goods" was in response to Stephen's belief that the restoration was on
an area of the pot that was not mentioned in the COA; in other words,
*if* Stephen's belief is correct. I was commenting purely on the wording
of the COA, not on the method of detection.
It remains to be seen whether Stephen's belief is correct or not.
David K.
--- In Ancientartifacts@yahoogroups.com, "jmwarren2001" <jm4906@...>
wrote:
>
> In defense of Ernie, who I don't know, you guys seem to think this
> acetone test done by a collector (not a recognized expert in
> restoration) settles the whole matter. First, that is NOT proof of
> restoration. You would need more proof than that. Have you tried
> blacklight? And, you have indeed now altered the piece. Suppose you
> removed original pigment and the piece is 100% accurately described?
> Once again, your test isn't enough to determine if Ernie's description
> was not accurate. I suggest you take good images of the piece and post
> them. Let people see the piece, and see if they can see restoration.
> Unless it is done by quite a talented person, experienced collectors
> should be able to see something.
>
> Joel
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Ancientartifacts-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Ancientartifacts-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Ancientartifacts-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
