Thought this might interest fellow Knotters. The link appeared on a Sapfm forum post, and a couple of us put in some discussion points, but the thread was quickly deleted – apparently, such discussion is too sensitive a topic for the Society, though I’m not sure why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/garden/22hobbs.html?fta=y
My own personal opinion is something like this is a good thing. Antique furniture, particularly 18th century American, has been very much oversold by dealers using such terms as “important brasses” for any furniture hardware infinitessimally larger than average, and “retains a mellow patina” for “grimy and in bad need of a professional cleaning”. So much so, in fact, that owning an original is quickly becoming the purview of the very wealthy, and that’s sad.
Because it is possible (though time-consuming and expensive) to exactly reproduce the appearance, physical and chemical characteristics of a 250+ year old patina, I think the antique trade’s insistence on “original, uncleaned finish” as a measure of authenticity is deceptive, at best. It’s also harmful to the furniture – finishes that are badly deteriorated after 250 years mean that the underlying structure is much more vulnerable to humidity changes and damage.
Though I’ve never made a fake and never will, having a few less scrupulous individuals doing this sort of thing puts a reality check on the market, and that’s a good thing.
Other opinions?
Replies
Supposedly a common problem with antique Chinese furniture. Some of the best-known experts are said to get fooled by outstanding reproductions on a regular basis.
Of course the upside is that might this help preserve traditional woodworking methods and potentially old tools.
Chris
Chris Scholz
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
Galoot-Tools
"Of course the upside is that might this help preserve traditional woodworking methods and potentially old tools."
Indeed. One of the arguments I made (before the thread was deleted) was that if you had two Queen Anne tea tables in front of you, and one was made in the American Colonies in the 18th century and the other one was made last year with period-correct tools and methods, why is one worth over a $100,000, and the other worth $1500 (or less)?
An antique dealer would probably say "history", but that's assinine. the two tea tables are otherwise identical, and an object has no history - that's an entirely human construct, and the extra $98,500 buys you nothing more than an entirely human romanticization.
The original objects are useful, of course, as a study that reveals how the cabinetmakers of the period constructed such pieces, the tools they used, and even their design sensibilities, but the price tag that American Antiques often carry isn't really about their value as an educational tool. In fact, museums are often priced out of auctions for significant original pieces, and that's a very shameful result of the antique trade's over-selling of "original condition".
Edited 6/9/2008 3:37 pm ET by dkellernc
I quite agree. It is a "fad" that has gone too far. And this "original" finish that dealers like the Keno Brothers have perpetrated really just reflects bad treatment, not originality. Sometimes it's a decline into families without the means or taste to care for them--it doesn't take many years in a barn to deteriorate antiques, and sometimes its misguided care, like the linseed oil and vinegar mix that was often recommended.
Yet, even one of the strong proponents of preserving original surfaces has recanted with respect to clear finishes. John T. Kirk had been important promotor of the idea in his 1975 book The Impecunious Collector's Guide to American Antiques. He had a chapter titled "But it Ratty and Leave It Alone". That was in reaction to lots of stripping of painted furniture to refinish with glossy varnish. But more recently in American Furniture Understanding Styles, Construction, and Quality he has suggested that this was not appropriate for furniture originally finished in clear finishes. He says "The presence of dirty varnish can help determine if parts have been changed, but on a piece designed to exibit grain color and pattern, and finely carved detailing, it may unnecessarily reduce the intention of the maker."
As the fad has faded in fine art restoration, (does anyone remember the furor over the restoration of the Sistene Chapel) we can hope it can be deminished for antique furniture.
Of course, if the two tables are truly identical including the appearance of patina then it's not likely you have tables priced so disparately. Both will be sold as period pieces.
Some basic math suggests there must be a great many "faked" American fine furniture antiques. Population of the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 was roughly 2 million, not counting slaves, With average household size in the neighbor hood of 5, that means only 400,000 or so. But only the wealthy owned furniture that we might now call fine antiques. That was about 10% of the population. So there were only about 40,000 households of furniture in existance late in the Colonial era. With fires and other destruction, it is hard to imagine how today's antique stores are stocked with genuine American period pieces.
Edited 6/9/2008 5:31 pm ET by SteveSchoene
The Keno's! One of them is off the antiques road show for questionable dealings. Wish I could remember the details.
But my heart really "bleeds" for the super wealthy who have nothing better to do with their money than get duped by a wiser craftsman. Now who's smart ?
There are a few Doctors and Lawyers I'de like to send outrageous bills too for my work.
Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
One of them is off the antiques road show for questionable dealings..
