector who owns an important group to a WW II paratrooper who made four combat jumps. The well known and respected dealer who sold it to him failed to mention the Ike jacket had been restored.

Some years ago a rare Conderate belt and buckle was listed for auction by a prominent auction house. It came with provenance to a Confederate General. The provenance was false and when confronted by the original owner, the auction house chose to ignore it.

The collecting world has changed over the past fifty years and not for the better. There is a serious lack of honesty and integrity. Many of the most prominent and respected militaria dealers have skeletons in their closets. More so then ever before, collectors must be serious students of what they collect.

[Blue Puttees]

Ebay seller vespalambretta has been discussed on other forums. He has sold some good items, some bad items and many questionable items. Through it all he has maintained a 100% positive feedback.I have followed vespalambretta for years and I doubt I would ever buy from him.

[edstorey]

The problem with the chain of custody is that too many collectors feel that if a piece has been owned by a prominent collector or is being sold by an established dealer then it must be 'good'. Both can make mistakes.

In the case of this BD Tunic that is being discussed, how does knowing the chain of custody help to evaluate this garment?