它們看似是帝王的鐘表，但會(huì)是真品嗎？

To stroll through the Hall for Ancestral Worship deep within the Forbidden City is to appreciate the fascination that ornate mechanical timepieces held for successive emperors of China.

漫步紫禁城深處的奉先殿，你可以品味到中國歷代皇帝對華麗機(jī)械鐘的迷戀。

Many were brought to the Ming and Qing courts as precious gifts by European ambassadors from the 17th century to the 19th. Others were later manufactured in local workshops in Beijing, Suzhou and especially, Guangzhou, in southern China.

許多是17-19世紀(jì)歐洲公使贈(zèng)送給明朝和清朝朝廷的寶物。還有一些是后來在北京、蘇州——以及尤為重要的南方城市廣州——的本地作坊里制造的。

All are marked by a stunning level of intricacy, their chimes sounding while mechanized ducks paddle, mounted figures ride their steeds and waterfalls splash down, in carefully wrought landscapes.

這些鐘全都有精湛絕倫的精細(xì)做工，在精心鍛造的布景襯托之下，它們的樂聲伴著機(jī)械鴨子的游弋、騎著駿馬的小人以及飛濺的瀑布悠悠響起。

The hall in the Forbidden City, now a museum, has 1,600 of them, but few ever appeared on the auction market until recently.

故宮內(nèi)的奉先殿如今是一座博物館，內(nèi)有1600件鐘表，但它們極少出現(xiàn)在拍賣市場上，直到最近才有所改變。

“They are blindingly rare in real life,” said Simon Bull, a clock specialist in Taunton, England.

“它們在真實(shí)生活中極其罕見，”英格蘭陶頓的鐘表專家西蒙·布爾(Simon Bull)說。

In recent years, though, experts say a growing number of reproduction clocks have hit the market, posing as the real thing. The counterfeits were drawn, they say, by the prices paid for real clocks, such as the $3.8 million fetched by a Qing dynasty table clock sold at auction by the socialite Patricia Kluge in 2010.

而專家說，近年來，越來越多的鐘表復(fù)制品進(jìn)入了市場，以假亂真。據(jù)他們說，這些贗品是被鐘表真品的售價(jià)吸引而來的，如2010年上拍的一件來自社交名流帕特麗夏·克魯吉(Patricia Kluge)的清代座鐘拍出了380萬美元。

“The moment you start seeing them two, three, four, five times a year, and the same model — that was the big warning,” said Mr. Bull, who was featured as an expert on BBC’s “Antiques Roadshow” on television.

“一旦你開始在一年中看到他們2次、3次、4次、5次，而且是同款——這就讓人非常警惕了，”布爾說，他曾作為專家出現(xiàn)在BBC的電視節(jié)目《鑒寶路演》(Antiques Roadshow)上。

In one case being litigated in New York, a dealer in timepieces based there is suing a California auction house, asserting that the pair of clocks he paid $607,000 for in 2016 had been misrepresented as being at least 100 years old, when they were actually modern reproductions.

在一樁正在紐約訴訟的官司中，一家紐約鐘表商控告加州一家拍賣行，稱其在2016年花60.7萬美元購得的一對鐘表存在不實(shí)陳述，這件號稱至少有百年歷史的鐘表事實(shí)上是現(xiàn)代復(fù)制品。

“Rather than being more than a century old, the clocks were approximately five years old, and they were manufactured in Beijing by a company that sells virtually identical clocks as modern reproductions for about $20,000 a piece,” the buyer’s lawyer, Ted Poretz, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court.

“豈止不是百年以上，這對鐘的歷史大約不超過五年，它們是在北京制造的，生產(chǎn)商在以2萬美元一件的現(xiàn)代復(fù)制品價(jià)格，銷售幾乎一模一樣的鐘表，”買方律師泰德·波瑞茲(Ted Poretz)在呈給聯(lián)邦法庭的訴訟文件中寫道。

The complicated case highlights the difficulty of adjudicating what is real and what is fake in this market for such elaborate — and ostensibly centuries-old — timepieces.