I LOVE that Show! I do not have anything worth anything except my wedding pictures and my kids growing up!
That said.. I'd think most of those 'EXPERTS' that tell you what it is worth 'know what they do' But I think ALL are price fixers for what they deal in!
Steve, I have several pieces in my home that my mom bought in the sixties. One of which is a wonderful corner cupbord with the original glass. It is walnut and was made in the 1860 time frame. It came from the same town as Jesse James in Kansas, so we always stretch the truth about that story... It was his Moms when he was growing up. It had been in a garage for years, was painted over the varnish many times and had it original milk paint interior. We striped the piece, sanded out the paints and cleaned the interior. Varnish was reapplied. I do believe the piece would not be as intact today without the treatment, glue, and some repairs. She paid $210 for it, and I am sure the Koens would rip it apart for the treatment. If you had seen the start point and more importantly, smelled the start point, it is now an important part of my life and able to be enjoyed.
Morgan <!----><!----><!---->
-----------_o
---------_'-,>
-------(*)/ (*) http://www.EarthArtLandscape.com
Other opinions?
I have alot of opinions.. Thanks for the link.. Good read. However, I would never have that problem. No money!
Not to be taken lightly and the point well taken.
However, if somebody has $736,000 to spend... I'd think they would be smart enough and could also afford to send a expert to examine what they are bidding on!
This is a very interesting topic. One thought I had while reading the article was that if the buyers of these outrageously expensive alleged fakes knew they were knew pieces before they bought them, what would they have been willing to pay for them then? And would they still have chosen these or similar pieces of furniture? Are the clients of the designers buying just for the antique value, or are they buying a style and a piece of well crafted furniture?
I have often shopped for antiques and it is easy to get caught up in the "romanticizations". I like to think that I have avoided more than one purchase by asking my self "is this an item I appreciate for what it is, or because it is old?"
<<This furniture maker, the description explains helpfully, “was highly successful in attracting royal and aristocratic patrons, and in common with other leading makers, they seldom identified their work with trade labels or stamps.”>>
--Not too hard a stretch to believe that Hobbs was flattering himself with this description, as much as he was describing some "unknown maker".
This is a very interesting topic. One thought I had while reading the article was that if the buyers of these outrageously expensive alleged fakes knew they were knew pieces before they bought them, what would they have been willing to pay for them then? And would they still have chosen these or similar pieces of furniture? Are the clients of the designers buying just for the antique value, or are they buying a style and a piece of well crafted furniture?
I think it's fairly clear they were buying into the "because it has a history" thing. The fact that it's enormously difficult to make a decent living building colonial reproductions suggests that very few buyers are willing to pay for something completely handmade to a high standard - just ask Jeff Headley of Headley and Sons.
There are, of course, makers such as Irion and Stauffer and Anderson that do marginally well, though the Fortune article makes it clear that it's not terribly profitable:
http://www.furnituremakers.com/news_november2006.php
I had a hard time believing the refinisher didn't know his "replicas" were being sold as the real deal. It seems to me he was taking steps to defraud. I can easily make a carcase look old with a proper finish. The advantage of using old wood is that the interior looks old as well. That that's tougher to fake. If someone asked me to use old wood, I would just assume I was making a forgery. I think the British authorities should throw the lot in the nick.
Adam
No doubt that the dealer and the cabinet maker were working together in the whole scheme.Too many sour grapes for Mr. Buggins I suppose.This type of collusion is not suprising. However, it does diminish the trade for those who do repairs and restorations. Not to mention folks that make reproductions with "distressed" finishes.However, I doubt this news will send the slightest ripple through the antiques market.F.
while i feel this is unethical i have a hard time feeling sorry for someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in the name of vanity. i'm more of the shaker philosophy.
Every day is a gift, that's why it's called the present.
while i feel this is unethical i have a hard time feeling sorry for someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in the name of vanity. i'm more of the shaker philosophy.
Your post alludes to a point I made in the original SAPFM thread. Shaker antique furniture is marketed just as hard as early American antiques - with some pieces selling well over the $100,000 mark, and I've no doubt whatsoever that the original Shakers would be appalled that something so honestly made by one of their members for the use of the Society would be marketed in such a manner. Chris Becksvoort's book "Shaker Furniture" has a short letter from one of the Shaker sisters that brings home the point - she laments that her order is famous for their furniture, not their service to God or beliefs.
Nobody has touched on the fact that these buyers are paying these prices as an INVESTMENT. They're not buying history OR a functional piece of furniture. They are speculating that the value will INCREASE and they can sell it at auction at a later time and turn a profit.
