Naval Boarding Weapons

[jwschaeffer]

I know this is now a pretty dead subject but I wanted to share this letter I got from a member of Sub Sea Research from Maine (subsearesearch.com):

Regarding the collection of Glass Naval Boarding-grenades as listed on[/align]Ebay, (links submitted by John Schaefer), I have the following opinions,[/align]Whatever it may be worth.[/align] [/align]The one thing about old glass, it is just about impossible to verify by[/align]Just a photograph whether or not an item is authentic or not. It is[/align]Certainly impossible to date the glass from a composition perspective,[/align](i.e. Mineral content). Nowadays anything can be reproduced exactly,[/align]Expecially glass items.[/align] [/align]What makes me doubt the claim of originality is the complete lack of[/align]Provenance for each item! As you may be well aware, Maine has some very[/align]Strict laws regarding shipwreck salvage & artifact recovery. And if[/align]These items had originated form a shipwreck site in Maine, there should[/align]Be a very large trail of paperwork regarding the exact provenance of[/align]Each item available from the State of Maine, available either through[/align]The State archaeologist or one of the State Universities. And I DOUBT[/align]VERY MUCH that either sourcing would condone any ebay selling of such[/align]Items as they are extremely rare in perfect and intact forms.[/align] [/align]Regarding the contemporary glass forms, they do appear to be exact[/align]According to known contemporary glass grenade-forms dating between the[/align]16th-19th century, and could originate from just about any nationality[/align]Of vessel, most probably a warship as merchants very rarely if ever[/align]Would have carried such weapons. My guess would be a privateer or[/align]Letter-of-marque. Maine rivers were good hiding places during the[/align]American Revolution for such vessels, and it is documented that several[/align]Such vessels were scuttled in Maine rivers during both the Revolution[/align]AND the War of 1812.[/align] [/align]Again... It is the lack of PROVENANCE of such items that I question more[/align]Than the contemporary accuracy of each piece. Without such provenance, I[/align]Would have to assume that the validity of such pieces are indeed[/align]Fraudulent. Whats more is that according to the ebay pieces, the[/align]Particular stabilization laboratory is not identified, and if these were[/align]Legitimate recoveries and items, there should be no problem in[/align]Identifying the shipwreck from which they originated, nor any such[/align]Problem in identifying the particular STATE AUTHORIZED laboratory![/align] [/align]Final analysis... Yes, until PROVENANCE and IDENTITY OF THE LABORATORY[/align]SOURCE, we have to assume that the items are indeed fake.[/align] [/align]Best;[/align]Ed.[/align] [/align]

 

[Bottleman]

Well eBay pulled her listing the other day and now she has re-listed it. This time she did the right thing and said that most believed it was from the 1970s and she didn’t mention anything about it being made in the 1700s. Here is a link to the auction:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bonus-Black-Glass-Seal-and-Freeblown-Bottle-Combo_W0QQitemZ320066322720QQihZ011QQcategoryZ13909QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

~~Tom

 

[GuntherHess]

I dont see anything wrong with that auction, why are people still bugging her (questions to seller)? As long as people dont missrepresent thier items who cares what price they list them for?

 

[kungfufighter]

Well done John. Although I certainly agree with and would not question the researcher's conclusions regarding salvage, stabilization and provenance I do think that the point needs to made that in fact one can OFTEN determine the general age or origin of a piece of glass from a picture alone. In this case I would again reassert that there is nothing about these bottles (manufacture techniques, glass texture, color, etc.) that would lead one to believe that they were made in the 18th or 19th century. Granted, there are some bottles and pieces of blown glass that require careful hands-on study but many can be distinguished as reproductions or fantasy pieces from pictures alone. In this instance the bottles are not reproductions (in that they do not resemble known period objects) but rather fantasy bottles made for the modern decorator. I think that this is an important distinction to make.

 

[kungfufighter]

Agreed. Marlena has actually done all of us a favor by giving folks a very public form to discuss the "deck sweepers."

 

[cc6pack]

Like a lot of you I've been following this with amazement that E would allow this carp. Now that they have put in disclaimers, everybody needs to go hit the report button at the bottom of the auction. By E rules you CANNOT list an item with disclaimers, you are required to verify that the item you post is real, original, etc. She cannot say make up your mind. Also now that she has had at least one of her auctions pulled E will watch the auctions she posts more closely hopefully this will make it eaiser to report any violations.

I'd also like to say good job to whoever it was that bid on her auctions wink[] wink[].

 

[jwschaeffer]

I have to say my concern about this, was not about "Marlena" it was more so about E seller sirmarkw. I have no clue what a deck sweeper, or boarding weapon etc etc is supposed to look like but I think it is completely wrong to be a profiteer off of other peoples ignorance. "sirmarkw" is being deceiving with many of his auctions, not just the bottles. Even though everyday in society it happens..its still wrong. "Honesty is the best policy"! I personally think these bottles and the story are "bogus". After conversations I had with individuals at the Maine State Museum, sirmarkw will be facing some serious consequences for the listings involving Gilkey Harbor. Best Regards...

 

[Mainepontil]

I still have a problem with Marlena listing modern glass in the antique pre 1900 category. She knows darn well what they are.

Sirmarkw....he is a piece of work. I wonder how many other maritime reproductions he has listed.

Joel

 

[Calico]

I believe she feels that by offering the black glass seal she is placing it in the correct category.
That's not the case though, the item that is actually up for auction has to be one that classified.

 

[GuntherHess]

True, but I think the catagory chosen is minor compared to what is said in the listing. If you deleted every item improperly listed on ebay you'd have to remove a huge numer of items. I think she did the right thing relisting the items, and no, ebay did not pull her auctions as many people assumed. The other ebay seller that started all this controversy is really the one that seems to be missleading people.
Just my opinion.