Once upon a time, I worked on behalf of a few luxury goods makers, tracking down counterfeit versions of their items, and getting the obvious and less obvious fakes removed before anyone could waste money (and their perception of the brand) on them.
A few times, I would be invited to company HQ and introduced to the product, have the stitching and design details explained to me, a lay humble scruffy programmer. I can still spot a quality handbag from miles away because of it.
The work itself was _fascinating_ to me, and spotting fakes was... obvious but only once you knew _why_ it was obvious. A couple of examples:
* (easiest) Does brand X make phone covers? Well, probably not because that would make them look cheap and accessible to all, and that's _very much not_ the point of being a luxury goods house.
* (... tricker) Are there _any_ loose stitches visible, or imperfections of any kind? If I had been thinking logically, this wouldn't be an issue. But, like the buyers, I hadn't been, and I hadn't realised that -of course- luxury goods are hand checked by many people, many times over, because... again, that's the whole point of being a luxury goods house.
While there was plenty to learn about mismatched parts - plus the joy of independent designers creating new and sometimes quite brilliantly designed new items (always a shame, some of them knew the brand styles staggeringly well) - looking at the zips that match a leather which match so-and-so design element, the examples above covered the majority of counterfeit items by far. Can't imagine it's changed that much in the meantime.
The most difficult fakes are those illicitly made by the same factory that makes the genuine product (under license). In that sense, they are not even fakes but the license holder doesn’t see any of the profit.
On the plus side, the factory faces a problem as the consequences of being caught are severe. They’ll often take mitigating action to try and obfuscate the source, such as using slightly different materials so eg leather stock can’t be traced. When I was in the industry, it’d be unusual for a factory to produce the exact same thing without _any_ attempt to hide.
If you’ve ever seen a dvd with the various identifiers sanded off, now you know why :)
I’m not an expert but it’s incredible with guitars as well - the craftsmanship when comparing something off an assembly line versus a true luthier crafted instrument. There are visual clues easy to spot like the tuning pegs, but upon closer inspection of the fretboards the material used for inlays is an indication, and then the intricacy of fitment. With something like an acoustic guitar - Pimentel versus an off the rack Breedlove, the sound will be staggeringly different and you’ll understand where the extra $9,000 came from.
There are of course forgeries in music instruments of high value - violins - and the ugly reality that Chibsons exist and are pieces of shit because they’re produced by a culture with serious fucking problems relating to creativity and freedom of expression and individuality.
There is a market for Chibsons—not everyone is willing to spend on expensive instruments.
As a beginner, I’m too much of a cheapskate to drop $9,000 on a musical instrument. I can’t even play properly or distinguish the right tones yet.
I agree with you that, at my current skill level, my ability to express creativity and individuality is limited. But I’m okay with that. For now, I just want to enjoy learning to play the music I love. I’ll consider upgrading once my skills improve.
> Pimentel versus an off the rack Breedlove, the sound will be staggeringly
Not sure about acoustic guitars specifically but for electrics there's plenty of evidence that the magic is mostly in the hands (and the brains) of the player.
Plenty of yt videos on that subject blind trials and stuff as well as stars playing regular or cheap kits.
It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?
I agree to a great extent, especially regarding copies. Why don't people just have top-notch copies of masterpieces made for their walls? Status? You look cheap? (Possibly, the undistinguishable works in the article are of rare quality, and others are missing what makes the masterpieces special.)
But to the degree art is an individual's self-expression, then the fake is what you want. It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person. You might as well be in love with an AI.
I agree that it doesn't matter to many people. If the image is great, then it's great art. End of story.
But when it comes to history, fake art can pollute our knowledge of the painter and the history. While many fakes use the same typical subjects, imagine that a faker created a canvas with a different story. If this story gets injected into the history, everyone's knowledge of the painter is corrupted.
There are two ways to look at art. First is for you personally to have something you enjoy to look at. Second is to have sonething that impresses others (perhaps a buyer.)
Owning a beautiful Van Gough is a pleasure to look at. Frankly if it visually fools an expert then it completely fulfill goal 1.
But if you're trying to impress others, or a buyer, then the point is not the painting itself, but rather the status it imbues. To those that value status, faked status is the worst offense.
Of course if the point is to show "I can afford to spend x million on a painting ", and you did, then forgery or not presumably you've achieved the goal.