If you are buying art, you can enjoy it while you have it. If you're buying wine or whisky, you can not drink it, but you CAN make money on it someday.
These buyers were duped and they might lose a boatload of cash, but they gambled and lost. It's all just speculation, not romanticism or appreciation of the woodworking craft.
Making money buying objects at retail is a pretty difficult prospect because of the major mark-up from prices paid to pickers and and at auction. That mark-up is supposed to buy you a greater assurance of authenticity.
I just pulled out a book titled Discovering and Restoring Antique Furniture by Michael Bennett, published in London in 1995. It's pretty clear that the "standard" was to have even new secondary woods treated to blend with the original.
What would be really interesting to know is how good as fakes these pieces were. That is, would many woodworkers familiar with period technicques and who have been around antiques recognize these as being fakes or "heavily restored" or would it require a professional level expert, and serious testing perhaps with X-ray or microscopic techniques, to winkle them out.
For example, I've had an antique dealer or two tell me that it was of no significance that the dovetails and drawer construction were different on the lower versus the upper in a chest on chest. Yet, the shops didn't have "wedding chapel" in their names. (I've also been in more shops that had such pieces labeled as being a combined piece right on the hang tag label.)
It's not impossible that a chest-on-chest or a secretary might have slightly different construction details on the two case pieces and still have been made at the same time and delivered as one unit to the first customer in colonial times. This would be particularly true of urban pieces produced in a (relatively) big city such as Boston or Philadelphia.
The reason is that many of the shops of the period had multiple journeymen and perhaps apprentices working in the same shop, and slightly different angles on the case or drawer dovetails might very well mean that different journeymen made the tops and bottoms of two-piece case furniture. Radically different construction techniques would be suspicious, in my view, and dishonest of an antiques dealer not to point that out.
Regarding the question of how good those fakes in London were, it's tough to speculate without having the pieces in front of us, but I would imagine that they were quite good because the cabinetmaker working with the dealer was apparently producing such pieces for 15+ years, and I'd suspect at least some of the customers consulted independent appraisers.
That said, it is possible to produce a "fake" that's completely undetectable even with high-tech lab tools, because the surface chemistry and structure is the same as a 200+ year old antique. In my view, however, such a piece isn't a "fake" at all, because it's an object with identical surface treatments, construction and appearances - it's not old, but neither object actually has a history, which is simply whatever the current owner assigns to it.
How to say this politely: Recent experiences lead me to believe we here may know more about period furniture, what indicates a fake and what doesn't, than many people "in the trade" who should know/get paid to know. I don't know whether these types spend all of their time in Art History and none of it in basic period construction, or whether they are all in cohoots together. My feeling was the former though I've come across the latter.I think in terms of real furniture scholarship, the "trade" folks seem to be embroiled in the business side, while we reproduction builders just "need the info" (spoken like Dr. Evil). My sense is experience is a fantastic teacher. In a past life, I spent a great deal of my time working on german sports cars. I was always shocked by how little the salesmen of such vehicles knew about the cars they sold. I don't think the antiques trade is wholly different.Adam
You are right of course, drawers can differ in the details. But it certainly is a red flag to start looking closer about the rest to see whether the overall picture is right. But in the instances I was recalling the disparities were really quite too much, not just a different angle on the dovetails or differences in the size of the pins--it really didn't take much to see they were marriages. I've seen plenty more that I came away saying "might be right", but since I are not buying antiques, just trying to pick up ideas about construction and the like, I don't impose on dealers to do things like ask to see the bottom boards on each chest, which I certainly would do if I were fixing to pay even 5 figures for a piece.
If you replace the word history with the word provenance, you have a meaningful difference between old and new in my mind. People care about where things have been.
And, I would think, achieving the identical surface chemistry and structure requires an intent to deceive since the maker would have to go well beyond what would be required to merely make a faithful reproduction.
Another aspect to consider is to what extent should caveat emptor dominate transactions in antiques, especially when it is or should be known that there is quite a bit of deception within the trade. Not the norm I can't imagine, but more than very isolated incidence.
I can imagine a reasonably faithful reproduction, yet one that any knowledgeble person should recognize as such, being passed off as being of the period to the unwary collector. Then it's quite a bit more difficult to prove intent of the restorer/maker, as opposed to the culpability of the dealer. Then you would have to look to other elements indicating guilty knowledge, such as whether the maker charged the dealer prices in line with what he might charge if the piece had the makers name burned into the carcass.
