Kylie's Antique Table Challenge

[Kylie]

I make a table today, but I make it in such a way that it appears to be over a century old. I take every conceivable step to make sure that any examination shows it to be 100+ years old.

I use only techniques that were used a century ago.

I use only tools that existed a century ago (so no power saws).

I use only chemicals that existed a century ago (so no modern wood sealants).

I use only wood that was made a hundred years ago, so a more recent date can't be established by examination of the tree rings in the wood.

I make sure that every possible test shows that the table is consistent with being made a century ago.

I give this table to a friend, who later dies, and the table is inherited by my friend's two sons. The sons examine this table and conclude that it was made more than a hundred years ago. I am nearby and I overhear their conversation, yet I say nothing to correct their belief, even when they decide to sell it. Tables of this type that really were made a century ago are extremely valuable, but modern reproductions are worthless, regardless of their quality. The two sons talk of their plans to sell the table for many thousands of dollars.

Have I been deceptive?

 

[Strathos]

Pretty much.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have I been deceptive?

No.

 

[Sabertooth]

Have I been deceptive?

You would not have been deceptive in creating a reproduction piece, but you would be passively deceptive, if your silence was taken as confirmation of its age.

IOW, they would be wrong to believe that it was way older than it was. And you would be wrong not to attempt to correct them, no matter how convincing their evidence was.

 

[Kylie]

No.

How do you figure?

 

[Kylie]

You would not have been deceptive in creating a reproduction piece, but you would be passively deceptive, if your silence was taken as confirmation of its age.

IOW, they would be wrong to believe that it was way older than it was. And you would be wrong not to attempt to correct them, no matter how convincing their evidence was.

Of course, I could argue that if I was merely trying to create a reproduction piece, then I did not need to go to the effort to make it appear so completely authentic that I did.

However, one could also argue that I could have made it as a test of my skills, to see if I could make a table that was completely indistinguishable from the real thing.

Such discussions could be interesting, but are ultimately, I think, not the topic of this thread.

I do completely agree with you when you say I would be wrong to not correct them.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you figure?

Were you trying to be?

I don't think you were, even though you didn't leave a note behind detailing what you did, how you did it, why you did it, where you did it, what order you did it in, how long it took you to do it, why it took you that long, and who the eyewitnesses were, some by name.

Nor did your note warn others not to analyze the table, as it may lead to deception.

But still … no … I don't think you were being deceptive.

Creative, yes.

Deceptive, no.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, I could argue that if I was merely trying to create a reproduction piece, then I did not need to go to the effort to make it appear so completely authentic that I did.

Your challenge is reminiscent of my Canoe Challenge, where I cut down a 100 year old tree and make a canoe out of it and ask how old the canoe is.

In your OP, if your friend's two sons sell it on the Antiques Roadshow and make a bundle, while you sit idly by and say nothing … I still don't think you're being deceptive.

 

[Inkfingers]

I make a table today, but I make it in such a way that it appears to be over a century old. I take every conceivable step to make sure that any examination shows it to be 100+ years old.

The deliberate act to mislead makes this deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

The deliberate act to mislead makes this deceptive.

Why are assigning motive to the OP?

 

[Kylie]

Were you trying to be?

I don't think you were, even though you didn't leave a note behind detailing what you did, how you did it, why you did it, where you did it, what order you did it in, how long it took you to do it, why it took you that long, and who the eyewitnesses were, some by name.

Nor did your note warn others not to analyze the table, as it may lead to deception.

But still … no … I don't think you were being deceptive.

Creative, yes.

Deceptive, no.

And yet, I overheard the two sons talking and still said nothing. I allowed them to believe one thing when that thing they believed was not true. I knew they believed it, and I allowed them to continue. That was a conscious choice on my part. How can you say that is simple creativity?

What if they sold it and then I came clean and showed them the video I made of me making the table? Wouldn't they be upset with me? "Kylie!" they'd cry out. "How could you let us sell that table for thousands of dollars? The buyer paid for something they believed was the genuine article! We assured the buyer that it was genuine! You made us into liars!"

They'd be right, wouldn't they?

 

[Kylie]

Your challenge is reminiscent of my Canoe Challenge, where I cut down a 100 year old tree and make a canoe out of it and ask how old the canoe is.

Funny, I thought that was about how the wood in the canoe is 100 years old, but it has only been in canoe form for a short time.

In your OP, if your friend's two sons sell it on the Antiques Roadshow and make a bundle, while you sit idly by and say nothing … I still don't think you're being deceptive.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

 

[Inkfingers]

Why are assigning motive to the OP?

I'm saying that if the OP specifically "makes sure" that the table looks 100+ years old, THAT is an act of deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

"You made us into liars!"

They'd be right, wouldn't they?

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

A lie of omission is still a lie.

If you want to talk yourself into being deceptive, go right ahead.

Don't let me stop you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm saying that if the OP specifically "makes sure" that the table looks 100+ years old, THAT is an act of deception.

I still disagree.

If I build a Pac-Man machine tomorrow to specs and sold it on Ebay as a replica, that's one thing.

If my neighbor bought it, then sold it to someone in a yard sale as a genuine antique, while I'm sitting out on my porch watching it … it's no longer my responsibility.

My responsibility was transferred to my neighbor when he bought the thing.

 

[Inkfingers]

I still disagree.

If you make something with intention of it being taken for something it is not, that is an act of deception.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why are assigning motive to the OP?

Because it is rather obvious that the table creator of the OP is going out of its way to make sure that everything about the table looks as it was made 100 years ago.

What else could be the motive of all that extra work, if not to deliberatly and actively try to make it look older then it actually is?

Which would actually be fine, if you are honest about those extra efforts.