I think it's great you decided to come out with a UA-cam series! I've already learned quite a bit (being a beginning collector) and greatly enjoy these videos. Keep up the good work!
Very helpful and interesting. Personally I prefer to describe condition based on fact rather value judgement. In my view 'choice' can only refer to an item which is totally intact with original painting. 'Flawless' literally is only another word for 'intact'. For such items I would say 'intact and in superb condition'. I see a lot early Islamic bowls described as 'choice - with a few expected repairs and repainting'. I would call that 'repaired with a little repainting'. Otherwise it's a contradiction in terms and disingenuous. It creates the impression that for its age the buyer is getting the finest of its type generally available despite the repairs/repainting. But I don't think you would call such a bowl 'choice' judging from this video. It's very confusing because different dealers have different standards, so I think a simple description of fact rather than opinion is clearer. With Roman glass I have difficulty referring to a piece with as crack as 'excellent'. Of course, it depends on the size of the crack. Some are not visible from the outside, ie internal stress cracks. I would say 'intact apart from a minor internal stress crack' or if the crack is more serious 'complete but with a crack to' (and say where the crack is). If the glass has a chip that's more serious than a minor crack, so then I would say 'Chip to rim otherwise in good condition'. Compared with intact Roman glass the value can be reduced by between 30-50% by a small chip (less for a minor crack). Most collectors prefer Roman glass to be intact. But does that mean that all intact examples are 'choice'? I don't think so. It depends to what extent the glass is weathered or stained. Some people like their glass with iridescence, others prefer to see the original colour. Some intact examples have both beautiful iridescence and dirty staining (and iridescence is a form of chemical weathering). So I think it's safer simply to say 'intact' or 'intact with iridescence' and leave it at that.
I think it's great you decided to come out with a UA-cam series! I've already learned quite a bit (being a beginning collector) and greatly enjoy these videos. Keep up the good work!
I have a question about a stirrup bottle that's supposed to be pre Columbian...can I ask you to take a look at it for authenticity?
Very helpful and interesting. Personally I prefer to describe condition based on fact rather value judgement. In my view 'choice' can only refer to an item which is totally intact with original painting. 'Flawless' literally is only another word for 'intact'. For such items I would say 'intact and in superb condition'.
I see a lot early Islamic bowls described as 'choice - with a few expected repairs and repainting'. I would call that 'repaired with a little repainting'. Otherwise it's a contradiction in terms and disingenuous. It creates the impression that for its age the buyer is getting the finest of its type generally available despite the repairs/repainting. But I don't think you would call such a bowl 'choice' judging from this video. It's very confusing because different dealers have different standards, so I think a simple description of fact rather than opinion is clearer.
With Roman glass I have difficulty referring to a piece with as crack as 'excellent'. Of course, it depends on the size of the crack. Some are not visible from the outside, ie internal stress cracks. I would say 'intact apart from a minor internal stress crack' or if the crack is more serious 'complete but with a crack to' (and say where the crack is). If the glass has a chip that's more serious than a minor crack, so then I would say 'Chip to rim otherwise in good condition'. Compared with intact Roman glass the value can be reduced by between 30-50% by a small chip (less for a minor crack). Most collectors prefer Roman glass to be intact. But does that mean that all intact examples are 'choice'? I don't think so. It depends to what extent the glass is weathered or stained. Some people like their glass with iridescence, others prefer to see the original colour. Some intact examples have both beautiful iridescence and dirty staining (and iridescence is a form of chemical weathering). So I think it's safer simply to say 'intact' or 'intact with iridescence' and leave it at that.