Real, Fake or Reproduction?
Strangely enough, there are only a few hundred pieces of Hummel art that are not reproductions. Some reports place the number of original sketches by Sister Hummel between five and six hundred. All others are copies or reproductions of these original creations of hers. The reproductions take many forms, such as the best known, genuine "M.I. Hummel" figurines made by the W. Goebel Co., the prints, posters, and cards made by Verlag Ars Sacra, Joseph Muller, and Emil Fink publishing companies, the dolls also made by Goebel in the likeness of some piece of original Hummel art, the transfers used on plates, candles, and eggs by Schmid, and the copies made by various firms in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and elsewhere.
Many collectors have come to regard a reproduction as something bad, cheap, illegal, dishonest, or inferior. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "reproduce" as follows: "To produce a counterpart, a image, or copy of." There seems to be no implication of undesirability.
Certainly the first reproductions of great consequence were very desirable. The invention of movable type made possibly the first replicas in the form of the limited number of Guttenberg Bibles made in the mid-fifteenth century. The making of reproductions in the form of etchings and engravings by great artists, such as Rembrandt and Durer, was another great stride in the wider distribution of original art in either limited or unlimited editions so that masses rather than the classes could own and enjoy it.
Figurine reproductions of Hummel art accomplish the same end. By adapting Sister Hummel's works of art to a three-dimensional form by a carefully controlled molding process, creators of these "reproductions" have given millions of collectors a chance to carefully preserve all the warmth, sentiment, and the action of her original creations. In fact these reproductions are done so well many people regard them as they would an original piece of art. To support this position, even the United States Customs classifies them as "original works of art" as shown earlier in this book. Since "M.I. Hummel" figurines have taken on the status of pieces of original art themselves, they, in turn, are now being copied. Unfortunately, most of these copies are not made to the same high standards as the "M.I. Hummels" and are unlikely to ever be classed as "works of art."
The story of the figurines made by Herbert Dubler, Inc., during World War II in New York is a good example of such reproductions. They were made, according to published information, under a license from the Siessen Convent and for which royalties were set aside. Almost everyone who has seen them agrees that they do not compare favorably in execution, workmanship, or materials to those made by Goebel. This face, perhaps, could somewhat be accounted for by wartime shortages.
They are not good reproductions of original Hummel art, but neither are they fake. A "fake" implies fraud. These reproductions by Herbert Dubler, Inc., and those from Japan, Taiwan, or elsewhere are not so much "fakes" as they are inferior representations of Sister Hummel's work. Like eggs, there are good reproductions, mediocre reproductions, and "bad" reproductions. Sister Hummel's originals have been rendered in all of these degrees of quality.
Since the words "Hummel reproduction" have come to mean something made to look like the "M.I. Hummel" figurines, this seemingly widely accepted meaning has been used in this book. Many examples of such reproductions have been made in the past and are currently being made.
Figurines are not the only Hummel art that has attracted similar but not identical copies. Similar enough to attract the eye of the buyer but not dissimilar enough to deter any legal action are greeting cards, calendars, and other paper likenesses drawn in the Hummel "style and manner." For example, Henry Mainzer, Inc. produces a line of Christmas and greeting cards that on first glance appear to be photomechanical copies of original Hummel drawings. However, they contain the name of no artist and no copyright date.
As with other reproductions, some are good values while others may vary widely in quality. For example, a Mainzer 1977 calendar was seen and purchased because of its similarity to Goebel's annual Hummel calendar. Close inspection showed items to have visuals defects that would not be tolerated by any first-rate publisher. However, this example may have been an extreme exception. The prudent approach is to bypass such bargains unless you have real expertise in appraising reproductions.
However, avid knowledgeable collectors seek out reproductions for two reasons. First, because they supplement a collection of authentic articles and may even enhance it since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Second, these reproductions add meaningful contrast and, in some cases, may even make a separate, interesting collection. Dubler figurines are acquiring status as collectibles, although they will never be works of art in years to come.
Many collectors wonder if they same thing will happen in various forms of Hummel art. There appears to be a better-than-even chance that it could in isolated cases, but probably not "across the board." Even if most "M.I. Hummel" collectors wanted only one Herbert Dubler figurine to supplement their collections for contrast, there are so few "dublers" available that they could become worth more than comparable "M.I. Hummels" in the secondary market. The demand versus the supply will provide the answer in the future.