Venge

Venge (pronounced venj)

To avenge; to punish; to revenge (archaic).

1250–1300: From the Middle English vengen from the Old French venger & vengier (take revenge, avenge, punish) from the Latin vindicāre (assert a claim, claim as one's own; avenge, punish; vindicate). Also archaic were the related forms were vengefully, vengefulness venged & venging whereas the adjective vengeful, although rare, endured.  The noun vengeance, from the same era as venge, flourished.  Vengeance was from the Anglo-French vengeaunce, from twelfth century Old French vengeance & venjance (revenge, retribution).  Venge & avenge are verbs, revenge is a noun & verb, vengeance & vengefulness are nouns, vengeful is an adjective and vengefully is an adverb; the most common noun plural is vengeances. 

Venge long ago became archaic and is now extinct except when used in a historical context or for literary effect.  Venge is the verb transitive, venges the third-person singular simple present, venging the present participle and venged the simple past and past participle.  Synonyms include vindicate, avenge, chasten, punish, chastise, revenge, repay, redress, requite, square, return, get, fix, retort, reciprocate, score, defend, match, justify and payback.  Venge is one of the unusual words in English which went extinct while various derived forms (vengeance; vengeful; avenge) flourished and the translations of the Bible probably encouraged use, God being vengeful, there’s much vengeance in the Bible:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Paul to the Romans; Romans 12:19–21

The vengeance weapons

The V-weapons deployed by Germany late in the World War II (1939-1945) all began as conventional projects of the military or the armaments industry but became known as the Vergeltungswaffen ("retaliatory weapons" or "reprisal weapons") after the label was in 1944 applied by Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945; Reich Minister of Propaganda 1933-1945) who used the word as a propaganda device, seeking to give civilians some hope there might be retaliation against (and perhaps even relief from) the area-bombing campaigns being conducted against cities all over the Reich.  The Allies generally translated Vergeltungswaffen as “vengeance weapons”, the best-known of the devices the V-1 & V-2. 

The terminology can be confusing, the vengeance weapons often conflated with the so-called Wunderwaffen (superweapons, or wonderweapons) of which there were literally dozens on drawing boards, in development or (occasionally) in use but the Vergeltungswaffen were just a highly-visible sub-set, although, being so well-publicized and relatively numerous, they do tend more to figure in the popular imagination.  Goebbels had been talking of the Wunderwaffen since 1943 and Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader), German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had hinted at their existence since 1939 although there’s still debate about the technology to which he alluded.  Confusingly, historians writing in English also use the term “miracle weapons”, perhaps because Hitler, once he realized the war was lost (and the timing of this is debated, a vague consensus being he probably understood it couldn’t be won after the strategic failure of Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel or the Kursk offensive) in mid-1943 and that it was lost when the Ardennes Counteroffensive (Battle of the Bulge) was abandoned in early 1945) began increasingly to refer to the “Miracle of the House of Brandenburg”, a term coined by Frederick the Great (Frederick II, 1712–1786; King of Prussia 1740-1786) to describe the fortuitous series of political and military events which saved Prussia from defeat during the Seven Years' War (1756–1763).

By the latter stages of the war, German civilians were noted in the remarkably frank reports compiled by the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS (Security Service of the Reichsführer-SS), the internal intelligence agency of the SS and Nazi Party) as being increasingly skeptical about the Wunderwaffen, using words like “wonder” and “miracle” with some degree of irony.  Despite the opinion of some today, Dr Goebbels understood the limits of propaganda and had by 1945 already toned-down the emphasis on the weapons and had switched the focus to matters at least slightly less implausible.  In the post-war German language, Wunderwaffe has survived as a (usually derisive) reference to any universal solution said to be something said (improbably) able to solve many or especially difficult problems.

The actual history of the Vergeltungswaffen became murky almost as soon as the war ended.  What are well documented are the V-1, V-2 & V-3 and there’s some evidence to suggest the V-4 label was, at least in some documents, applied to one or more weapon before the end of hostilities.  The confusion is thought to have been engendered by the normal military & industrial practice of using the "V" designation (denoting Versuchs (attempt, experimental)) plus a number to keep track of all the prototype or version numbers which had to be documented.  Although not mentioned in his dairies or elsewhere, Goebbels seemed just to have hijacked Versuchs (V) and done a rebrand, the word vengeance well-suited to the time and place to which the gangster Nazi state had delivered Germany.  He spoke in public only ever of the V-1 & V-2 and the V-3 is documented in the German military archive but for the V-4 and beyond, the application of the V-x nomenclature is speculative, V-4 having (after the war) been applied variously to a Nazi atomic bomb, the manned version of the V-1, a number of radiological devices and the A9/A10 rocket combination.