這個(gè)復(fù)雜的案件突顯了在如此精雕細(xì)琢的——號稱有幾百年歷史的——鐘表市場上辨別真?zhèn)蔚睦щy。

In the court papers and an interview, Mr. Poretz said he had been able to identify the maker of the clocks as Li Qiusheng, the owner of the Tianjin Edwin Clock Company in Tianjin, a port city southeast of Beijing. He said the clocks appear to have been brought to market in the United States by Mr. Li’s son, Edwin, a California dealer who sells clocks under the name EM Time Company.

在法庭文件和采訪中，波瑞茲說，他已經(jīng)能確定鐘表的制造者為李秋生(音)——位于北京東南的港口城市天津的天津艾德文鐘表有限公司(Tianjin Edwin Clock Company)所有人。他說該鐘表似乎是被李的兒子、加州經(jīng)銷商艾德文(Edwin)帶到美國市場的，他在EM鐘表公司(EM Time Company)名下銷售鐘表。

Li Qiusheng, reached by telephone, disputed the suggestion that he produced fakes. He said the clocks were genuine, dating to the 1920s, though he acknowledged that old clocks often need repairs that require using modern parts.

在接受電話采訪時(shí)，李秋生反駁了他制作贗品的說法。他說這些鐘表是真貨，可追溯到20世紀(jì)20年代，盡管他承認(rèn)老鐘表的修復(fù)常常需要用到現(xiàn)代零件。

“When the clock doesn’t work, you need to replace the components,” he said. “If a wheel gear is broken, for example, you need to replace it with a new one.”

“鐘表壞了，就需要替換零件，”他說。“比如齒輪，如果壞了就需要用新的齒輪來替換。”

A lawyer for his son, Edwin, Steve Sherman, noted that neither Li had been named by the buyer as a defendant in the suit. He said the son had no financial interest in the clocks and had only acted as an intermediary for his father. He “was basically acting as an interpreter,” Mr. Sherman said.

他的兒子埃德溫的律師史蒂夫·舍爾曼(Steve Sherman)指出，在訴訟中，李氏父子二人都沒有被買方列為被告。他說，兒子在鐘表上沒有經(jīng)濟(jì)利益，只是充當(dāng)他父親的中間人。他“基本上就是充當(dāng)翻譯，”舍爾曼說。

Mr. Li said that he had once operated a workshop, but later only collected and sold the ancient clocks from a space on the fifth floor of an office building in Tianjin. He is well known in a district not far away that is filled with antique shops, including several selling old clocks and new replicas.

李說他曾經(jīng)營過一個(gè)作坊，但后來只是通過天津一座寫字樓五樓一個(gè)空間來進(jìn)行古董鐘表的收藏和銷售。他在不遠(yuǎn)處一個(gè)有許多古董行的地方很有名氣，包括幾家售賣老鐘表和新復(fù)制品的店面。

Shopkeepers there offered differing accounts as to whether Mr. Li had manufactured reproductions, simply collected them or was in the business of repairing period clocks, as he said.

關(guān)于李是否已制作過復(fù)制品，只是做收藏，還是做過老鐘表修復(fù)生意，那里的店員給了和他本人不一樣的說法。

A clock and watch expert from Canada who visited Mr. Li’s Tianjin company in 2014 said he had the impression that it manufactured reproductions, though he did not see any automaton models of the sort described in the lawsuit. “It was a light industrial workshop,” said Ron Good, the collector, who has a special interest in Chinese horology.

曾于2014年造訪過李的天津公司的一位加拿大鐘表專家說，他當(dāng)時(shí)的印象是它制造復(fù)制品，雖然他沒有看到訴訟文件中所描述的任何類似的自動(dòng)機(jī)型號。“那是個(gè)輕工作坊，”這位對中國鐘表制造術(shù)有特殊興趣的收藏家羅恩·古德(Ron Good)說。

Clars Auction Gallery of Oakland, Calif., which sold the clocks, described the federal lawsuit against it as baseless and said it had relied on the consignor’s assurances of authenticity. In addition, it said the purchaser, Ye Olde Time Keepers Inc. of New York City, was a “sophisticated, trade” purchaser who had used its own expert to validate the authenticity of the clocks before paying.