Once you get beyond "pretty picture" the art world is completely arbitrary.
I've hung prints on the walls, but they aren't as nice as an actual painting, as the paint gives it a glow and 3D look that a flat print cannot match.
I'd be happy hanging up worthless fakes that it takes an expert to discern from original great art.
My computer "wallpaper" throws up scans of great works of art. Unfortunately, it is bafflingly hard to find good scans of that stuff. It's all public domain, what's the problem?
True story. When I was a kid I worked in an auction house that sold many paintings. Painting of ships flying the American flag were very highly sought after. It was an open secret that paintings flying any other flag would be bought and the flag replaced by an American one by an ‘art restorer’. These were then sold at great profit.
If the fake has been a great art effort… wouldn’t that be an art piece by itself? What I mean by this is that the Roman copies of Greek statues are seen as “art” today. Is just a matter of perspective or legality?
Readit News
A few times, I would be invited to company HQ and introduced to the product, have the stitching and design details explained to me, a lay humble scruffy programmer. I can still spot a quality handbag from miles away because of it.
The work itself was _fascinating_ to me, and spotting fakes was... obvious but only once you knew _why_ it was obvious. A couple of examples:
* (easiest) Does brand X make phone covers? Well, probably not because that would make them look cheap and accessible to all, and that's _very much not_ the point of being a luxury goods house.
* (... tricker) Are there _any_ loose stitches visible, or imperfections of any kind? If I had been thinking logically, this wouldn't be an issue. But, like the buyers, I hadn't been, and I hadn't realised that -of course- luxury goods are hand checked by many people, many times over, because... again, that's the whole point of being a luxury goods house.
While there was plenty to learn about mismatched parts - plus the joy of independent designers creating new and sometimes quite brilliantly designed new items (always a shame, some of them knew the brand styles staggeringly well) - looking at the zips that match a leather which match so-and-so design element, the examples above covered the majority of counterfeit items by far. Can't imagine it's changed that much in the meantime.
On the plus side, the factory faces a problem as the consequences of being caught are severe. They’ll often take mitigating action to try and obfuscate the source, such as using slightly different materials so eg leather stock can’t be traced. When I was in the industry, it’d be unusual for a factory to produce the exact same thing without _any_ attempt to hide.
If you’ve ever seen a dvd with the various identifiers sanded off, now you know why :)
Deleted Comment
There are of course forgeries in music instruments of high value - violins - and the ugly reality that Chibsons exist and are pieces of shit because they’re produced by a culture with serious fucking problems relating to creativity and freedom of expression and individuality.
As a beginner, I’m too much of a cheapskate to drop $9,000 on a musical instrument. I can’t even play properly or distinguish the right tones yet.
I agree with you that, at my current skill level, my ability to express creativity and individuality is limited. But I’m okay with that. For now, I just want to enjoy learning to play the music I love. I’ll consider upgrading once my skills improve.
I am not learning guitar.
Not sure about acoustic guitars specifically but for electrics there's plenty of evidence that the magic is mostly in the hands (and the brains) of the player.
Plenty of yt videos on that subject blind trials and stuff as well as stars playing regular or cheap kits.
Somebody's buying them, though.
It's very strange and a bit sad but gripping.
"I'm addicted to philanthropy." --Mark Landis
But to the degree art is an individual's self-expression, then the fake is what you want. It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person. You might as well be in love with an AI.
I'm interested in the beauty of the painting.
But when it comes to history, fake art can pollute our knowledge of the painter and the history. While many fakes use the same typical subjects, imagine that a faker created a canvas with a different story. If this story gets injected into the history, everyone's knowledge of the painter is corrupted.
Owning a beautiful Van Gough is a pleasure to look at. Frankly if it visually fools an expert then it completely fulfill goal 1.
But if you're trying to impress others, or a buyer, then the point is not the painting itself, but rather the status it imbues. To those that value status, faked status is the worst offense.
Of course if the point is to show "I can afford to spend x million on a painting ", and you did, then forgery or not presumably you've achieved the goal.
Once you get beyond "pretty picture" the art world is completely arbitrary.
I'd be happy hanging up worthless fakes that it takes an expert to discern from original great art.
My computer "wallpaper" throws up scans of great works of art. Unfortunately, it is bafflingly hard to find good scans of that stuff. It's all public domain, what's the problem?
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment