Is PROVENANCE just a story ?

[38Driver]

It still requires each person to make a leap of faith at some point based on thier own interpretation of the "facts", paper trail or otherwise.

 

It's being a jury of one where we take the evidence and we have and decide. The strength of the evidence may vary but I don't think any of it will ever be 100 percent for sure.

[manayunkman]

We will get to the leap of faith and yes you are right you must weigh the evidence.

 

But we have to determine where to begin.

 

We can't agree on what provenance is so here is a wikipedia definition.

 

Provenance (from the French provenir, "to come from"), is the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object.^[1] The term was originally mostly used in relation to works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including archaeology, paleontology, archives, manuscripts, printed books, and science and computing. The primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production or discovery, by establishing, as far as practicable, its later history, especially the sequences of its formal ownership, custody, and places of storage. The practice has a particular value in helping authenticate objects. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.

 

You can see in the definition it refers to original production as being part of the lineage of provenance and owner ship being the other ingredient.

 

Original production through ownership that documents it's authenticity.

 

Does this make sense ?

 

This isn't my opinion this is a definition, a fact.

[cutiger83]

Trying to define provenance is a conundrum.

 

Even you have contradicted yourself thru this thread. In your very first post you said:

“Provenance is just a story myself included (especially if I know where I got it but have no proof)”

 

Then several posts later you said:

“Provenance is not a story and things don't speak for themselves they have provenance.”

 

Another example where you said:

“We can't agree on what provenance is so here is a wikipedia definition: ‘original production through ownership that documents its’ authenticity. ‘ This isn't my opinion this is a definition, a fact.”

 

This last sentence contradicts itself. You state that no one can agree on provenance. You quote a definition from wikipedia. Then state this is not your opinion. You are interpreting the wikipedia definition in your own terms so it is in fact your opinion.

 

In my opinion, the wikipedia definition relates more to art than a military item. The definition says “but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.” Each person’s definition of documentation is going to be different. Whether it is for a piece of art or a military item, the definition will be different. As aef1917 stated “Being able to tell where a certain paint came from is used to authenticate objects when there is no provenance, but it is not provenance.”

 

You said:

“My main concern is that we all understand what provenance is. It is the factual history of something.”

 

My main concern is that you understand the factual history of something is defined differently for different people. You will never be able to get a complete agreement on who considers what to be factual. As others have repeatedly stated on here, each person will look at the definition of provenance in their own way. It is basically a “leap of faith”.

 

...Kat

[manayunkman]

According to Webster's provenance is

 

Origin, source,history of ownership.

 

This isn't my opinion this is what changed my opinion.

 

I used to think provenance was a story but it isn't.

 

It's about how something is made, who made it, who owned it and etc.

 

Each step has it's own set of facts, not opinions, that fall into a time line.

 

This in turn tells a factual story.

 

Now the leap of faith comes in if there are no or not enough facts to back anything up.

 

Maybe there are facts that you need to research.

 

Maybe all the evidence is not in yet on a certain subject.

 

You are going to have to weigh the facts and then make a leap.

 

But we have seen countless items and groupings here on the forum for sale that have impeccable provenance and only require money not faith.

 

 

Maybe faith that you'll get the money.

[aef1917]

According to Webster's provenance is

 

Origin, source,history of ownership.

 

This isn't my opinion this is what changed my opinion.

 

I used to think provenance was a story but it isn't.

 

It's about how something is made, who made it, who owned it and etc.

 

Each step has it's own set of facts, not opinions, that fall into a time line.

 

This in turn tells a factual story.

 

Now the leap of faith comes in if there are no or not enough facts to back anything up.

 

Maybe there are facts that you need to research.

 

Maybe all the evidence is not in yet on a certain subject.

 

You are going to have to weigh the facts and then make a leap.

 

But we have seen countless items and groupings here on the forum for sale that have impeccable provenance and only require money not faith.

 

 

Maybe faith that you'll get the money.

 

You're combining two separate definitions of the word. My Websters says:

1. Origin, source

2. History of ownership

 

The first is most often used in archaeology, and has two facets: [1] where an artifact was found, and [2] its origins (e.g. [1] This side-notched Sinaguan projectile point was found at Montezuma Castle, [2] and is made from obsidian originating from the Mule Creek obsidian source.), and the second in arts/antiques (as in the example I posted above).