After the war, there was a great profusion of often duplicated records spread all over the Reich and it was almost all on paper.  Project codes weren’t standardized even within industries or branches of the military but what was adhered to was the universal allocation of a system of version identifiers, usually as numbers.  A "V" to designate Versuchsmuster (prototypes) was almost always used, usually in conjunction with whatever was the current model designation (eg Ta 189 v1, Me 210 v2 et al) but within project teams, a lot of working documents circulated with just a version number listed; that being all that was required by the team focusing on the one model.  It’s that, at least in part, that’s thought to account for so many different things being described as V-4, V-7 etc, misinformation the expansion of the internet appears to have made more prevalent.

Ironically, the dozens of Wunderwaffen to which so many resources were allocated ultimately achieved more for the Allies than the Germans.  After the war, the British, the Americans and the Russians all took whatever they could grab of the German military and scientific research establishment (equipment and personnel), carted it off, reassembled what they had and put the scientists to work.  In ballistics, rocketry and advanced aviation, the victorious powers of the late 1940s essentially had in their hands what represented probably decades of peace-time research.  It’s not that developments like trans-Atlantic airliners, the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) or the moon landing wouldn’t have been possible without the windfall of the German research but these things almost certainly would have taken longer to achieve, presumably decades such was the pace of advancement during the war.

The Vergeltungswaffen eins (V-1) was the world’s first cruise missile.  One of the rare machines to use a pulse-jet, it emitted such a distinctive sound that those at whom it was aimed nicknamed it the “buzz-bomb” although it attracted other names including doodlebug.  In Germany, before Goebbels decided it was the V-1, the official military code name was Fi 103 (The Fi stood for Fieseler, the original builder of the airframe and most famous for their classic Storch (Stork), short take-off & landing (STOL) aircraft) but there were also the code-names Maikäfer (maybug) & Kirschkern (cherry stone).  Although not fast enough to be invulnerable either to air or ground-fire and insufficiently accurate to be used in precision attacks, it was nevertheless an outstandingly economical delivery system, able to carry a warhead of 850 kg (1,870 lb) to London at a tiny fraction of the cost of using manned aircraft for the same task with the priceless additional benefit of not risking the loss of aircrew.  While the Allied defenses against the V-1 did improve over time, it was only the destruction of the launch sites and the occupation of territory within launch range that ceased the attacks.  Until then, the V-1 remained a highly effective terror weapon but, like the V-2 and so much of the German armaments effort, bureaucratic empire-building and political intrigue compromised the efficiency of the project. 

The Vergeltungswaffen zwei (V-2) was developed first by the German military with the code name Aggregat 4 (A4) and was the first guided, long-range ballistic missile.  With a range of around 320 km (200 miles), it briefly entered the stratosphere (technically the mesosphere) on its trajectory towards the target and once in flight, there was no effective defense; falling to earth faster than the speed of sound, nor was there any warning.  Technologically, it was an extraordinary advance in delivery systems but it was a very expensive way (inaccurately) to deliver a relatively small payload of 725 kg (1,600 lb) of high explosive.  When nuclear warheads were developed, the economics of ballistic missiles were realized.  Deployed simultaneously too early in its development to be successful and too late in the war to realise its strategic purpose, the V2 was influential in the history of both ballistics and space exploration.  It (1) cost more to develop than the atom-bomb, (2) caused fewer casualties when deployed than died during its development and production (most of whom were slave-workers), (3) was the ancestor of the ICBMs and (4), saved the US one or two decades the of research required to produce both the ICBMs and the big Saturn rockets which powered the Apollo programme.  It’s a myth the V-2 had no strategic effect.  From the time the Allies were convinced the programme was a threat (and it took actual physical evidence to convince the British scientific establishment the V-2 was even theoretically possible), much attention was paid, even to the extent of diverting bomber command from their plans to instead concentrate some resources on the V-2.  As a terror weapon, the effectiveness was then unparalleled, the British government was forced to react to the effect on public morale.  Some historians still under-estimate just how many resources the Allies had to divert to deal with the V2s.

The Vergeltungswaffen drei (V-3) was a modern take on a very old-fashioned idea, the big-bore gun.  Essentially, the principle was of one barrel with the projectile launched with multiple charges, each successive propellant charge adding to the velocity and therefore the range.  The concept is something like that used in electronics whereby a signal transmitted along a wire is boosted at intervals by line-drivers to compensate for loses over distance.  To preserve secrecy during development, the project was known as the Hochdruckpumpe (High Pressure Pump or HDP) and, among engineers, it gained the nickname Fleißiges Lieschen (Busy Lizzie).  The idea in ballistics actually dates from the late nineteenth century and was conceived as a way of achieving a high-velocity, large calibre weapon while not requiting an excessively (and probably impossibly) large barrel.  Some of the V-3s were fired a brief operational life before the sites had to be abandoned because of the Allied advance and the two aimed at London were disabled in air attacks on their bunkers using 5,400-kilogram (11,900 lb) "Tallboy" deep-penetration “earthquake” bombs.  A number of claims have been made that certain weapons are the true Vergeltungswaffen vier (V-4) including a variety of missiles, nuclear devices and jet bombers but there’s no conclusive evidence any was ever labeled as such by either the German military or armaments industry.

The Pase Rock: Lindsay Lohan's Revenge.

Authentic

Authentic (pronounced aw-then-tik)

(1) Something not false or copied; genuine; real.

(2) Having an origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: with certified provenance.

(3) Representing one’s true nature or beliefs; true to oneself or to the person identified.

(4) Entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy.

(5) In law, executed with all due formalities; conforming to process.

(6) In music (of a church mode and most often applied to the Gregorian chant), having a range extending from the final to the octave above.

(7) In music (of a cadence), progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord.

(8) In musical performance, using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written (or in certain cases, first performed).

(9) Authoritative; definitive (obsolete).

1300–1350: From the Middle English authentik & autentik (authoritative, duly authorized (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French autentique (authentic; canonical (from which thirteenth century Modern French gained authentique)), from the Late Latin authenticus (the work of the author, genuine ( which when used as a neuter noun also meant “an original document, the original”), from the Ancient Greek αὐθεντικός (authentikós) (original, primary, at first hand), the construct being αὐθέντης (authéntēs) (lord, master; perpetrator (literally, “one who does things oneself; one who acts independently (the construct being aut(o-) (self-) + -hentēs (doer)) + -ikos (–ic) (the adjective suffix)), from the primitive Indo-European root sene- (to accomplish, to achieve).  The alternative spellings authentical, authentick, authenticke & authentique are all archaic.  Authentic is an adjective (and a non-standard noun), authentically is an adverb, authenticity & authentification are nouns, authenticate, authenticating & authenticated are verbs; the most common noun plural is authentifications.

The modern sense of something “real, entitled to acceptance as factual” emerged in the mid-fourteenth century and synonyms (depending on context) include true, veritable, genuine, real, bonafide, bona fide, unfaked, reliable, trustworthy, credible & unfaked.  As antonyms (the choice of which will be dictated by context and sentence structure) the derived adjectives include: non-authentic, inauthentic & unauthentic (the three usually synonymous but nuances can be constructed depending on the context) and the curious quasi-authentic, used presumably to suggest degrees of fakeness, sincerity etc).  Inauthentic from 1783 is the most often used and thus presumably the preferred form and in this it competes also with phony, fake, faux, bogus, imitation, clone, impersonation, impression, mimic, parody, reflection, replica, tribute, reproduction, apery, copy, counterfeit, ditto, dupe, duplicate, ersatz, forgery, image, likeness, match, mime, mimesis, mockery, parallel, resemblance, ringer, semblance, sham, simulacrum, simulation, emulation, takeoff, ripoff, transcription, travesty, Xerox, aping, carbon copy, echo, match, mirror, knockoff, paraphrasing, parroting, patterning, representation & replica & the rare ingenuine.  The verb authenticate (verify, establish the credibility of) dates from the 1650s and was from the Medieval Latin authenticatus, the past participle of authenticare, from the Late Latin authenticus; the form of use in the mid seventeenth century was sometimes “render authentic”.  The noun authenticity (the quality of being authentic, or entitled; acceptance as to being true or correct) dates from the 1760 and replaced the earlier authentity (1650s) & authenticness (1620s).

Beware of the inauthentic: The authentic Lindsay Lohan (left) and the Grand Theft Auto's (GTA 5) ersatz (right), a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers (Take-Two, aka Rockstar) , the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Judge Fahey's words recalled those of Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) when in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964) he wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define… and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it…”  Judge Fahey knew a basic white girl when he saw one; he just couldn't name her.  Lindsay Lohan's lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

The game’s developers may have taken the risk of incurring Lindsay Lohan’s wrath and indignation because they’d been lured into a false sense of security by Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) not filing a writ after a likeness of her appeared on GTA 4’s (2008) Statue Of Happiness which stands on Happiness Island, just off the coast of Liberty City.  The Statue of Happiness was a blatant knock-off of the New York’s Statue of Liberty and crooked Hillary became a determined and acerbic critic of Rockstar and the GTA franchise after the “Hot Coffee” scandal.  That controversy arose after modders promulgated a code which in GTA: San Andreas’ release (2004) unlocked a hidden “mini-game” which allowed players to control explicit on-screen sex acts.  Men having sex with women to whom they don’t enjoy benefit of marriage is a bit of a sore point with crooked Hillary, then a US senator (Democrat-NY), who embarked on a campaign for new regulations be imposed on the industry and the most immediate consequence was the SSRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) launching an investigation, subsequently raising GTA: San Andreas’ rating from “M” (Mature) to “AO” (Adults Only 18) until the objectionable content was removed.  For those who wondered if the frightening visage on the GTA 4 statute really was what some suspected, the object’s file name was “stat_hilberty01.wdr”.

Roskstar's Statue Of Happiness in GTA 4 (2008, left) and an official photograph of crooked Hillary Clinton (right). 

Rockstar seeking vengeance was understandable because crooked Hillary’s moral crusade proved tiresome for the company.  Once the ESRB had been nudged into action, crooked Hillary petitioned the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to (1) find the source of the game's “graphic pornographic and violent content”, (2) determine if it should be slapped with an AO rating and (3) “examine the adequacy of the retailers' rating enforcement policies.”  Not content, she then announced she’d be sponsoring in the senate a bill for an act which would make it a federal crime (with a mandatory US$5,000 fine) to sell to anyone under 18, violent or sexually explicit video games; the Family Entertainment Protection Act was filed on 17 December 2005 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where quietly it was allowed to expire.

While the act slowly was being strangled in committee hearings, the FTC and Rockstar reached a settlement, the commission ruling the company had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) by failing to disclose the inclusion of “unused, but potentially viewable” explicit content” (that it was enabled by a third party was held to be “not relevant”).  The settlement required Rockstar “clearly and prominently disclose on product packaging and in any promotion or advertisement for electronic games, content relevant to the rating, unless that content had been disclosed sufficiently in prior submissions to the rating authority” with violations punishable by a fine of up to US$11,000.  In the spirit of the now again fashionable Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933; US president 1923-1929) era capitalism, no fine was imposed for the “Hot Coffee incident”, presumably because the company had already booked a US$24.5 million loss from the product recall earlier mandated.

Real & fake appears as simple and obvious a dichotomy as black & white but humanity has managed over the millennia to create many grey areas in many shades, thus the wealth of antonyms and synonyms for “authentic”.  Authentic now carries the connotation of an authoritative confirmation (which can be formalized as a process which culminates with the issue of a “certificate of authenticity” although the usefulness of that of course depends on the issuing authority being regarded as authentic.  Genuine carries a similar meaning but in a less formalized sense and in some fields (such as the art market), something can simultaneously be genuine yet not authentic (a painting might for example be a genuine seventeenth century oil on canvas work yet not be the Rembrandt it was represented to be; it’s thus not authentic).  The word real is probably the most simple term of all and can often be used interchangeably but unless what’s being described is unquestionable “real” in every sense, more nuanced words may be needed.  Veritable was from the Middle French veritable, from the Old French veritable, from the Latin veritabilis, from vēritās (truth), the construct being vērus (true; real) +‎ -tās (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  The traditional of use in English however means veritable had become an expression of admiration (eg “she is a veritable saint”) rather than a measure of truthfulness or authenticity.

Other nuances also organically have evolved.  Authentic now implies the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious while genuine implies that whatever is being considered is something unadulterated from its original form although what it contains may in some way be inauthentic.  This is serviceable and as long as it’s not used in a manner likely to mislead is a handy linguistic tool but as Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), it was an artificial distinction, “…illustrated by the fact that, “genuine” having no verb of its own, “authenticate” serves for both”.

Degrees of authenticity: 2016 Jaguar XKSS (continuation series)

In 2016 Jaguar displayed the first of nine XKSS "continuation" models.  In 1957, Jaguar had planned a run of 25 XKSSs which were road-going conversions of the Le Mans-winning D-type (1954-1956).  Such things were possible in those happier, less regulated times.  However, nine of the cars earmarked for export to North America were lost in fire so only 16 were ever completed.  These nine, using the serial numbers allocated in 1957 are thus regarded as a "continuation of the original run" to completion, Jaguar insisting it is not "cloning itself".  The project was well-received and the factory subsequent announced it would also continue the production run of the lightweight E-Types, again using the allocated but never absorbed ID numbers.  Other manufacturers, including Aston Martin, have embarked on their own continuation programmes and at a unit cost in excess of US$1 million, it's a lucrative business.

In the upper (or at least the most obsessional) reaches of the collector car market, the idea of “authenticity” is best expressed as “originality”.  As early as the 1950s when the market began to the process of assuming its present form, originality was valued because many of the pre-war machines first to attract interest (Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Lagonda et al from the UK, Duisenberg, Stutz, Cadillac et al from the US and Mercedes-Benz, Isotta Fraschini, Bugatti et al from Europe) had over the years receive different coachwork from that which was originally supplied.  At the time however, the contemporary records suggest that if a rakish new body had replaced something dowdy, it was a matter for comment rather than objection.  Nor were replacement engines and transmissions thought objectionable as long as they replicated the originals, there then being an understanding things wear out.  Those mechanical components were however among the first to come to the attention of the originality police and “matching numbers” became a thing, every stamped component with a serial number (engine blocks & heads, transmission cases, differential housings etc) which could be verified against factory records, made a car more collectable and thus more valuable.  It was a matter of originality which came to matter, not functionality which mattered; a newer, better engine detracted from the value.  In some cases originality was allowed to be a shifting concept especially with vehicles used in competition; if a Ferrari was found to be on its third engine, that was fine as long as each swap was performed, in period, by the factory or its racing team.

That exception aside, it’s now very different and, all else being equal, the most authentic collectable of its type is the one most original.  These days collectors will line up their possessions in rows to be judged by “certified judges” who, clipboards in hand will peak and poke, ticking or crossing the boxes as they go.  They’re prepared to concede the air in the tyres, the fuel in the tank and the odd speck of dust on the carpet may not be what was there when first the thing left the factory but points will be deducted for offenses such as incorrect screw heads, or a hose clap perhaps being installed clockwise rather than anti-clockwise.  Sometimes a variation from the original can’t be detected, even by a certified judge.  If a component (without a verifiable serial number) has been replaced with a genuine factory part number, if done properly that will often get a tick whereas a reproduction part from a third-party manufacturer will often have some barely discernible difference and thus get a cross.

An Elite Marti Report including the factory option list and door data plate info, reproductions of the door data plate & window sticker and personalized production statistics.  All these are supplied mounted on a board (in Ford matte blue) installed in a 16 x 20 inch (405 x 508 mm)" black frame.

Given the money which churns around the market, there’s a bit of an informal industry in faking authenticity and with some vehicles it is actually technically possible exactly to take a mundane version of something and emulate a more desirable model; the difference in value potentially in the millions.  In some cases however, even if technically possible, it may be functionally not: If it’s notorious that only ten copies were produced of a certain model and all have for decades been accounted for, it’s not plausible to possess an eleventh. However, there are instances where the combination of (1) the factory not maintaining the necessary records and (2) the vehicle itself not being fitted with the requisite stampings or identification plates to determine exactly what options may originally have been fitted.  However, even if documented and thus "authenticated", there can still be pitfalls.  In the collectable market for vehicles (Ford, Lincoln & Mercury) produced in the US by the Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) between 1967-2017, the gold standard is the service offered by mechanical engineer Kevin Marti's (b 1957) Marti Auto Works.  That company has been licensed by FoMoCo to generate reports detailing the specification (mechanical, trim, options) on the day it left the factory, all data grabbed directly from Ford's databases.  Available at three price-point (Standard, Deluxe & Elite), a Marti report is a valuable resource for both buyers and sellers.  However, what the reports provide is what is in the database and that reflects the specification with which a vehicle should have been built and while the phrase "Monday & Friday cars" (popularized by Arthur Hailey's (1920-2004) novel Wheels (1971)) shouldn't be taken literally, its currency in the era was an indication mistakes did happen on car production lines and, given the factories were every day producing them in the thousands, that should not be a surprise.  QC (quality control) inspections meant many E&O (errors and omissions) were rectified but some did slip through and while most were minor enough to be corrected by dealers, if the buyer was content to be appeased with a partial refund or credit, a vehicle could enter the wild with a specification in some way different from what was recorded in FoMoCo's database.  Only a comparatively tiny number of such vehicles each year appeared but if a vehicle represented as "original" or "matching numbers" varies in some detail from the authoritative Marti Report, a seller will benefit if in possession of additional explanatory documents.  Interestingly, the Marti Auto Works service is available because FoMoCo kept their old records in archives whereas Chrysler and General Motors (GM) did not.  

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

Because of the way the data details were recorded on the tags attached to Chevrolet’s vehicles during this era it can be difficult for collectors always to verify a car as presented is in quite the form it was when first it emerged from the factory.  Quite a few 1967 Impalas have been modified to “become” and SS 427 and it can take an expert to authenticate the real thing, the difference between one and another meaning tens of thousands of dollars in value.  Fortunately, there are many experts and they are needed to distinguish between the clones and the real SS 427s (the model achieving 2,124 sales in 1967, 1,778 in 1968 and 2,455 in its swansong season in 1969.  The 1967 Chevrolet SS 427 is now a collectable but it’s also a pedant’s delight because (1) although Impala-based it’s not by most treated as an Impala (this is contested) and (2) there was also a 1967 Impala SS 427 which is similar but not identical; technically, the SS 427 was a full-sized Chevrolet with RPO (regular production option) Z24.  With that volume the things, in collector terms, were not especially rare but the ecosystem of Chevrolet’s full-sized SS range was by then in decline; from a peak of almost 240,000 SS Impalas in 1969, volumes just two years later had fallen by some 80% as customer interest shifted to the smaller, lighter pony cars and intermediates.  It was a trend affecting all manufacturers and even before the muscle car era ended, the high-performance, full-sized segment would go extinct.

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427 cockpit.

Chevrolet’s SS (Super Sport) option was released in 1961 as a bundle available for Impalas with high-performance V8s: it featured both suspension modifications and dress-up items including unique body and interior trim, power steering, power brakes with sintered metallic linings, full wheel covers with a three blade spinner, a passenger grab bar, a console for the floor shift, and a tachometer on the steering column.  In that year, Chevrolet built close to half a million Impalas but only 453 buyers opted for what was (at US$53.80) the bargain-priced SS package, an indication the marketing needed to be tweaked.  The problem was that Chevrolet had intended the 1961 SS live up to its name and it was available only with the 348 & 409 cubic inch (5.7 & 6.7 litre) V8s coupled with a robust four-speed manual transmission, combinations which could be quite raucous and were notably thirstier than many were prepared to tolerate.  The dealers noted how buyers were drawn to the style but were put off by the specification which demanded much more from the driver that the smaller-engined models which wafted effortlessly along, automatic transmissions by now the default choice for most Impala buyers.