Interestingly, sometimes it really doesn't matter whether new or old. I've heard the Master Silversmith at Colonial Williamsburg say that his shop gets more for the CW hand made reproduction than the equivalent 18th. century period piece might bring.
d, opinion-only one. Even the stinking rich don't deserve fraud at this level.
Observations.
If this happened at this relative dollar level of grand larceny to multi national movers and shakers back in the era of these furniture pieces , these brothers would be hanging in a matched pair of those iron cages over the Thames in a trice with the ravens pecking out their eyes. The craftsman who made them would have his hands cut off and the stumps dipped in hot tar.
The Times has no ba!!s at all to report this level of fraud in the garden section. I can only guess that may be fearful of losing some ad revenue* from the major auction houses. Paddy
* around 1985 we bought a full page nation wide on Sunday in black and white that they buried in the main section(you had to have been a diamond miner to find it) and it cost us almost $100,000.
I have a clear conscience. My brother-in-law got over his head with a pair of chair repairs. They were reputed to be Inn chairs from an Inn in Bolivar OH, on the Ohio Erie Canal. I painstakingly reglued and installed new corner glue blocks and used period screws. I used a hand saw to cut the blocks and got a nearly perfect match. But! my brother-in-law blew up because I wrote repair/date on the blocks
Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
Who do you think shoulders the responsibility in these instances; the dealer or the restorer?
A dealer (knowingly) asks a restorer to create a fake by dressing an object in a certain way. The restorer knows what he is doing and is also working day to day to make ends meet.
I've seen this very scenario in a good friends shop. If the dealers name came out, it would be scandal as he is a heavy hitter in the antiques world.
Rest assured it was not a one time thing either.
So do you vilify the restorer for doing the job? Philosophically he was not happy having to do it. Practically he was because it was the only work he had at the time.
What about the dealer? He was very aware of what he was asking and for good measure he was trying to step on the guys labor price for a better deal. This was for an object that would have fetched in the $150,000 range.
Rest fully assured this is not some isolated or unique incident. It happens from the top to the bottom in the trade.
I once had to replace some fret work on the bonnet of an early case clock for a dealer I did work for.
Getting the color and patina to blend seamlessly is the visual key here. When the dealer came to pick it up he stood there staring at it with a look on his face like he just ate something sour.
I was puzzled and asked what was wrong. He hesitantly told me that it may pass but just didn't look "right".
When I realized he was looking at the original, I let him stew for a few minutes and then told him he was, in fact, looking at the original; the one I replaced was on the other side.
I never saw a dealers checkbook pop open so fast for payment.
His happiness lasted until he looked at the back of the fret; I left the surface new and dated it. I only did a couple more jobs for him after that.
It's an interesting antique world out there.
Let The Buyer Beware.
Peter
<Who do you think shoulders the responsibility in these instances; the dealer or the restorer?>
i think that both parties share resosibility. why is the dealer not paying money to verify he is not being screwed by the restorer. because ingnorance is bliss. a dealer selling to another dealer who has the piece already sold. where is the motivation to sort the authentic from the reproduction. it's a scam all the way through.
Every day is a gift, that's why it's called the present.
why is the dealer not paying money to verify he is not being screwed by the restorer?
With due respect, what do you mean? How does the restorer screw the dealer?
excuse me i mis-typed. i was referring to dealer to dealer transactions like the one quoted in the article. if a dealer is buying a piece for a client from another dealer ) the dealer should takes steps to make sure of the pieces authenticity before A. purchasing and B. selling. at least if he cares about his reputation. i think many dealers get caught up in the $ and are neither looking out for their clients nor themselves.
Every day is a gift, that's why it's called the present.
peter,
The first shop I worked at, the boss and his wife would go north on periodic "buying trips". They would come back a week or two later, with the 1-ton truck filled to the top of its side racks with country Empire,and softwood "cottage" chests. It was standard procedure in those days (early '70's) to knock them apart, plane the drawer fronts (if they were softwood) down to the dovetail pins and recover the fronts with primary wood. Then, a new case would be built around the old drawers, in an early "good" style, typically with solid ends, qtr columns and bracket or ogee feet. If the case was hardwood, the complete drawers, drawer blades and top would be used as well, but the panelled ends were seldom used. It was the usual thing to saw the deep, top "bonnet" drawer in two, making two narrower drawers out of it, and adding a new blade to the case between them.
