Australian Buried Spitfire Claims – Outcome?

Not entirely in agreement with your definition of provenance. I believe provenance is a known history of ownership, and not necessarily anything to do with originality of parts.

Still, your post does provide a basis for thinking about some new words to define builds based upon levels of ‘originality’.. to avoid misrepresentation in either direction. I like Andy’s ‘re-creation’ for the likes of P9374..

Provenance, from the French provenir, “to come from”, refers to the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object.[1] The term was originally mostly used in relation to works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including archaeology, paleontology, archives, manuscripts, printed books, and science and computing. The primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production or discovery, by establishing, as far as practicable, its later history, especially the sequences of its formal ownership, custody, and places of storage. The practice has a particular value in helping authenticate objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

The debate resolves around three terms all trying to establish the same thing with slightly different words, its originality, it authenticity and its provenance, ie where did it come from, where has it been and what has it done.

Exactly like the art world, an objects value can vary greatly due to its provenance and authenticity.

Debates on this topic get very heated in the warbird world, where to some, anything with an elliptical wing and a roundel is a real spitfire, regardless of its “newness”, pointing to the wartime practice of swapping parts during combat repair or overhauls, alternatively the grandfathers Broom argument is trotted out that replacement of the handle and latter the head long after grand-dad has passed, still results in the finished product being a family heirloom.

Unfortunately most debates on this topic in forums such as these degenerate into slanging matches and loose all logic of debate.

A restoration is normally assumed to be a process of renovating an existing object, rather than creating one, however scarcity of complete airframes sitting around waiting to be restored has led to the process of acquiring original parts from disparate sources and airframes, and restoring them back into a single identity normally sourced from the fuselage, ie T-6s, Tigermoths and Pipercubs built up from a collection of surplus parts.

A recreation is a term gaining favour and purports to retain some level of provenance through use of some original parts including even the mere existence of a data plate, and therefore claim authenticity and identity.

A self confessed reproduction, (the recently built Me-262s, FW-190s, Yaks, Oscars and F3F’s) happily acknowledge they are new constructions to an original design or closely following an original design, but make no attempt to claim authenticity or provenance and therefore identity.

A replica (at least in the aircraft world) is at worst considered to be an external approximation of the appearance, but totally different to the original design/construction/powerplant,or even size, the Tora Tora Tora zeros being a good example. Its a term that was previously applied to anything not was not a manufactured original, but there are some past outcomes that are better described as reproductions than replicas given their duplication of the design and construction.

One day there will be some standards adopted and accepted in relation to aircraft, it will most likely come from the museum world, taken up by the aircraft brokers and sales agents, and eventually be accepted and adopted by “most” but not “all” of the warbird fraternity.

However there will still be those who claim “it doesn’t really matter” (on the basis those in the “know” – know the real origins of the aircraft they buy) or “it threatens the future of the warbird market” by undervaluing the products of such recreations/reproductions/restorations, and then there will still be those owners/rebuilders who will claim their particular object slips across the boundary of restoration/recreation/reproduction as they see fit and to their advantage. (and of course we all “know” who they are – so it really “doesn’t matter”)

It was refreshing to see the openness of a Canadian collection who recently discovered the identity of their Spitfire was not as it seemed, and here there is no dispute that the spitfire is an original production spitfire (albeit unrestored and in poor condition) but its provenance assumed one identity, and the correction of identity changes its provenance and therefore relevance to the Canadian collection. ie an example of provenance having some value, and why it should be scrutinised, and not simply permitted to be claimed by those wishing to ascribe value through it.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Grandads Axe? My dad replaced the blade and I replaced the handle.

Yes, but did you save the original blade and handle and keep them in the corner of the shed under a plastic sheet?

Still, your post does provide a basis for thinking about some new words to define builds based upon levels of ‘originality’.. to avoid misrepresentation in either direction. I like Andy’s ‘re-creation’ for the likes of P9374..

Grandads Axe? My dad replaced the blade and I replaced the handle.

Just in case I am not 100% clear on the case – may I have one too? :eagerness:;)

Nice try! 🙂

I’ve seen this argument over and over when it comes to aircraft escpecially Spitfires. I’d like to offer my ‘opinion’. So if you’ll all indulge me a bit.

I believe it comes down to one word ‘provernance’. For anything to be a genuine anything be it a boat, car or aircraft the only way to say it is original is that the provernance of that item, that being it is in the condition in which it was manufactured, with all parts being as it was assembled in the factory….

Not entirely in agreement with your definition of provenance. I believe provenance is a known history of ownership, and not necessarily anything to do with originality of parts.

