fred
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:441
 |
| 18 Dec 2014 09:17 AM |
|
Have'nt we seen this enamel on Ebay before?
Owner wants £ 11 K and is heavily restored, dare I say over restored to perfection.
Something bothers me about this sign, is it geniune?
Seems too good to be true perhaps?
Fred Kite
|
|
|
|
|
enamels1000
Guru Tat
Posts:2382
|
| 18 Dec 2014 09:52 AM |
|
I think you could be right fred,,the members on ALs second to none site will soon deliver a verdict,,repro or not,,I would sooner pay 11k for a pair of pearled handled 44 colts. |
|
|
|
|
fleece77
Guru Tat
Posts:2120
|
| 18 Dec 2014 11:03 AM |
|
it's the back of the sign that doesn't look right to me. |
|
|
|
|
sign-seeker
Tat Addict
Posts:900
|
|
Advertising Antiques Ltd
Guru Tat
Posts:4949
|
| 18 Dec 2014 01:43 PM |
|
Its a hefty restoration job! |
|
|
|
|
Jimbo
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:331
|
|
Jimbo
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:331
|
|
sign-seeker
Tat Addict
Posts:900
|
| 18 Dec 2014 04:23 PM |
|
I think you're absolutely right to be suspicious of that one, Jimbo!!! Interesting it says at the top 'The Illustrated London News April 1912' suggesting it's reproduced from a page of the paper, although it rather cheekily says 'Patent Enamel MCR GDU' on the bottom edge!!! It's complete and utter rubbish! |
|
|
|
|
rustycutters
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:184
|
| 18 Dec 2014 08:49 PM |
|
If that Shell sign isn't a reproduction I will eat my hat.
I got caught out at the Ballarat Swap Meet several years ago with a woollen sign and the back is what gives it away for sure.Experience will tell you the rust is wrong and I can make them look like that very easily.
The bloke I purchased the woollen sign off just happened to married to a Chinese lady and guess what, the signs were made in China. Very hard to tell but they were. Luckily for me I got my money back and I can still hear the seller abusing me as I walked away. I say luckily because he has been known to pull a gun on people.
Stay right away and spend the money on a trip to Australia and I'll show you my sign collection instead!
Regards,
George Grant |
|
|
|
|
langcat
Tat Addict
Posts:676
|
| 20 Dec 2014 12:30 PM |
|
Well George, start looking for the salt & pepper. :-)
The Shell sign is 100% original, NO copy but heavely restored. I know the seller and I have seen the sign in the flesh. |
|
|
|
|
Nigel
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:214
|
| 20 Dec 2014 12:35 PM |
|
It's chuffing awful anyway, wouldn't pay £20 for it! |
|
|
|
|
Mick G
Guru Tat
Posts:3049
|
| 20 Dec 2014 04:57 PM |
|
In my opinion, if a picture of the un-restored 'before' picture could be posted, it would lend a lot more merit to the naysayers. I also think the sign woudl fetch a lot more if left un-restored or if a guy took a can of paint thinner and brought it back to original. If I wanted a painting, I woudl commission an artist to make. Sympethitc restoration of perhaps a bad chip are a small area is one thing, but to repaint the entire sign is quite another. |
|
|
|
|
fred
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:441
|
| 22 Dec 2014 08:57 AM |
|
Mick G sums up the whole business of restoration very well.
Enamels should never be 'over-restored' and this Shell Benzin is absolute proof of that.
Why not start fron scratch with a bare sheet of metal ! Daft (and misleading)
Fred Kite |
|
|
|
|
fred
Mad Keen Collector
Posts:441
|
| 22 Dec 2014 08:58 AM |
|
Dead right Mick, over restoring signs is bad and misleading. see posted comment on main page.
Fred Kite |
|
|
|
|