Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries [NOOK Book]


The faking and forgery of works of art and antiquities is probably now more extensive than ever before. The frauds are aided by new technologies, from ink jet printers to epoxy resins, and driven by the astronomic prices realised on the global market.

This book aims to provide a comprehensive survey of the subject over a wide range of materials, emphasising how the fakes and forgeries are produced and how they may be detected by technical and...
See more details below
Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$134.49 price
(Save 15%)$160.00 List Price


The faking and forgery of works of art and antiquities is probably now more extensive than ever before. The frauds are aided by new technologies, from ink jet printers to epoxy resins, and driven by the astronomic prices realised on the global market.

This book aims to provide a comprehensive survey of the subject over a wide range of materials, emphasising how the fakes and forgeries are produced and how they may be detected by technical and scientific examination. The subject is exemplified by numerous case studies, some turning out not to be as conclusive as is sometimes believed.

The book is aimed at those likely to have a serious interest in these investigations, be they curator, collector, conservator or scientist.

Paul Craddock has recently retired from the Department of Conservation, Documentation and Science at the British Museum, where he was a materials scientist.

* The only scientific treatise on the subject
* Timely with the rise in value of antiquities and the lucrative business of faking
* Written by a specialist from the Department of Scientific Research at the British Museum
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780080939001
  • Publisher: Taylor & Francis
  • Publication date: 2/23/2009
  • Sold by: Barnes & Noble
  • Format: eBook
  • Edition number: 1
  • Pages: 640
  • File size: 16 MB
  • Note: This product may take a few minutes to download.

Read an Excerpt


By Paul Craddock


Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd.
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-08-093900-1

Chapter One

Introduction: Sources, motives, approaches and disclosures

... falsifications that mislead the public, corrupt aesthetic standards, distort history and waste money. Pope (1939)

A (very) brief history of faking and forgery

The deceptive simulation of fanything of value goes back into antiquity, and ancient accounts abound with descriptions of adulterated gold (Ramage and Craddock, 2000, pp. 27–53) and imitation gemstones (Taniguchi et al., 2002); moreover, the earliest known coin hoard contains counterfeits. Once antiques began to be appreciated they were copied, although the Roman copies of Greek originals do not seem to have been made with deceptive intent. Chinese Song period imitations of Han and earlier bronzes, made a thousand years ago, are more equivocal. They often do not seem to us to be deliberate forgeries, but they do have fake patinas and there are contemporary writings warning of the prevalence of forgeries and how to make them, the first on record (see Chapter 14, p. 356; Figure 14.7). From Late Antiquity in the West, the cult of relics flourished and, with that, the production of fakes and forgeries, exemplified by what is now perhaps the most famous of them all, the Shroud of Turin (see Chapter 5, p. 102). These began to be scientifically investigated by the Vatican in the late nineteenth century, probably the earliest dedicated authentication unit anywhere. Another prolific area of Medieval forgery was that of documents, particularly of supposedly old land grant charters, which could be used in cases of disputed ownership.

The interest in antiquities of all types that characterised the Renaissance led to the establishment of more formal collections and ultimately to the establishment of museums. The faking and forging of antiquities began at much the same time and has flourished ever since. Most of the early productions are not very convincing either stylistically or technically; this was due to a general lack of detailed stylistic information and an almost total ignorance of the appropriate materials and technology. The former began to be seriously addressed by art historians, notably Frederick Winckelmann, in the eighteenth century, and informed both collectors and forgers. This problem of information dissemination or restriction generated a debate that continues to this day (see p. 17).

In the nineteenth century there developed an interest in collecting archaeological, palaeontological, geological and ethnographic material, closely followed by their forgery (see Chapter 17, p. 429 and Chapter 19). For example, forgeries of preHispanic antiquities were already being made in Mexico in the 1820s for sale to tourists and collectors and were major trade items in some localities by the late nineteenth century (Holmes et al., 1886).

In Europe, interest in antique styles spread to the middle classes and brought about growth in the production of often quite passable copies of a wide range of decorative arts of all periods on an industrial scale. This process was very much aided by new replication techniques such as electroforming (see Chapter 4, p. 78) and color printing (see Chapter 13, p. 332). The combination of increasing art historical knowledge of past styles, coupled with often superb craftsmanship, enabled convincing fakes and forgeries of ceramics, glass, metalwork and jewellery, etc. to be produced. Fortunately, a combination of the Victorian attitude of knowing better than their predecessors, and a lack of technical knowledge of the past, means that there are often glaring anachronisms of materials and technique, which has, more recently, enabled some of their fakes and forgeries to be unmasked after scientific examination.

Through the twentieth century the availability of traditional craft skills may have declined, in Europe at least, but the ever-increasing prices realised by antiquities and objet d'art of all kinds have ensured that fraudulent production continues. Furthermore, craft skills at low cost are still widely available outside Europe, and there is a growing influx of passable copies of just about every class of antique and collectable item from fake-patinated Shang jade to Clarice Cliff pots, coming from the Far East. These 'shamtiques', available in every market, high street and shopping mall, are instantly recognisable for what they are and not usually sold as the genuine item even though they often have some rudimentary ageing and patination treatments. However, many of the traditional techniques used, from cloisonné enamelling to lost wax casting are fundamentally correct, and with a little more application convincing forgeries could, and probably are, being made in quantity in the same workshops.

At the same time new techniques of copying, exemplified by the ink-jet printer, and new materials, exemplified by epoxy resins, have made it much easier to produce copies that are visually convincing.

The combination of the above factors and the markets created by the ever-expanding middle classes across the world with too much ready cash and too little discrimination has resulted in a wider range and greater extent of fraudulent copying than ever before.