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

What the corporation noted was that the dress-up bits were just Chevrolet part-numbers which could be ordered by dealers and some did get requests separately to fit the trim pieces so some 1961 Impalas did to some extent resemble the SS cars though without the high-performance equipment.  It was therefore clear there were more buyers who wanted their Impala to look like a high-performance car than were able or prepared to pay for one so Chevrolet’s solution was for 1962 to make the SS an “appearance package” available for any Impala.  The approach would become a template for the whole industry and spread internationally, the later Porsche 911T Lux (1972-1973 and an entry level 911 with the trim fittings of the high performance 911S) and Subaru Impreza RX (a visually close to the WRX but without the horsepower) examples of the technique.  Thus from 1962 the SS option became widely available and consisted of fancy trim and accessories, able to be ordered with even the most modest engines.  Splitting the market between drag-strip monsters and boulevard cruisers which could be made to look much the same proved a great success.

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

Starting in 1967, beyond the standard-issue SS models, buyers could also choose the SS 427 model (RPO Z24) but confusingly, an Impala SS could be ordered with the 427 cubic inch (7.0 litre) V8 a situation which continued until the 1969 model year when, according to Chevrolet, only the SS 427 was available despite the company that year adding the “Impala” badges not used on the SS 427s in 1967 & 1968.  It’s little wonder the big-bodied 427s of those three years confuse many.  The flavours of the 427 V8 offered over the years also bounced around: For 1967, only the 385 horsepower (HP) L36 was available, the choice the next year extended to the L36 (390 HP) & L72 (425 HP), that pair augmented in 1969 by the LS1 (335 HP).  Curiously a triple-carburetor option had been scheduled to appear on the 1967 SS 427 (and the Camaro) but both were cancelled after one of GM’s many corporate edicts, the three simulated stacks on the hood (bonnet) a relic of the late change of plans.

Rear-seat "leaping impala" emblem in an authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

According to Chevrolet's fall 1966 brochure the SS 427 was: “The ’67 Super Sports by Chevrolet” which sounds definitive but whether the 1967 & 1968 SS 427s are really Impalas still is discussed between two factions but it’s something like the 1948 debate about the existence of God between British Jesuit priest & historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston (1907–1994) and noted atheist, British mathematician & philosopher Bertrand Russell (Third Earl Russell, 1872–1970): When someone with a sincere belief debates with someone with a sincere lack of belief, opinions are unlikely to change.  One faction argues that because no “Impala” badge appears anywhere on the 1968 cars then obviously it’s not an Impala while the other points out that in every other aspect it’s obviously an Impala before playing their trump card: the stylized “leaping impala” emblem, prominently which sits in the middle of the rear seat.  So it’s a matter of whether “symbol trumps (lack of) text” which seems one of the industry’s more sterile debates though it has never gone away and that the Impala badge returned in 1969 presumably can be interpreted to afforce the argument of either side.  Nothing in the VIN (vehicle identification number) reflects whether a full-size Chevrolet a SS 427 or another model so an original build sheet and/or window sticker with the vital Z24 reference will be the best evidence.

Authenticity in art 

Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery (1942), oil on canvas by Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) following Vermeer (1632-1675).

The matter of authenticity is obviously important in the art market.  Usually the critical factor is the identity of the artist.  In May 1945, immediately after the liberation from Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, the authorities arrested Dutch national Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) and charged him with collaborating with the enemy, a capital crime.  Evidence had emerged that van Meegeren had during World War II (1939-1945) sold Vermeer's Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery to Hermann Göring (1893–1946; prominent Nazi 1922-1945, Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).  His defense was as novel as it was unexpected: He claimed the painting was not a Vermeer but rather a forgery by his own hand, pointing out that as he had traded the fake for over a hundred other Dutch paintings purchased (frequently transactions of dubious legality) earlier by the Reichsmarschall, he was thus a national hero rather than a Nazi collaborator.  The judges were sceptical but, in the court, he provided a practical demonstration of his skill, added to his admission having forged five other fake "Vermeers" during the 1930s, as well as two "Pieter de Hoochs" all of which had shown up on European art markets since 1937.  He convinced the court and was acquitted but was then, as he expected, charged with forgery for which he received a one year sentence, half the maximum available to the court.  He died in prison of heart failure, brought on by years of drug and alcohol abuse.

His skills with brush and paint aside, Van Meegeren was able successfully to pass off his 1930s fakes as those of the seventeenth century painter of the Dutch baroque, Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675), because of the four years he spent meticulously testing the techniques by which as a new painting could be made to look centuries old.  The breakthrough was getting the oil-based paints thoroughly to harden, a process which naturally occurs over fifty-odd years.  His solution was to mix the pigments with the synthetic resin Bakelite, instead of oil.  For his canvas, he used a genuine but worthless seventeenth-century painting and removed as much of the picture as possible, scrubbing carefully with pumice and water, taking the utmost care not to lose the network of cracks, the existence of which would play a role in convincing many expert appraisers they were authentic Vermeers.  Once dry, he baked the canvas and rubbed a carefully concocted mix of ink and dust into the edges of the cracks, emulating the dirt which would, over centuries, accumulate.