 

As a trained archaeologist, I can see that there is potential value in applying archaeological provenance studies to militaria. However, collecting militaria bears a closer relationship to the arts/antiques world than archaeology, and "provenance" as used in those fields is what is understood to be its meaning in militaria collecting as well. Bringing a technical term from another field into one that already has an established definition for that term is needlessly confusing. There's nothing wrong with using aspects of archaeological provenance studies in militaria collecting. Just don't call it "provenance" without qualification.

[cutiger83]

According to Webster's provenance is

 

Origin, source,history of ownership.

 

This isn't my opinion this is what changed my opinion.

 

Your interpretation of Webster’s definition of provenance in regards to military collecting is “It's about how something is made, who made it, who owned it”.

 

According to Webster, the word origin means “the point or place where something begins”. Also according to Webster, the word source means “someone or something that provides what is wanted or needed”.

 

To me, the definition of provenance in regards to military collecting is “when a soldier served and was issued the item”, “the original soldier/owner providing proof of the item”, and “the documentation to go along with the history of ownership”.

 

Now if we were talking about art, I would agree that how something is made would apply. Each artist has a different type of paint stroke, type of paint, autograph etc that proves who was the original artist.

 

Knowing how something is made in regards to militaria has nothing to do with provenance (history of ownership). One example you used was an item issued in the 1980’s would not be a WWII item. That has nothing to do with who owned the item but rather authenticity. However, dates of manufacture don’t always match up with date used. There were WWII surplus items being used in Korea and also In Vietnam.

 

Therefore, I believe this is your interpretation of the definition and not true facts about provenance. You have one opinion and I have another. Who is to say who is correct and who is wrong? As I said before, you will never get everyone to believe the same thing.

[cutiger83]

Looks like aef1917 and I were replying with basically the same thing at about the same time.

 

Maybe this description of provenance on the PBS website will help

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/glossary/provenance.html

[manayunkman]

I agree with that definition 100%.

 

But I invite you to consider that it is only part of the story.

 

When you walk up to a vendor and pick up a hat and they say it belonged to Gen Bradley what is the first thing you do ?

 

Check out the story ?

 

No you look at the hat to make sure it is real and if it is made the way a hat should be made that is worn by such a person.

 

If you can't figure out if the hat is even right in the first place there is no point in checking out the story or maybe the sellers story will fool you.

 

Which goes back to the adage "buy the hat not the story".

 

Before you get involved in any story you must first determine if the item is correct.

 

If it is correct now it's provenance is important, if it even has any, other than the fact it is correct or real.

 

It starts with determining originality.

 

 

 

 

[Dan Niles]

I think there is some confusion here between authentication vs provenance. It keeps being brought up about authenticating the item first, I don't believe anybody has questioned that. I think we all can agree if an item is being sold with a "story" and the story takes place in 1944 and the item wasn't manufactured until 1953 let's say, then no doubt the story isn't true, case closed. I think most here are trying to establish how provenance or "story" that goes along with an item is defined by any given individual. It will never be strictly defined by a definition in any given reference book as definitions can and do vary with time. Trust me, words that meant one thing thirty years ago don't always mean the same today. Whether any of us like it or not there will always be a certain element of trust that goes into any type of collecting. By splitting hairs it is quite possible some of these stories which are indeed part of the items history will go untold and that would be a shame. I feel that most here have enough experience and common sense to differentiate between BS and "stories" vs elements that when pieced together give "provenance" to an item whatever that item may be.

 

The reason I mention a certain amount of trust is because no matter where you or I or anyone else may obtain a collectable item even if you, as an example, were to take the helmet right off the soldiers head once you pass it on it even with documentation it will become a story. Personally sometimes the investigation of the item whether to authenticate it or to try to verify the "story" can be the funniest part of the hobby. Collectables of all types are undergoing all types of authentication process's and even then you still have to have some trust, lets say items that have holograms such as many sports collectables, you still have to have some trust that the original source was trustworthy and the item your buying is indeed genuine.

 

In the end we will all determine to our own satisfaction if an item is real and if it has a "story" behind it that story is true. In my case that is why I am a member of this forum, I learn something new everyday here which gives me the experience to determine first, if an item is genuine, original, and if it comes with a story I will have the tools to determine if that "story" makes sense whether through documentation, pictures, or directly from the individual it was obtained from. Thanks to all here who have helped me in gaining the knowledge to make educated decisions when buying and selling US Militaria.