These "restyled" chests were sold as what they were, no intent to deceive. It was purely a business decision, as it made monetary sense to do this; it avoided the labor of dovetailing drawers, and yielded a product that had a nice period look, for a small investment of labor. I remember the boss lamenting that it was "getting harder to find good cheap chests, used to be they were $10 each, now (1971) they are 20 and 25 apiece". He used to joke that his dad once bought a truck load of old drawers, and made night stands around them, laughingly calling them "90 percent restorations".
Many of these were sold to antique dealers, to what end? Others went into private homes, to be passed down, or sold at estate sales, "as is". Not too many years ago, this type of activity was just part of the day to day workings of the small antique / furniture repair shop. It wasn't considered unscrupulous, and common, unremarkable country pieces or mass-produced, undesireable, (yet handmade) generic stuff was not looked on as an artifact to be studied and preserved, but as grist for the mill of earning a living by making a product that there was a market for.
Standards today are somewhat different. And the order of magnitude of what took place in the shop in England was somewhat greater! It has been common knowledge at least since the late 1920's when Nutting wrote the Furniture Treasury, that the production of "antiques" in England was an industry. By now, those early fakes are near to attaining legitimate antique status. Fake antiques becoming antique fakes.
While I've often been asked to restore a damaged or incomplete object with old materials to "make it look right", it seems to me that that's different from taking a lesser (stylistically speaking) object and restyling or upgrading it to make it more desireable, or even moreso, recreating an object from (old) whole cloth. Yet the opportunity is there, to say, "As long as we have to put new feet on this chest, why shouldn't they be ogee feet rather than plain brackets?" One local auctioneer was so well known for pieces he'd "cleaned up" appearing at his auctions with chamfered corners, and ogee feet, that a customer once remarked, "That Mr. X XX ! I bet when he passes, his coffin will have ogee feet!"
While it may salve one's own concience to write a name and date on an unstained repair surface, what's to prevent an unscrupulous person from adding a coat of dark stain when it leaves the shop? Perhaps more to the point, how is it that a correctly done restoration, which fools the observer, is supposed to somehow take away from the object's value as an object of art?
Ray
"While it may salve one's own concience to write a name and date on an unstained repair surface, what's to prevent an unscrupulous person from adding a coat of dark stain when it leaves the shop?"
I remember reading long ago about someone who made reproductions--I forget who--who used a branding iron to burn his name and the year 1/4" deep into the back or underside of any work that he did.
-Steve
Hi Ray,
Some great points.
I'm sure at some point that surface was treated in some way. But you know as well as I do that it would stand out like a sore thumb. A dark stain is so obvious that it's usually a beacon that something is amiss.
This same dealer once brought a nice little tiger maple work table to me that he had "washed" down. I used to tell him till I was blue in the face not to do that, how he was ruining what was best left alone. He just wouldn't listen.
He was frantic to find out one of the legs was actually birch. Someone had done a good job of graining it. Of course it had to go into a show in a week and he was counting on it to sell.
He was well aware I could easily replace the graining but was pretty pissed when I said no.
I wanted to drive home two points to him; I wouldn't do something that I KNEW he would not point out. Secondly, I told him time and again that he was harming pieces by arbitrarily washing surfaces without any real knowledge of them.
Tough love I guess. Like I said before, I didn't do much for him after that clock. This one sealed the deal for him.
Speaking of buying trips; one of the ones I find interesting is the people who buy veneered chests of drawers that are, in the furniture world pretty new, remove the veneer for other work and then do a mucked up finish on the case and sell it as an old piece.
I'll bet we could trade tons of war stories like this.
Just for the record, I don't do work for dealers anymore, just private collectors. I love furniture as an art form and this way I get to document the work for people who who feel the same way.
Since I do a lot of site finishing, one of my favorite projects is finishing a new room to blend with the furniture that it will house. I'll explain to a client in cases like this, if you notice what I've done, I did it wrong. Fun stuff!
Peter
Who do you think shoulders the responsibility in these instances; the dealer or the restorer?
A dealer (knowingly) asks a restorer to create a fake by dressing an object in a certain way. The restorer knows what he is doing and is also working day to day to make ends meet.
From the perspective of ethics, I suppose it gets murky - you have a 2 year old to feed, is it better to let her go hungry than to bend the rules? I hope I'm never in that situation.
From a legal perspective (in the US, that is) - the restorer/faker bears responsibility if there's evidence that he/she knows how the piece will be represented by the dealer. Regardless of what I may think of individuals that pay over $100,000 for a plain Shaker cupboard, making a new one, aging it so that the patina is authentic, and selling it to a customer with a faked provenance is clear-cut theft-by-deception, and is generally a felony in most states.
