Posted 5 years ago
fhrjr2
(38 items)
I posted this a couple years ago in hopes of learning anything about it. I have had it roughly 30 years without knowing exactly what it is or where it was from. I submitted it to Barnaby's two days ago and got their report back today, right on schedule. It states in part:
The figure is seated in a cross-legged position. He is wearing a cloak which covers his arms and hands. The figure has an open mouth, a beard - his eyes and protruding nose are evident. He is wearing earbobs and a headdress with an an opening at the top. The material, when magnified, appears to be painted clay. The item is an incense burner and appears never to have never been used. The figure is a Mayan incense burner. The tall headdress is Mayan. The Mayans did have incense burners and were mainly associated with Itzamna, who was the shaman of the gods. The ancient Mayan incense burners were large and used as altars for sacrifice.
Additionally, Barnaby's was not informed of where the original owner got this or when, however their report contained the correct information as it was told to me by the original owner. Having read a negative post here recently about Barnaby's I decided to leave out some detail. I was pleasantly pleased with their estimated value.
Your appraisal sounds good but there is a limit of what can be done when looking at snapshot pictures. Did Barnaby's include a disclaimer that the item was appraised from pictures and not physically handled? For example, as an early camera expert and historian, when asked to render opinions and give appraisals on early wood cameras (I don't look at modern metal cameras), I include a disclaimer that my observations are based on pictures and not having actually having handled the item in person. Reproduced camera parts (etc.) are sometimes obvious but it has gotten to a point where great forgeries of rare, exotic equipment are being done. (FWIW … the George Eastman House and several museums occasionally reach out to me to discuss early cameras.)
Another example … gold cannot be authenticated from photographs; it must be tested … you get the idea.
Early ceramics, pottery, ivory wood, jade and so forth are easy to reproduce and cannot be accurately proven as authentic from average photographs. Yet photographs are a good tool and catch obvious issues. As such, appraisers might assume or comment that the value is based on the artifact being proven authentic.
In summary, rarer items should be examined in real life (as opposed to photographs) to truly have an accurate appraisal. I am not contesting your item is old or a reproduction. It is my opinion that the picture on this post (assuming it was used for the appraisal) lacks detail and accurate color rendition as the basis for a solid appraisal as opposed to "guidance."
rniederman Yes I am fully aware of what you are saying. The appraisal is nothing more than a means of gathering the information I failed to get previously. The other items I had Barnaby's appraise I took more action after their appraisal and before I gave the items away. I like to have a foundation and information to pass along when I give things to family members. While I could certainly use the money at this point in life, having a bit of satisfaction is worth way more. Besides I can only take with me what I brought into this world.
Brunswick, I would offer you some but it is empty for some reason. Must be a leak :)