[cutiger83]

I think there is some confusion here between authentication vs provenance. It keeps being brought up about authenticating the item first, I don't believe anybody has questioned that. I think we all can agree if an item is being sold with a "story" and the story takes place in 1944 and the item wasn't manufactured until 1953 let's say, then no doubt the story isn't true, case closed. I think most here are trying to establish how provenance or "story" that goes along with an item is defined by any given individual. It will never be strictly defined by a definition in any given reference book as definitions can and do vary with time.

 

 

Exactly! Very well said....Kat

[aef1917]

I agree with that definition 100%.

 

But I invite you to consider that it is only part of the story.

 

When you walk up to a vendor and pick up a hat and they say it belonged to Gen Bradley what is the first thing you do ?

 

Check out the story ?

 

No you look at the hat to make sure it is real and if it is made the way a hat should be made that is worn by such a person.

 

If you can't figure out if the hat is even right in the first place there is no point in checking out the story or maybe the sellers story will fool you.

 

Which goes back to the adage "buy the hat not the story".

 

Before you get involved in any story you must first determine if the item is correct.

 

If it is correct now it's provenance is important, if it even has any, other than the fact it is correct or real.

 

It starts with determining originality.

 

 

 

 

 

A vendor saying "This hat belonged to Omar Bradley." is not provenance. Provenance would perhaps begin with a photo of Gen. Bradley wearing said hat, followed by an invoice for the hat from his estate auction with the name of the buyer, followed by documentation of each subsequent sale and owner down to the vendor whose table it is sitting on.

 

The study of materials, techniques, styles, etc. falls into what is known in the art/antiques world as connoisseurship. Connoisseurship is often used in the study of objects without provenance, or to authenticate items with gaps in their provenance. Objects with clear provenance help to inform connoisseurship by providing known original examples for study and comparison. While connoisseurship frequently takes any documented provenance into account, it is not the same thing as provenance, and it does not create provenance.

 

In the absence of documented provenance, even under the most rigorous study, the best Omar Bradley's hat in the example above can hope for is attribution, which is not the same as provenance.

[zotig111]

Another question to ask may be "Is provenance really needed?".

 

If I am buying a generic WWII M1 helmet do I care who wore it and if there is a story behind it? If you are looking for a piece to complete a display or show a representative example, other than establishing the item's authenticity, why would provenance matter?

 

Example: I buy a mint WWII M1 helmet. Since I know that the odds of a mint helmet being used and maintained for 70 plus years is highly unlikely, I assume that the helmet is most likely surplus parts put together to represent an item that would have been issued to a GI or Marine. As long as the helmet is assembled using authentic WWII parts, why would provenance be important. I am not trying to prove that it belonged to Chesty Puller.

 

In my opinion, provenance becomes important when you are trying to authenticate an item AND a story. If I am offered a helmet that belonged to Patton, I want to see the ownership trace and physical evidence that establishes it's provenance AND verifies the claim.

 

Someone earlier mentioned a certificate of authenticity. These are not provenance. They are complete BS. Anyone can offer one and it is subject to the scruples/morals of the issuer. In my opinion, these certificates are a marketing tool to justify higher prices and provide some assurance to those who don't want to spend time to get educated on their collectibles.

[normaninvasion]

I first learned of provenance when we were selling a family home and a good portion of the contents was being auctioned off, most of which had been in the family for a couple 100 yrs. A lot of it was picked up locally, as family members were collectors of local history and antiques. First thing the auctioneer wanted me to do was include any provenance relating to these items. There definition was: what is the origin of the item, what is the chain of ownership, did it come from a locally known collection or locally known family.? ect. Some of this stuff was luckily written down. The info was included in the auction descriptions. In the end I don't think it made much of a difference in the bidding but it was put forth in case anyone cared.

 

At a later date, in a case of no provenance> I was selling a 18th cent. piece of furniture, made by a local craftsman, to a collector is specializes in this maker. He wanted me to dig up anything I could regarding the chain of ownership. I had nothing except the family tree. He checked this against the complete records kept by the craftsman. Nothing matched. In the end, it is what it is, an example of this known craftsman work done in the late 18th cent. No cool provenance but a beautiful and true example of history.

[Dan Niles]

Someone earlier mentioned a certificate of authenticity. These are not provenance. They are complete BS. Anyone can offer one and it is subject to the scruples/morals of the issuer. In my opinion, these certificates are a marketing tool to justify higher prices and provide some assurance to those who don't want to spend time to get educated on their collectibles.