鐘表的賣方、加州“奧克蘭克拉爾斯拍賣行”(Clars Auction Gallery of Oakland)稱，針對其公司的聯(lián)邦訴訟毫無根據(jù)，稱其憑借的是委托人對真實(shí)性的擔(dān)保。此外，該公司說買方、紐約市的“老式鐘表股份有限公司”(Ye Olde Time Keepers Inc.)是個(gè)“成熟的職業(yè)”買家，它在付款前曾通過自身的專家對鐘表做了鑒定。

“The buyer thus relied not on statements by Clars,” the company said, “but rather on its owndiligence — conducted with the assistance of its elite, international industry connections, and resulting in a ‘green light,’ as communicated by the buyer to Clars prior to its making payment for the clocks.” After that statement, Clars made a new filing on Thursday asking to introduce the Lis into the case and saying they had concealed the clocks’ “apparent status as modern reproductions, rather than antiques.”

“因此，買方不是憑借克拉爾斯的聲明，”該公司說，“而是憑借其自身的盡職調(diào)查——在其高水平的國際行業(yè)人脈協(xié)助之下進(jìn)行的，根據(jù)買方在對鐘表付款前傳達(dá)給克拉爾斯的信息，他們得出了‘綠燈’通過的結(jié)果。”在該聲明之后，克拉爾斯于周四提交了新文件，要求將李氏父子引入該案件，稱他們隱蔽了鐘表“是現(xiàn)代復(fù)制品而非古董的明顯狀況。”

Clars had described the clocks in its auction catalog as “a rare pair of Chinese ormolu bronze automaton clocks” manufactured in a workshop in the southern port city of Guangzhou. The old clocks were “believed to be a gift to the head of household and his spouse meant to impart good wishes for fortune, luck and longevity,” the catalog stated. Clars dated them to roughly the late 19th or early 20th centuries, according to the court papers.

克拉斯在拍賣目錄中描述，這些鐘是在南方港口城市廣州一家工廠制造的“一對罕見的中國鍍金青銅自動(dòng)鐘”。目錄上寫道，這些古老的時(shí)鐘“被認(rèn)為是送給一家之主及其配偶的禮物，意在傳達(dá)對財(cái)富、好運(yùn)和長壽的美好祝愿。”據(jù)法庭文件顯示，克拉斯認(rèn)為這些它們的年代大約是在19世紀(jì)末或20世紀(jì)初。

The musical clocks are each about two and a half feet tall, are wound with a key and have delicate bronze-colored metal leaves that lift to reveal revolving figures depicting the Eight Immortals, mythological figures revered in Taoism and secular Chinese culture and often depicted in paintings and sculptures. Twisting glass tubes simulate falling water.

這些音樂鐘高約兩英尺半，用一把鑰匙上發(fā)條，有精致的青銅色金屬葉，葉上描繪著旋轉(zhuǎn)的八仙圖案，八仙是道教和中國世俗文化中尊崇的神話人物，經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在繪畫和雕塑中。鐘上還有模仿瀑布的扭曲玻璃管。

Mr. Li said that one alteration to the clocks involved the figurines, which were originally made of ivory. Since the United States banned the import of ivory, he replaced those with plastic replicas. He said he had received about $480,000 for the two but was not aware of how the auction house represented them.

李秋生說，鐘表的一個(gè)改動(dòng)涉及這些雕像，它們最初是用象牙制作的。由于美國禁止象牙進(jìn)口，他用塑料復(fù)制品代替了象牙。他說，他賣出兩座鐘，得到了約48萬美元，但不知道拍賣行是如何描述它們的。

Mr. Poretz denied that his client had had a specialist study the clocks before paying, but said he did have an expert look at them later. The expert found that the clocks did not show the sort of wear usually seen in items that old. Instead, the clocks had been constructed with modern brass, and with screws and other materials not available until later in the 20th century, at the earliest, his report said.

波瑞茲否認(rèn)客戶在付款前請了專家研究過這些鐘，但他說，自己后來確實(shí)請了專家進(jìn)行研究。這位專家發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些鐘表上并沒有如此古老物件上常有的磨損狀況。他的報(bào)告稱，這些鐘表是用現(xiàn)代黃銅制造的，其使用的螺絲和其他材料最早要到20世紀(jì)后期才能得到。

“It is clear that they are effectively brand-new,” Richard Higgins, the Shrewsbury, England, expert hired by the purchaser, wrote.

