The HADOS Initiative is a GLADIOLOGICAL project that was launched in order to emphasise people and institutions with an ethical sense of responsibility and a scientifically and historically correct way of working and acting.
With HADOS we promote open and honest communication between sellers and buyers when trading historical objects and especially swords.
The acronym stands for “Historical Accurate Description Of Swords“. The greed of some parties is undermining mutual trust, which is not only in the natural interest of lovers of historical artefacts, but also leaves fair and knowledgeable parties with fewer and fewer opportunities to act ethically correctly and at the same time remain economically viable.
The HADOS initiative is an attempt for a seal of quality which may be used by all interested parties who are committed to the ethical code below. It is intended to distinguish those who, in addition to an economic basis, care about historical correctness and reject ruthless greed for profit at the expense of novice and advanced collectors and other buyers.
Any interested party can contact THE GLADIOLOGICAL to check their suitability to use the HADOS quality seal free of charge.
1.
Objects are named scientifically correct. Scientific means that the consensus in the literature agrees with the naming. Any deviations are explained in detail.
2.
Originals are originals. If there is any doubt about the originality of an object, then it may not be titled as a original. Misleading terms such as “in the style of the 16th century”, “perhaps historicism”, “collector’s item” are to be avoided. Alternatives are mentioned in point 3 of this Code.
3.
We define terms:
Replica/copy: An exact copy of an object that aims to imitate a specific object (not a style) as closely as possible.
Imitation: An object made for the purpose of appearing to come from a particular time and region. This can also apply to certain producers, for example when old blacksmith’s marks are imitated. Imitations are clearly marked as imitations. This marking is difficult to remove. Imitations aim to be as historically correct in style as possible.
Counterfeit: An imitation without the marking that it is a new production. Manufacturers of such objects consciously accept that their products are very likely to be traded as originals by others with criminal intent.
Unidentified: If no classification is possible despite all possibilities, the term “unidentified” can be used as an addition to the type of sword. Example: “Sabre, unidentified”. No further assumptions about the place and time of creation should then be added, such as “Sabre, unidentified, most likely France around 1800”.
4.
What has been mentioned under “Unidentified” also applies if the person presenting the object is not sure whether it is an original or a fake. In this case, he has also “not identified” the object. It should therefore also be marked as “unidentified”. Assumptions can be listed at will in the description of the object and clearly marked as such.
5.
Whenever possible, identified objects should include at least one literature reference in the description.
6.
Provenances should only be given if they are disclosed or mentioned on request. For example, the sentence “from an old European collection” must be verified on request, otherwise it is considered an attempt at deception. Sellers of objects who want anonymity have every right to do so, but then the vague mention does nothing for the honest seller. This type of approach gives the lay buyer at auctions a false sense of security.
You must be logged in to post a comment.