Still, your post does provide a basis for thinking about some new words to define builds based upon levels of ‘originality’.. to avoid misrepresentation in either direction. I like Andy’s ‘re-creation’ for the likes of P9374..

Not at all.

This isn’t a sales pitch, but have you read my ‘Spitfire P9374’ book?

If not, drop me an e-mail via link below with your address and I will mail you a complimentary copy so that you can see how I have presented the case of the ‘re-creation’ (note carefully my terminology) of that Spitfire.

It would be my pleasure to do so!

Just in case I am not 100% clear on the case – may I have one too? :eagerness:;)

Its been debated many, many times, but I think you are broadly there.

Its a question of whether it actually matters to us. To some, like Malcolm, it matters a great deal. To others it is irrelevant. If you want to see a Me262 take to the skies, you can, but they are quite different to those that flew 70 odd years ago, and have no historical (research) value.

I would also argue that if you have several large piles of an aircraft, not necessarily from the same one, that could with time and skill, be used to recreate a complete one, then that should be seriously considered. One has to consider exactly ‘what’ the historical value of wreckage actually is….

Bruce

I’ve seen this argument over and over when it comes to aircraft escpecially Spitfires. I’d like to offer my ‘opinion’. So if you’ll all indulge me a bit.

I believe it comes down to one word ‘provernance’. For anything to be a genuine anything be it a boat, car or aircraft the only way to say it is original is that the provernance of that item, that being it is in the condition in which it was manufactured, with all parts being as it was assembled in the factory. That is it has all parts in the correct serial number from which it was designed.
Now with aircaft, parts were exchanged as they became US. Now most restorations are able to show a high level of provernance as the fuselage and wings were together most of the aircrafts life.
The Spitfire however seems to be a slight exception the rule on this though. As to its emmence popularity and that fact we all love them, people are able to make a restoration from the smallest part and work it back to claim a ‘certain level of Provernance.’
As the number of rebuildable airframes are now nearly all gone, this is the only way some people who want their own ‘Spitfire’ will get one hence the now term ‘data plate restoration’ I note the many ‘airframes’ built by Dick Melton as early examples of aircraft which adopted identities from parts recovered over the years, in a similar manner to some of the more recent ‘restorations’ or data plate builds.

I think the only way to determine a true aircraft is the provernance from now on. There are several examples which this can be applied to ie.
Mk.I P9306, and Mk.II P7973 are prime examples of true provernance aircraft as there are essentially as they left the service, with original paint markings, stencils etc.

The next level of provernance in my book is an aircraft which is original in terms of being built with its original parts but has been restored to flight. So this aircraft while being an original airframe has had compromises in terms of operational equipment ie engines, tyres, rims, instruments, electircal, and fluid components. this doesnt make the aircraft less original really as its being operated in a similar manor to the aircrafts military service where components were replaced and exchanged as needed.

The next level is a dataplate restoration which is the one which gets everyones goat up. These airframes dont have any real provernance as most contain almost entierly new material built around the tiny remains of a wartime wreck. I guess if it were me I would call them reproductions or tribute aircraft as while it looks and contains components that are original to a Spitfire (ie engines, sytems etc) the aircraft its self isnt what rolled out the factory when built originally.

Another example of this is some of the Oscars built in the US and some of the early mark Mustangs now out of the restoration shops.

Now I’m sure that I will get torn apart for this however it is only my take on the topic.

Over to you all.

It’s the old ship of Theseus/ Trigger’s Broom paradox. Before you can even decide whats original, you have to define ‘original’. Even R6915 got pranged and rebuilt half a dozen times. Certainly what’s there now is far from 100% of what was there when it flew with 609 in 1940…. That said no one would quibble that it was not ‘915 as a result. Even air frames that have been active for the last 70 years have been rebuilt time and again.

This is even true of humans. The cells that make up your body are 100% not the same as the ones that made it up 10 years ago… but you don’t suddenly stop being you.

‘Original’ is relative and I don’t think a data plate restoration is all that lesser for it, providing there’s enough continuity.

As I seem to have inadvertently started a robust discussion could I say in my defence that just like the next enthusiast (for that’s all I am in aviation terms) I like to see examples of these wonderful machines flying and I understand the regulatory problem. But my quibble lies in two rather different things.

The first is that so often, and this is not the enthusiasts’ fault, that if the media gets hold of a story then what we know will be some rather battered and dirty parts seems to morph into “complete pristine buried whatevers” which then can lead to more “robust” discussion :highly_amused: .

While secondly sometimes the end result after often many years of building using few original parts and lots of newly made ones becomes somehow “original” in the eyes of the less informed and that tends to offend my admittedly narrow understanding (being in the trade so to speak) of what is actually an artefact of historic importance. Restorations and replicas are fine in their place but we also need to recognise that our only true contact with the past is the untouched original.

