Tweet
Relativity
Hi Phil. Thank you.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying it "sounds like a con-trick" to you. Who do you suspect is being tricked? Do you mean it was a trick on the part of whoever sold the purported "artifact" to the collector in the first place, because he was too gullible? As I stated, I agree that this is entirely possible.
To whom are you referring when you say "An attention, perhaps money-making scheme thing...perhaps I am being sceptical." Do you mean that the collector might be attempting to make money? He appeared to be spending money rather than making it. I haven't found any trace of a suggestion that any of part of the man's collection was for sale.
If you mean that perhaps the magazine itself was profiting by reporting on the amateur Ripper collection, this little article was buried at the bottom of a page and sandwiched between reports on rare book collections and old china. Nothing was being advertised for sale. The idea of selling wasn't even hinted at, and the collector's name wasn't published, so I can't see any ulterior motive.
(As I think I mentioned in a previous post, few of the "hobbyist"-type collectors owning the items described in this magazine had their names published; the magazine was quite discreet in that regard. A few artists or members of the nobility are named, but many of these by-name mentions occur only within posthumous reports; for example, when they pass away and their collection is broken up and sold. The buyers aren't named, nor are prices mentioned.)
The magazine's London correspondent clearly found the Ripper collection he describes to be a.) in bad taste and b.) of little to no serious interest to real collectors.
If the magazine wanted to in some way promote or exploit the "value" of that Ripper collection I think they would have gone about the article quite differently. In fact, the tone of this article is extremely dismissive from start to finish. The collector is introduced as being in the coal trade rather than as being a gentleman. He's described as jumping up from his meal in such a hurry that he has gravy dribbling from his chin, and trembling in excitement as he gloats over disgusting packets of blood-stained East End dirt... That's hardly a description designed to impress the collectors of Old Masters paintings or thousand-year-old Chinese porcelain and make them want to take up Ripper collecting!
This magazine is not in the least bit sensational; in fact much of it is crashingly dull. It's simply a specialty magazine written for private collectors, antiquarian booksellers, etc, that reports on American and European collections, museum bequests, etc. The magazine didn't broker the sale of any of the items it describes; nor did it represent any auction-houses. I honestly don't think the magazine had any vested interest in what its London or Paris or Berlin correspondent reported.
Of course it's possible that the London correspondent was a shameless liar who made the whole thing up for the sake of a brief article, but in that case I'd expect him to have come up with a rather more exciting story, wouldn't you? For example, wouldn't you expect the collection described to have contained at least one thrillingly sinister blood-stained dagger? That would have been much more interesting, even for those of us today who are serious students of history. In 1891 an article about a sinister bloody Ripper dagger would at least have appealed to other dagger and weapons collectors... I'm really not sure who a packet of stained dirt was supposed to appeal to.
We know that there were Ripper collectors even in the early days. Few of them would have been operating at the level of a George Sims. I guess I'm not really surprised that in 1891 a working-class collector and his meager assortment of East End murder memorabilia would be disparaged as vulgar and worthless by contemporary gentlemen collectors. However, I find it fascinating that the same collection would be distrusted or disparaged by some Ripper historians today for completely opposite reasons- essentially because such a collection is now seen as so cool, desirable, and historically valuable that it must be a hoax!
Just goes to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the value of objects is always relative.
Best regards,
Archaic
Hi Phil. Thank you.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying it "sounds like a con-trick" to you. Who do you suspect is being tricked? Do you mean it was a trick on the part of whoever sold the purported "artifact" to the collector in the first place, because he was too gullible? As I stated, I agree that this is entirely possible.
To whom are you referring when you say "An attention, perhaps money-making scheme thing...perhaps I am being sceptical." Do you mean that the collector might be attempting to make money? He appeared to be spending money rather than making it. I haven't found any trace of a suggestion that any of part of the man's collection was for sale.
If you mean that perhaps the magazine itself was profiting by reporting on the amateur Ripper collection, this little article was buried at the bottom of a page and sandwiched between reports on rare book collections and old china. Nothing was being advertised for sale. The idea of selling wasn't even hinted at, and the collector's name wasn't published, so I can't see any ulterior motive.
(As I think I mentioned in a previous post, few of the "hobbyist"-type collectors owning the items described in this magazine had their names published; the magazine was quite discreet in that regard. A few artists or members of the nobility are named, but many of these by-name mentions occur only within posthumous reports; for example, when they pass away and their collection is broken up and sold. The buyers aren't named, nor are prices mentioned.)
The magazine's London correspondent clearly found the Ripper collection he describes to be a.) in bad taste and b.) of little to no serious interest to real collectors.
If the magazine wanted to in some way promote or exploit the "value" of that Ripper collection I think they would have gone about the article quite differently. In fact, the tone of this article is extremely dismissive from start to finish. The collector is introduced as being in the coal trade rather than as being a gentleman. He's described as jumping up from his meal in such a hurry that he has gravy dribbling from his chin, and trembling in excitement as he gloats over disgusting packets of blood-stained East End dirt... That's hardly a description designed to impress the collectors of Old Masters paintings or thousand-year-old Chinese porcelain and make them want to take up Ripper collecting!
This magazine is not in the least bit sensational; in fact much of it is crashingly dull. It's simply a specialty magazine written for private collectors, antiquarian booksellers, etc, that reports on American and European collections, museum bequests, etc. The magazine didn't broker the sale of any of the items it describes; nor did it represent any auction-houses. I honestly don't think the magazine had any vested interest in what its London or Paris or Berlin correspondent reported.
Of course it's possible that the London correspondent was a shameless liar who made the whole thing up for the sake of a brief article, but in that case I'd expect him to have come up with a rather more exciting story, wouldn't you? For example, wouldn't you expect the collection described to have contained at least one thrillingly sinister blood-stained dagger? That would have been much more interesting, even for those of us today who are serious students of history. In 1891 an article about a sinister bloody Ripper dagger would at least have appealed to other dagger and weapons collectors... I'm really not sure who a packet of stained dirt was supposed to appeal to.
We know that there were Ripper collectors even in the early days. Few of them would have been operating at the level of a George Sims. I guess I'm not really surprised that in 1891 a working-class collector and his meager assortment of East End murder memorabilia would be disparaged as vulgar and worthless by contemporary gentlemen collectors. However, I find it fascinating that the same collection would be distrusted or disparaged by some Ripper historians today for completely opposite reasons- essentially because such a collection is now seen as so cool, desirable, and historically valuable that it must be a hoax!
Just goes to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the value of objects is always relative.
Best regards,
Archaic
Comment