Authentically guilty as sin: Hermann Göring in the dock, Nuremberg, 1946.

Modern x-ray techniques and chemical analysis mean such tricks can no longer succeed but, at the time, so convincing were his fakes that no doubts were expressed and the dubious Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery became Göring's most prized acquisition, quite something given the literally thousands of pieces of art he looted from Europe.  One of the Allied officers who interrogated Göring in Nuremberg prison prior to his trial (1945-1946) recorded that the expression on his face when told "his Vermeer" was a fake suggested that "...for the first time Göring realized there really was evil in this world".

So the identity of the painter matters, indeed, between 1968-2014, there was a standing institution called the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP), an initiative of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (the NOW; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), the charter of which included authenticating all works attributed to the artist (Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669).  That was a conventional approach to authentication but there are others.  In the West there’s a long standing distinction between “high art” and “popular art” but not all cultures have that distinction and when the output of artists from those cultures is commoditised, what matters is ethnicity.  In Australia, the distinctive paintings categorized as “indigenous art” have become popular and are a defined market segment and what determines their authenticity is that they are legitimately and exclusively the work of indigenous artists.  The styles, of which dot painting is the best known, are technically not challenging to execute and thus easy to replicate by anyone and this has caused where non-indigenous hands have been found (or alleged) to be involved in the process.

The Times (London), 8 March 1997.

In 1997, Elizabeth Durack (1915–2000), a Western Australian disclosed that the much acclaimed works of the supposed indigenous artist “Eddie Burrup” had actually been painted by her in her studio, Eddie Burrup her pseudonym.  To make matters worse, prior to her revelation, some of the works had been included in exhibitions of Indigenous Australian art.  Although noted since the 1980s, the phrase “cultural appropriation” wasn’t then widely used outside of academia of activist communities but what Ms Durack did was a classic example of a representative of a dominant culture appropriating aspects of marginalized or minority cultures for some purpose.  Sometimes (perhaps intentionally) misunderstood, the critical part of cultural appropriation is the relationship between the hegemonic and the marginal; a white artist creating work in the style of an indigenous, colonized people and representing it in a manner which suggests it’s the product of an indigenous artist is CA.  Condoleezza Rice (b 1954; US secretary of state 2005-2009) playing Chopin on a Steinway is not; that’s cultural assimilation.  Once the truth was known, the works were removed from many galleries where they had hung and presumably the critical acclaim they had once received was withdrawn.  Both responses were of course correct.  Had Ms Durack represented the works as her own and signed them thus that would have been cultural appropriation and people could have responded as they wished but to represent them as the works of someone with a name all would interpret as that of an indigenous artist was both cultural appropriation and deceptive & misleading conduct with all that that implies.

One of the photographs run by the Murdoch-owned daily newspaper The Australian in a report on the involvement of white people in the production of "indigenous paintings", April 2023.

More recently, there have been accusations white staff employed in a commercial gallery where indigenous Australian artists are employed to create paintings have been influenced, assisted or interfered with (depending on one’s view) in the production process.  According to the stories run in the Murdoch press, a white staff member was filmed suggesting some modification to an artist although whether this was thought to be on artistic grounds or an attempt to make something more resemble "what sells best" isn’t clear.  However, in a sense the motive doesn’t matter because the mere intervention detracts from the authenticity of the product, based as it is not on the inherent artistic merit but on the artist being indigenous.  In that the case was conceptually little different from Göring’s “Vermeer” which for years countless experts in fine art had acclaimed as a masterpiece while it hung in Carinhall, an opinion not repeated as soon as its dubious provenance was revealed.  Nor is it wholly dissimilar to the case of the replica 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO which is essentially a carbon copy of one of the 40-odd originals made (indeed it was in some ways technical superior) yet it is worth US$1.2 million while the record price for a genuine one was US$70 million.  So for a product to be thought authentic can depend on (1) that it was created by a certain individual, (2) that it was created by a member of a certain defined ethnicity or (3) that it was created by a certain institution.

Salvator Mundi (Savior of the World, circa 1505), oil on walnut by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519).

In art, authenticity is precious in many senses.  Salvator Mundi, the critics admit, is not an exceptional painting but once authenticated as the work of Leonardo, it created its own exceptionalism, in 2017 becoming the most expensive painting ever sold at public auction, attracting US$450 when offered by Christie's in New York.  The criteria for assessing the works of indigenous artists is also beneficial for them because unlike mainstream art, they’re not assessed as good or bad but merely as authentically indigenous or not.  That’s why there are no bad reviews of indigenous art or performance because the concept is (1) irrelevant, (2) such an idea is alien to indigenous peoples in Australia and (3) if expressed by white critics would represent the imposition of a Western cultural construct on a marginalized group.  Dot paintings and such are marketed through the structures of the art market because physically they’re similar objects (size & weight) to other paintings but they’re really modern, mass-produced artefacts which depend on provenance as much as a Ferrari, Leonardo or Vermeer.