This is partly why I sign all pieces I make, whether I age them or not. Once it's out of my hands, my responsibility ends. If an unscrupulous dealer chooses to remove my signature (which wouldn't be easy) and sell it as an authentic antique, there's little I can do about it.
From the standpoint of replacing the word history with provenance, they could be used interchangeably in my original post. An inanimate object's provenance has no meaning, either, other than the importance that a human buyer/owner assigns to it. And as everyone on this thread probably knows, a provenance is much more subject to fabrication than the actual object. It's a lot tougher to make an object with hand tools appropriate to the period and give it an authentic patina that will stand up to fluorescent microscopy surface analysis than it is to come up with a story (and perhaps a few "witnesses" that will back it up) that supports its purported age.
The "Brewster" chair in the Henry Ford museum is an excellent example. It came to the museum buyers with what seemed as an iron-clad provenance - a history going back a hundred years in a Maine farmhouse. Interestingly enough, the maker didn't sell the chair as authentic - he was careful to represent it as a reproduction with no provenance. The provenance and the identity of the object as an antique was a product of the dealers that the piece passed through on the way to the Ford museum.
I'm confused. You say: An inanimate object's provenance has no meaning, either, other than the importance that a human buyer/owner assigns to it. But that is entirely the point. It is people, and only people, that assign any value to objects, and that value often is based on much more than the physical characteristics. So what else to you call those characteristics that are based on knowledge of who or when it was made, and through whose hands it passed.
Often, actually usually, we only have a rough idea of when or where it was made, occasionally we may know who made it, and even rarer is the case that we actually know who owned it over part or all of its life. For what ever reason, rarity is valued, and it is those pieces where all the elements come together that are rare in the extreme, and which command high prices, at least as long as the object itself has "merit" in terms of design and execution.
You are right of course that provenance is quite often highly distorted. "Family histories" tend often to get it just plain wrong even without attempts to deceive. And deception is relatively easy as well. Attributed to.... is a pretty slippery term.
I'm confused. You say: An inanimate object's provenance has no meaning, either, other than the importance that a human buyer/owner assigns to it. But that is entirely the point. It is people, and only people, that assign any value to objects, and that value often is based on much more than the physical characteristics. So what else to you call those characteristics that are based on knowledge of who or when it was made, and through whose hands it passed.
In the original post I posed a hypothetical situation: a newly-made tea table that has all of the appropriate hand-tool marks and a patina that matches old pieces (achieved through accelerated oxidation, dings and scratches, and wear rather than dyes/stains, modern finishes, etc..) set next to a very similar tea table made 250 years ago.
Is there any inherent difference? In my opinion, and as far as the physical object is concerned, no. The only difference is the romanticization that we humans ascribe to the piece that's identified as old (whether documented history or family stories). As an inanimate object, it has no "history" - that's a construct of the human intellect.
In other terms, suppose such a modern-constructed piece was unscrupulously sold to a buyer as an antique. Because its physical characteristics are indistinguishable from a 250 year old piece (and that is possible, by the way, it's just expensive), it is an antique in the buyer's mind, with all of the charm of "history" that collectors usually assign to such pieces.
What this suggests to me is that an antique piece of furniture's value should primarily be based on what it is (physical characteristics, patina, form, etc..) rather than an antique dealer's description of its "historical importance" or "authenticity". Thus, I find the valuation of $6 million for the Goddard family tea table to be completely absurd, when a reproduction by a first-class craftsman such as Alan Breed can be had for under $50,000. Breed's table and carving would be virtually indistinguishable from the original, and with the appropriate accelerated aging, it would be indistinguishable. Therefore, the buyer is essentially paying $5,950,000 for a nice story, which strikes me as nutty in the extreme.
Edited 6/11/2008 12:26 pm ET by dkellernc
"Therefore, the buyer is essentially paying $5,950,000 for a nice story, which strikes me as nutty in the extreme."
You're comparing a more or less objective measure of value (let's call it "intrinsic worth") to a more subjective one: what someone is willing to pay. There have always been discrepancies between the two, and the discrepancies tend to track with various economic factors.
But it has always been that way: In 1635, a single tulip bulb was sold for 6000 florins, an amount roughly equal to a lifetime's wages for the average Dutch citizen at the time.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
-Steve
Indeed, this argument has been going around forever. I would never suggest that someone ought to be prevented somehow from making (what I consider to be) foolish purchase decisions. Heck, I think purchasing anything from Wal-Mart is a foolish purchase decision, and it's clear that 80% of the American population is in the other camp.