“很明顯，它們實(shí)際上是全新的，”這位買家聘請的專家、英國什魯斯伯里的理查德·希金斯(Richard Higgins)寫道。

The court papers say that, after the purchaser had questioned whether the clocks were actually reproductions, Clars provided a certificate of authenticity from the China Horologe Association. But, the papers say, the document was for a different, single clock and that the association, a trade organization, “is not in the business of providing authentications for antique Chinese clocks.”

法庭文件稱，在買家質(zhì)疑這些鐘是否真的是復(fù)制品后，克拉斯提供了中國鐘表協(xié)會(huì)出具的真品證明。但是，法庭文件說，這份證明是為另一個(gè)完全不同的時(shí)鐘而寫的，而且該協(xié)會(huì)是一個(gè)貿(mào)易組織，“不從事為中國古代鐘表提供認(rèn)證的業(yè)務(wù)。”

A woman at the association in Beijing confirmed that it did not provide certificates of authenticity. Experts from the association were not available this week to comment.

該協(xié)會(huì)在北京的一名女性證實(shí)，該協(xié)會(huì)不提供真品證明。記者本周未能聯(lián)系到該協(xié)會(huì)的專家置評。

China has a long and esteemed role in the evolution of timekeeping. These mechanical clocks were introduced in about 1601, when a Jesuit missionary, Matteo Ricci, gave two timepieces to the Emperor Wanli.

中國在鐘表業(yè)的發(fā)展中長期扮演著可敬的角色。機(jī)械鐘大約是在1601年引入的，當(dāng)時(shí)耶穌會(huì)傳教士利瑪竇(Matteo Ricci)送給萬歷皇帝兩件鐘表。

Known as “zimingzhong,” or self-sounding bells, they were used by European missionaries and foreign ambassadors as a cultural link between China and the West. High-ranking members of the imperial court or wealthy merchants commissioned clocks with ever more complicated movements, and the European timepieces became an important part of court life. The models were imported from Europe or based on European designs, though the Chinese workshops later added motifs of their own.

它們被稱為“自鳴鐘”，被歐洲傳教士和外國大使用作連接中國和西方的文化紐帶。朝廷高官或富商委托制作的時(shí)鐘有了越來越復(fù)雜的機(jī)芯，歐洲的鐘表也成為朝廷生活的重要組成部分。它們的模型是從歐洲進(jìn)口的，或者以歐洲的設(shè)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)，不過后來中國的作坊加入了自己的主題。

Mr. Bull, who is not involved in the legal case, said intricate, musical automaton clocks fell abruptly out of fashion in China after the early decades of the 19th century and few, if any, were being produced as the 20th century dawned.

布爾沒有參與法律訴訟，他說，經(jīng)歷了19世紀(jì)初的幾十年，復(fù)雜的音樂自鳴鐘在中國突然過時(shí)了，20世紀(jì)初，這樣的鐘表就算有所生產(chǎn)，也是非常少的。

Another expert, Matthew Hopkinson, who is based in London, said that before the recent surge, he typically saw one clock of this type appear on the market in a year. Now, he said, he often sees as many as three.

另一位長住倫敦的專家馬修·霍普金森(Matthew Hopkinson)說，在最近的價(jià)格暴漲之前，這種類型的時(shí)鐘在市場上一般是一年出現(xiàn)一個(gè)?，F(xiàn)在，他說，他往往一年能看到多達(dá)三個(gè)。

“Suddenly these clocks were fetching 10 times the amount they were previously,” Mr. Hopkinson said. “When prices go up, the counterfeiters move in and start making reproduction ones.”

“突然之間，這些鐘表的價(jià)格成了以前的10倍，”霍普金森說。“當(dāng)價(jià)格上漲時(shí)，造假者就會(huì)進(jìn)入，開始制造復(fù)制品。”

He urged vigilance to protect the market for legitimate antique timepieces. “There are still good clocks coming onto the market,” he said. “You have to be careful vetting them.”

他敦促人們保持警惕，以保護(hù)合法古董鐘表市場。“市場上仍有不錯(cuò)的時(shí)鐘，”他說。“你必須仔細(xì)鑒別它們。”