|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
Gentlemen,
I would like to know your opinion about this tab. The rune's angles seems to be much sharper, but materials and construction methods seems to be fine.
original or repro? (sorry for low quality pics)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
detail 3
thanks to everybody.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 318
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 318 |
It could be the scan. The metallic material seems too bright. I don't like it for other reasons, though. Not enough thread is used to construct the runes and they are way off center. General quality is poor. Just my opinion. 
Mike Dalton
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
surely the high brightness is my webcam purpose, not the wire. I had to spot a light to made pics. anyway, thanks for informations about materials. but, what's about the reun's shape? are too angled and shaped to be original or does exists in some way a sharp shape like this found in orignal pieces?
thanks, fabio
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,439
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,439 |
there are period photos showing some odd rune angles & tab shapes, but anything non-textbook needs to be viewed with extra suspicion.
it looks like 2 strand collar piping, which again is not textbook ideal.
overall, I am not that excited about this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
this is the other one. it is matching. what about this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,439
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,439 |
is the piping 2 or 3 stranded? (it is kind of an optical illusion so its hard for me to tell)
Did you hit them with a UV light? any reaction anywhere?
I guess this is where a "hands on" inspection comes in, they are not textbook pieces, so you have to start looking closer, as they say " The devil is in the details". its hard to see the finish on the buckram.
They could be fine, but from the pics, I am not crazy about them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
hallo, the piping is made (for both tabs) with 3 wires as should be. here you can see it.
anyway I haven't tested these tabs under black light.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
here is the buckram base as close as I can picture of the runic one:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
and from the ranked one (slightly different in colour and grain):
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
|
|
OP
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 123 |
another detail. please help me, I have to choose if to keep them in my collection or give'em back to the seller. thanks, fabio
|
|
|
|
Forums42
Topics31,678
Posts329,209
Members7,532
| |
Most Online5,900
Dec 19th, 2019
|
|
|
8 members (Mikee, Jonesy, The_Collector, Documentalist, Vern, seany, Dave, Luftbud),
539
guests, and
101
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