But the Dutch tulip example is a good one. Whenever there is a huge gap between the subjective value of something and the cost of producing an identical example, there is large incentive for extreme (and sometimes unethical) marketing by dealers. I've little doubt that's where the phrase "large, important brasses" comes from (and which I think is idiotic).
<
Indeed, this argument has been going around forever. I would never suggest that someone ought to be prevented somehow from making (what I consider to be) foolish purchase decisions>
my sentiments exactly.
Every day is a gift, that's why it's called the present.
There's one additional twist to this topic that I thought of last night while watching and Antique Roadshow re-run (it was a really bad tv night...):
The current thinking in the antique furniture collector's market is that a piece with "orginal surface" is the coup de grace of finds. At least when it comes to early American antiques, this thinking has an ironic twist - The vast majority of early clear finishes had a substantial amount of lead, particularly linseed oil. This lead is still present in antiques, though much, much more so in an original, un-stripped surface.
Most individuals get quite concerned about the presence of compounds of even questionable toxicity used in glazes on plates, paint on walls, or molding release agents in plastics. Yet they welcome an antique with "original" finish?
Particularly when it comes to painted furniture, some of the compounds used in the original finish were incredibly toxic - early reds, for example, were often made of mecuric sulfides.
Interesting that I never see a recommendation to handle original-finish antiques with gloves, nor not to have them around children on antique dealer's websites!
I think you are quite right with respect to painted furniture. I suspect that with clear finishes, and especially with BLO where the finish isn't on the surface anyway, that the impact of the lead would be much less, because it is both a lower amount than in paint, and because it is more tightly bound into the finish. But it is a good point to consider.
The "original finishes" that are so prized are very rare. Even the painted finishes have had many surface treatments.
One of the best ways to read a surface is through microscopy. This allows the researcher to categorize the layers under the microscope.
I think many of these compounds are actually isolated under years of care. However, I'm not minimizing the potential impact if they are up on the surface.
Besides time, many types of (secret) formulas for cleaning and preservation were the bane of surface treatments. That original layer is oft buried beneath piles of sludge. The funny thing, much of this is still perpetuated by those who'll use a treatment that "someone once told them about."
If you ever get a chance to, read this thesis;
Decorative and Protective Finishes 1750 - 1850
Materials, Process, and Craft.
Theodore Zuk Penn, Univ. Delaware 1966, Winterthur Library
It is an eye opener along the lines of what you spoke. The materials used were quite often very toxic.
Personally, I am a strong skeptic of original surfaces. I have seen many wax poetic over a finish that is really considered an estate finish and has started to develop a patina.
It does make for a spirited discussion though.
Peter
Peter,I understood that lead (white) was a primary ingredient , along with linseed and pigment in early paints, as a binder and was also used as a pore filler, much like, talc or chalk on such things as pianos where an absolute filled surface was required prior to endless finish coats. In eras where their alchemy was not so advanced as to understand how to use it - without melting (Crystal goblets et al) it seems strange to add lead to a clear finish? Even in a micro powder form it would still be opaque unless it was applied over a finish as protective finish. No?
Was it dissolved in a reagent first? With Arsenic? Other metals? How was it used in clear finishes without it adding to the opacity?"It does make for a spirited discussion though."Is this a subtle invite to Shellac-man to join in ? :-)RegardsBoiler
Boiler - Your screen name alludes to the method of preparing linseed oil as a finish. "Boiled Linseed Oil" is a bit of a mis-nomer in modern times, but in the 18th and 19th century, Lead oxide was ground to a powder, and slowly added to boiling linseed oil in the ratio of about 3 lbs of PbO to a gallon of Linseed Oil. What did not dissolve during the boiling procees was removed by decanting the finished, clear BLO.
The Lead Oxide was used as to accelerate the hardening of linseed oil through cross-linking. Sometimes this cross-linking is mistakenly referred to as "drying" - Linseed oil has too high of a vapor pressure to dry like solvents do. It (the lead) also helped to provide a harder, glossier finish than would Linseed oil alone.
Nowadays, "Boiled Linseed Oil" found in a home improvement or paint store has Cobalt and Manganese salts added to the Linseed oil during manufacture to promote cross-linking in air. "Japan Drier" is the powdered forms of these salts, and can be used to accelerate the drying of tung and linseed oils.
All of the paints used in the 18th century were primarily lead-treated linseed oil, some ground, solid lead oxide as a thickener and to provide opacity, and the pigment. Pigments could range from the totally benign carbon black and earth colors (such as sienna and umber) to the incredibly toxic mercuric sulfide (vermillion) and arsenic sulfide (white). Some were a bit less toxic such as Verdigris (Copper Acetate), but all period paints and finishes should be regarded as dangerous unless proven otherwise.