 

I am the one who mentioned COA's and I in no means intended for that to be mine or anyone's interpretation on "provenance". If you read my post through it was an example of still having to have some trust in the "story" or provenance of an item. I agree I don't like COA's either but I do know that their are folks that make a living authenticating items including military. In many collecting fields, much like grading a coin which I feel is subject to one's opinion, you can't hardly sell the item without it. It is just the way it is in our society today. Again I thought the original thread was to define the word provenance and how it was interpreted by our peers. Much like the posts in this thread it never ceases to amaze me how each individual will interpret a given posting, it is what makes us all unique in our thinking and interpretation of what we read or believe.

 

I agree with many of the previous posters on learning as much about your hobby as possible to determine the "originality" of any given item. Maybe provenance is not a good choice of words but much like the word "mint" it will always be up to the individual collector to decide what that means to them and most of us have established our own guidelines as far as any given definition of a word. In the end it comes back to the old saying, "you'll never make everybody happy". This has been a fun thread to be a part of and, of course, anything I've written here is strictly my opinion for what that is worth. I do thank the moderators of this forum for letting us express our opinions in a civil manner, I think each and everyone of them do a good job here and this is one of the forum's where learning is good experience. Lastly I will stick with my opinion on provenance that one will always have to have a certain amount of trust to believe it.

 

[manayunkman]

 

A vendor saying "This hat belonged to Omar Bradley." is not provenance. Provenance would perhaps begin with a photo of Gen. Bradley wearing said hat, followed by an invoice for the hat from his estate auction with the name of the buyer, followed by documentation of each subsequent sale and owner down to the vendor whose table it is sitting on.

 

The study of materials, techniques, styles, etc. falls into what is known in the art/antiques world as connoisseurship. Connoisseurship is often used in the study of objects without provenance, or to authenticate items with gaps in their provenance. Objects with clear provenance help to inform connoisseurship by providing known original examples for study and comparison. While connoisseurship frequently takes any documented provenance into account, it is not the same thing as provenance, and it does not create provenance.

 

In the absence of documented provenance, even under the most rigorous study, the best Omar Bradley's hat in the example above can hope for is attribution, which is not the same as provenance.

 

My example was to illustrate that before you can delve into provenance you first have to determine if the item is right.

[zotig111]

Dan,

I hope you didn't take my comments on COAs as a shot at your post. I was just adding my opinion on them. As you did mention, it all depends on where they come from that makes you potentially feel better about "provenance".

 

I think you hit the nail right on the head that it is still up to each individual to determine (subjectively) the condition of an item, the validity of the "provenance" and if it is "iron-clad" enough for them.

 

The funny thing is that you never heard about provenance before we had the internet and forums. You bought from a guy face to face based on his reputation, your knowledge base, and/or... based on the seller's story.

 

This has defintiely been an interesting thread...

 

[Teamski]

This reminds me of a propeller blade I have. When I was stationed in the UK, I was fortunate enough to attend a couple Aerojumble sales. These were aviation flea markets where anything from a Hurricane canopy hood to a ME-110 rear machine gun ring could be found. Well, I walked up to a pair of propeller blades tied up to a tree. They were black with the yellow tips and still had the metal bases to them. They had nice aging on them. I wanted one real bad, and the guy at the table asked 90 quid ($150) for each of them. I was only a SSgt at the time, but my wife gave me the go-ahead to get one. The story is as follows: The seller stated that he and his buddy got them from a farmer in Lincolnshire who had them in a barn for the last 60 years. They came off of a Wellington that crash landed in the farmer's field. When they recovered the bomber, they left the blades. OK, I went with it and looked at photos of Wellington Mk II's that have a blade very similar.

 

Anyways over the years, I would look up photos online and try to convince myself the blade was off of a Wellington. Well, it isn't. All is not bad, though. It is a Jablo propeller blade off of a Spitfire Mk V. I really wish I got the other blade!

 

So, never believe the story!!! There is no replacement for cold, hard paperwork!

 

-Ski

[Dan Niles]

Tom,

 

I couldn't agree with you more, it is a shame that we have gotten to this point of distrust and no I didn't feel you were taking a shot at my post I just wanted to clarify what I was trying to say for others reading this.

 

It truly does amaze me how so many things that we collect have turned into such a "science" and the debates that trigger around them. I am from an older generation (age 55) that remembers walking in surplus stores as a kid and buying this stuff for pennies. Like everything else when large amounts of money come into play it always brings out the skepticism in all of us. Especially with the amount of fakes and down right thievery there is out there right now. This has been an interesting thread and it has been a pleasure being able to converse with all of you here.