Bunga

Bunga (pronounce bung-gah)

(1) A name given by locals to a location near Moreton Bay in what is now the state of Queensland, Australia.

(2) Phrase associated with a visit by a fake Prince of Abyssinia and his entourage to a British warship in 1910.

(3) A term used by for former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to describe some of the social events he hosted, derived apparently from certain behaviour at the events.

Early 1800s: A word known in English in the early nineteenth century, drawn from various parts of the British Empire.  In Malay-speaking countries bunga means flower and bunga bunga is the plural.  It’s an Aboriginal place name in Queensland and the name of a deity worshiped in Malaysia, Thailand, the southern Philippines and northern Sumatra

The Dreadnought Hoax

The Dreadnought hoaxers.

In 1910, Horace de Vere Cole (1881-1936), Virginia Woolf (1882-1941), her brother Adrian Stephen (1883-1948) and a small group of friends, made up in the now socially unacceptable black-face, pretended to be the Prince of Abyssinia and his entourage, obtaining permission to visit the Royal Navy battleship HMS Dreadnought at anchor in Weymouth, Dorset.  The party was welcomed aboard the ship and an honor guard presented arms, accompanied by a rendition of a national anthem (which actually wasn't that of Abyssinia).  It was reported that each time they were shown some marvel of the ship, such as electric light, they murmured the phrase bunga, bunga!  When the pranksters revealed the hoax, there was some embarrassment but remarkably, it transpired no laws had been broken so prosecutions weren't possible (it would be very different today).  The Dreadnought's junior officers decided justice had to be done and met in the wardroom, staging a symbolic thrashing of the buttocks of the male miscreants.  Ms Woolf wasn't punished in absentia, the Royal Navy's long tradition with the lash not extending to the spanking of women.   

Silvio Berlusconi and the bunga bunga parties

Karima El Mahroug (b 1992) better known by her stage name Ruby Rubacuori (Ruby the Heartstealer).

Officially, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (1936-2023; prime minister of Italy 1994-1995, 2001-2006 & 2008-2011) hosted private parties.  It later emerged they were a sort of semi-structured orgy run by signor Berlusconi to permit his (male) friends to enjoy the conversational skills of young women, anxious to please both host and guests.  Some of the women were younger than others and one turned out to be Ruby the Heartstealer, a pleasingly pneumatic nymph younger even than she at the time admitted.

Silvio and friends, off to bunga bunga.

Evidence Ruby the Heartstealer supplied in 2010 suggested she had received US$10,000 from signor Berlusconi while attending parties at his mansions.  Hoping to clarify the nature of these events, Ruby the Heartstealer described orgy-like behaviour where signor Berlusconi and more than a dozen young women performed an “African-style” ritual, referred to by those in attendance as "bunga bunga", the young ladies performing in varying degrees of undress.  Ruby the Heartstealer though maintained she never enjoyed intimacy with signor Berlusconi and that he "behaved like a father", adding he had given her the cash only because she had told him she was in some trouble.  In June 2013 he was found guilty of paying for sex with an underage prostitute and of abusing his office, was sentenced to seven years in prison and banned from holding public office for life.  A year later, judges in Milan overturned the conviction on appeal and the only conviction which was sustained was for tax evasion although, because of his age, he was spared prison and required to perform "community service".  Ruby did lie to him about her age and and few would deny it was at least plausible she was older.  Really, he was a victim. 

Silvio Berlusconi with Vladimir Putin (b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999).

A great character in European politics, he remains Italy's longest-serving prime-minister since Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943), a reasonable achievement given the churn-rate in those years.  Although there were scandals aplenty signor Berlusconi proved to be a great survivor and as soon as the pleasing technicalities of Italian law allowed his ban on seeking public office to expire earlier than that imposed in the headline sentence, he sought a seat in the European Parliament and was elected in 2019 and three years later returned to the Italian Senate after winning a seat in the 2022 Italian general election which brought Giorgia Meloni (b 1977; prime minister of Italy since 2022) to power.  There will be critics and it's absurd to suggest (as a few have) that he was to blame for the political emergence of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) and polarizing as he was, many of his achievements were real and Italy has had prime-ministers who promised more and did less.  The government announced a national day of mourning for Wednesday 14 June, the day his state funeral will be conducted at Milan Cathedral.  Despite it all, he'll always be remembered as someone who got a bit of fun out of life and there are worse ways to be remembered.

Silvio's linguistic gift:  After bunga bunga re-entered the language, not even The Observer could resist using it when commenting (with their usual superior air) on Vanity Fair's photo-spread of Lindsay Lohan for the Italian edition.