In the end I suggest that there is a place for both in this enthusiasm we share – neither should be exclusive of the other.

Here we go again………

If there’s a couple of data plates in there you’ve got a couple of perfectly preserved aircraft – well that’s the way it works isn’t it? Find a data plate and magically it morphs into the perfectly preserved original aircraft. What a shoddy exercise this digging for scrap metal is.

No data plates but couple mod plates,that do?Or can we use the Master contactor boxes with the aircraft serial numbers on them?Ours will always be a reproduction,replica,metal sculpture resembling a spitfire…

“There is no real attempt to pass off the dataplate restorations as anything other than new-build aircraft complying with lunatic regulations from those in charge of aviation control / discouragement. It’s always nce though when at least some part of the aircraft other than the plate are incorporated.”

Not sure I entirely agree with this statement. I tend to think most owners of these rebuilds go out of their way argue that it is a restoration, as opposed to an aircraft 95+% new. The reason is a ‘replica’, regardless of how closely made to drawings will not have the $$$ value of a ‘restoration’ with some provenance (no matter how small). Even if the two airframes were made by the same company, side by side, and finished on the same day, and identical except for one has a datatag and maybe a few original bolts, the ‘restoraton’ will have a much higher value.

And i realize rules are different in UK and in north america…where authentic replica’s can fly.

IMO

If there’s a couple of data plates in there you’ve got a couple of perfectly preserved aircraft – well that’s the way it works isn’t it? Find a data plate and magically it morphs into the perfectly preserved original aircraft.

To be fair you can’t blame the diggers or the aircraft builders.

If you could legally produce a ‘new build’ Spitfire without the impossible mountain of paperwork that would be asked of you, with no guarantee that you’d ever be allowed to fly it, people would.

There is no real attempt to pass off the dataplate restorations as anything other than new-build aircraft complying with lunatic regulations from those in charge of aviation control / discouragement. It’s always nce though when at least some part of the aircraft other than the plate are incorporated.

Moggy

PM sent. 🙂

Not at all.

This isn’t a sales pitch, but have you read my ‘Spitfire P9374’ book?

If not, drop me an e-mail via link below with your address and I will mail you a complimentary copy so that you can see how I have presented the case of the ‘re-creation’ (note carefully my terminology) of that Spitfire.

It would be my pleasure to do so!

Well, I disagree Malcolm. And I know that you and I can disagree in a civil manner!

Look at it this way (and I accept that is not always the reason behind digging dumps like this!) but if you owned a 1920s Bugatti, say, and you knew that a source of spare parts was a place where they had been dumped then as a restorer you would go and dig them up. If not usable, they might at least be patterns. The same applies to old aircraft parts. QldSpitty will have found a good few usable widgets in there for his project. And why not?

However, put away your ‘archaeology’ hat for a moment, Malcolm. This is salvage. Wreck recovery. Call it what you will. But I don’t think this kind of activity is ‘archaeology’. And I fail to see the harm in it, only that it is wonderful that valuable artefacts from historic aircraft are being found and used.

Andy perhaps I was a little harsh – I quite agree with you that there is no harm in the enjoyable pursuit of digging up these bits and pieces. And I agree they are useful especially as templates etc. The only thing that I find a little objectionable is that sometimes what results (e.g. my data plate reference) is a little deceptive in terms of veracity. My apologies if my post was less clearly expressed than it should have been. 🙂

Well, I disagree Malcolm. And I know that you and I can disagree in a civil manner!

Look at it this way (and I accept that is not always the reason behind digging dumps like this!) but if you owned a 1920s Bugatti, say, and you knew that a source of spare parts was a place where they had been dumped then as a restorer you would go and dig them up. If not usable, they might at least be patterns. The same applies to old aircraft parts. QldSpitty will have found a good few usable widgets in there for his project. And why not?

However, put away your ‘archaeology’ hat for a moment, Malcolm. This is salvage. Wreck recovery. Call it what you will. But I don’t think this kind of activity is ‘archaeology’. And I fail to see the harm in it, only that it is wonderful that valuable artefacts from historic aircraft are being found and used.

Meh been there done that..

If there’s a couple of data plates in there you’ve got a couple of perfectly preserved aircraft – well that’s the way it works isn’t it? Find a data plate and magically it morphs into the perfectly preserved original aircraft. What a shoddy exercise this digging for scrap metal is. 🙁

Who needs to dig? A Vulcanologist friend tells me there’s a bunch of Japanese wrecks still sitting in bomb craters at the airstrip on Pagan island in the Marianas.