[zotig111]

Dan,

I agree. I am 48 and don't recall asking for provenance on the $5 Iron Cross I bought at a flea market in 1972!

[manayunkman]

 

 

Exactly! Very well said....Kat

 

I have done some research on this and I used to be right but now I'm wrong.

 

The confusion stems from the fact that the definition of provenance, in the art world, has been clouded due to the Nazi stolen art.

 

Here is what the Brooklyn Museum states.

 

Since its inception in the nineteenth century, the Brooklyn Museum has been committed to documenting the objects in its holdings, including information about the provenance, or history of ownership, of these objects. Traditionally, scholars have viewed provenance as a tool to answer questions about the origins, display, and exchange of an artwork. More recently, however, museums have focused on provenance in an effort to clarify an object's whereabouts during the Nazi era (1933–1945), when some artworks were looted or stolen.

 

Here is what the Johnson Museum of Cornell says:

 

Provenance is the history of ownership of an object, beginning with the artist and date of execution, and moving forward to the present day.

 

The curator of the International Soccer Museum says about provenance:

 

Provenance is paramount to our collection. Since similar artifacts of our collection have become auction valuables, authentication and apprasals have become part and parcel of our work. Sporting items are made in abundance and counterfieted in equal proportion. This has become problematic.

 

 

The Met has gone right over to the new meaning.

 

Brooklyn has gone over but explains why.

 

Soccer has adopted authentication ( which to me was always part of it ) and appraisals into provenance.

 

Johnson still uses the old definition that covers A-Z.

 

"Traditionally" the word provenance covered the whole process.

 

The correct terms that are currently being used are provenience and provenance.

 

Provenance has become the history of ownership while provenience covers the origin.

 

Talk about splitting hairs but it has a purpose.

 

So what do we call it in our hobby if anything at all ?

 

My thought is is that once you define the process then we can talk about how to use it.

 

There is a logical process that can help eliminate a certain amount of guess work or "leap of faith" and stop you from making a bad decision.

 

But what do we call it ?

 

 

I see new collectors and even more seasoned collectors struggling to help each other but they are all over the place and not always on the same page.

 

There is a process, there are steps that can be learned and remembered so when you're out in the field or at your desk on your own with no help you can apply the process.

 

And it of course goes beyond that.

 

I know the old process which still has some validity but now there are so many more ways to find things and I have no idea how to apply the principles to that.

 

In a hobby that is constantly becoming more scientific and complex we need tools to help simplify.

[Andrei]

For me provenance is the place where I have bought the collectible. Yard sale, eBay, ragmill, vintage shop, thrift store, gun show, militaria show, fleamarket...

As long as the item is original and authentic, I am glad. If I can have a picture of the vet or buy it directly from him or his family, it is the icing on the cake.

For a VN war collector living in France, it is very difficult for me to find stuff at my local yard sales. I have to rely on eBay, USMF for sell section and occasionally US dealers online.

I collect exclusively uniforms and helmets. When I can ID the original owner in a roster of his unit or even find a picture of him online or in a book, I am happy. If I can't, I am still happy because I have another authentic VN war american uniform in my collection.

I am not a historian, I have jungle jacket addiction.

[manayunkman]

Andrei,

 

So you are happy just knowing your item is right but still feel the need to research and put a "face" to your jacket or helmet ?

 

This might be a stupid question but why go further than just knowing the item is right ?

[Andrei]

Andrei,

 

So you are happy just knowing your item is right but still feel the need to research and put a "face" to your jacket or helmet ?

 

This might be a stupid question but why go further than just knowing the item is right ?

 

Your question is not stupid.

Now we have internet and a large library on the VN conflict so it is just a way to double check the authenticity of the uniform. I really hate to have fake, put together uniforms in my collection.

[manayunkman]

Dan,

I agree. I am 48 and don't recall asking for provenance on the $5 Iron Cross I bought at a flea market in 1972!

 

 

I'm 58 and I know what you mean.

 

Things started to turn form me in the 80's when I became more grouping conscious.

 

Somewhere here I found the first list I ever got from a vet listing and ID'ing all the items that came from him. I got it around 1986.

 

After a 4 year break I got started up again but it wasn't until 1995 that stories, people and documentation really set in.

 

So ID'ing an item and establishing some kind of history to go with it was something I enjoyed doing.