Fortunately, there has been a continuing improvement in the scientific methods of materials examination which has helped to counter this. There is also now a greatly expanded knowledge of the materials and technologies used in the past together with a more fundamental understanding of the physical and chemical processes of natural ageing and corrosion.

This book, being aimed at both the curator/ collector and the scientist, encounters the broader problem of the relationship between the arts and the sciences in the study of antiquities and works of art. So often the art historian/curator does not appreciate the capabilities or understand the limitations of modern scientific investigation, and equally the scientist often seems not to understand the real nature of the questions asked, or sufficiently appreciate the problems and opportunities presented by the materials.

Arts versus science?

The impression is sometimes given of the hapless and subjective art historian being brushed aside by the objective scientist who carries out a series of tests that rapidly and conclusively demonstrate the true age of the suspect piece, and everything else about it. Statements such as 'The scientist with cold, calculated clinical methods today can expose the forgery which will appear in any field ...' (Mills, 1972, p. 60), are fairly typical. Von Bothmer (1964), writing of the application of ultraviolet (UV) examination to rehabilitate an antiquity, noted with satisfaction that 'The introduction of technical considerations somewhat spoils the sport of attacking works of art since intuition and stylistic appreciation now have to be coordinated with laborious scientific investigation'. Indictor (1998), discussing the examination of the Buyid silks (see Chapter 18, p. 462), made the contentious claim that 'objective dating [AMS dating in this instance] should routinely precede stylistic or other technical studies in order to avoid the embarrassment of misattribution' (but see Spier, 1990 for a counterview).

In reality, the two approaches are very similar and must work together. The elements of the information they contain are complementary, information from one discipline often being essential to the study of the other, and the scientific data should be seen as extending the range of existing information, certainly not replacing it. The supposed Roman lamp in the form of a gladiator's helmet is a high-profile example of a case where, apparently science conclusively overturned the previous art historical opinion. The helmet had graced the cover of the British Museum's popular guide to Classical pottery lamps (Figure 1.1) (Bailey, 1972) before being shown to be a forgery by TL (Bailey, 1988, p. 433, Q3401). The reality was that Don Bailey, the curator responsible for the Museum's collection of Classical lamps, had become worried about the authenticity of the lamp during the compilation of his magisterial catalogue of the collection, and requested that it be tested to confirm his suspicions.

Many of the authors of books on fakes and forgeries seem to take the view that scientific tests are fundamentally different in approach from those of the art historian and are somehow more reliable. In fact, the art historical/stylistic criteria are based on ordinary physical properties of color, texture, weight, dimensions, etc. that the art historian is mentally quantifying and comparing to a canon of genuine pieces. This is exactly the process carried out by the scientist, except that the information is often obtained using a piece of apparatus that produces the data as a number.

Part of the problem is that these numerical results are perceived by the non-scientist as being somehow sacrosanct and unchallengeable. The non-specialist usually lacks the knowledge to assess how meaningful the figures are, and also, very often, the qualifying data on accuracy, precision and detection limits (see Chapter 3, p. 41) which is necessary for this to be done is not provided. Even so it is not the numerical value itself of whatever parameter which condemns or authenticates the suspect piece, but rather the value judgement put upon it, based upon comparison with other pieces, which is exactly the same approach as that adopted by the art historian.

An example is given by Drake's Plate of brass (see Chapter 7, p. 150). This was supposedly left by the great voyager near present-day San Francisco, and is condemned partly because of the very high zinc content of 34.2%, which is above the 33.3% maximum believed to be the limit attainable in the sixteenth century. However, it would be very incautious to condemn the piece on that 0.9% of zinc alone. What is the reliability (the accuracy) of the figure, and the significance of the 0.9% (the precision)? Also, how certain is the upper limit of 33.3%? Certainly the zinc content is unusually high for the sixteenth century, but is it impossible to have been achieved? This is where value judgements based on a more general experience must be made, very much as an art historian would do.

Even some of the most famous and extensively investigated authenticity cases are not fully resolved, or at least not universally accepted. Forgeries, such as the infamous ceramics from Glozel, which archaeologists, notably O.G.S. Crawford and Glyn Daniels in Britain and A. Vayson de Pradenne in France, could not resist repeatedly and almost gleefully attacking, were latterly shown to be almost certainly ancient after all (see Chapter 6, p. 119). Some, such as theVinland Map, are still tenaciously defended (see Chapter 13, p. 340), while others produce scientific data that is presently irresolvable and thus remain undecided, such as the real age of King Arthur's Round Table at Winchester Castle (see Chapter 6, p. 133). If nothing else, these cases help to dispel belief in the inflexible objective certainty of conclusions based on scientific examination and perhaps may encourage a more thoughtful and informed use of the data generated by the scientists and the conclusions drawn from them.


Excerpted from SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF COPIES, FAKES AND FORGERIES by Paul Craddock Copyright © 2009 by Elsevier Ltd.. Excerpted by permission of Butterworth-Heinemann. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Foreword;Introduction; Examination: Microscopy, Radiography; Examination: Physical analytical techniques applied to authenticity;Methods of copying in 3 dimensions:Appropriate technology, Moulding,Pointing & Electroforming;Dating 1:Radiocarbon;Dating 2: TL and Dendrochronology; Metals: Compositional;Metals: Metalworking and coins;Ceramics and Faience;Glass and Enamels;Stone and Sculpture;Fine Art:Painting;Copying in 2 dimensions:Printing. Fine Art on Paper and Documents;A History of Patination on Bronze;Gold and Silver in Jewellery and Plate;Jewellery: Gems and Jade;Organics;Natural Materials:Ivory, Amber, and Wood;Organics: Synthetic Materials: Plastics and Textiles;Scientific Fraud and Charles Dawson;Conclusion: Problems of Conservation and Deceptive restoration;Glossary;Bibliography
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)