Certainly not dangerous for a museum setting, where the public doesn't come in contact with them, but in my view, an authentic painted Pennsylvania chest should never be in a house with a baby - there's too much risk of the infant touching or handling the surface and then putting their hand in their mouth. It only takes a little bit of arsenic, antimony, selenium or lead to cause real problems for children.
My name alludes to where I live, nothing more.
Although Peter referenced paint finishes, my questions to Peter were in essence about final clear finishes. Perhaps I was unclear - no pun. Clear finishes, such as but not limited to shellacs. A high percentage of antique furniture was finished with nothing more than shellac. Sometimes, just wax.
I'm aware of most of the relevant problems of heavy metals in paint. My interest is in how the lead, where linseed oil was NOT used for grain and color depth or anything else, was used on final clear finishes, if at all. How it was incorporated and with what end result desired.
Is the argument from dealers and others that the lead comes from other than original clear finishes or is the statement merely referencing all finishes, opaque and otherwise (paint etc) put on later, or as part of the original decoration? More of a unilateral statement as it were. Perhaps as common as auction dealer's blanket statements "if the older glass is starting to turn purple then it was from XXXX when they used to use Mercury" "or before XXXX they used Uranium"
Is it that under the "current thinking" all original finishes are suspect or only those that have been further finished by paint and other methods? If so it would seem to be a shame.
It would also, perhaps appropriately, provide a windfall to all refinishers.RegardsBoilerbay
Hmm - the comment about your screename was just a (bad) joke. If you read Jeffrey Greene's American Furniture of the 18th Century, you find that shellac was not in widespread use until the 2nd quarter of the 19th century. The reason a good many people think that shellac was widely used as a clear finish on colonial furniture was that the early finishes were not very durable, and a lot of the furniture from this period was stripped and refinished with shellac in the 19th century. This shellac is now quite dark and in some cases "alligatored", leading some dealers and collectors to believe that it was the original surface on a piece.
The lead content in the original finishes primarily came from the preparation of the linseed oil. Prior to the 20th century, all linseed oil intended for use in paints, clear finishes, or as a clear finish to be used with wax contained lead oxide so that it would polymerize (i.e., a "drying" oil). Without the addition of heavy metal salts, linseed oil will dry very, very slowly over the course of years. For obvious reasons, early furniture makers didn't want to wait that long.
Also, most clear film finishes from the colonial period that contained copals (tree resins, including fossilized tree resins such as amber) used linseed oil as a solvent, and that linseed oil contained a high proportion of lead. Greene refers to these as "short oil" or "long oil" finishes - the "short" meaning a finish with a low proportion of linseed oil, the "long" referring to a finish with a high proportion of linseed oil.
There is an excellent article on the use of oil and wax as an early finishing method in the Wooden Artifacts Group's online archive - it's worth reading. The title is "The Use of Wax Finishes on Pre-Industrial American Furniture" by Joseph Godia, Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. This is the link to the site:
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/index.html
Edited 6/16/2008 10:16 am ET by dkellernc
Thanks,
I'll check it out.Regards,
I stand corrected. I wasn't considering the drying salts when I answered boilerbay concerning clear finishes.
An area where they would be absent is when the resins were dissolved in spirits of wine, thus making spirit varnishes as opposed to oil varnishes.
The very hard resins such as copal and amber were "made to run" before they were able to fully incorporate into a hot oil.
According to Penn;
" there was no set formula for treating oil with driers. Each craftsman probably had his own favored recipe that called for boiling oil with either a single drier or a mixture of driers.
A basic rule of thumb that can be identified in the multitude of surviving formulas, about four to five ounces of drier(s) was boiled with a gallon of oil. Although all recipes for making a drying oil did not call for actually boiling oil, some sort of heat was usually utilized."
T.Z. Penn page 69
There were also the ones that would let the oil sit in a sunny location and continually blow air through it.
Fascinating stuff.
Lead dissolves in ethyl alcohol fairly readily, which is the alcohol used to mix shellac. So, if I were an amateur alchemist, mixing my own paints, with little knowledge of chemistry, but a knowledge of alchemy, and the associated knowledge, that lead dissolved in linseed oil, causes it to "dry", and harden faster I might just try it in the alcohol for my shellac. And, easily convince myself, and others that it "dried" faster, and was harder.
Also, one of the problems in making a still to distill the alcohol, is that the trace levels of lead in your copper, and any lead used in soldering your still together, are readily dissolved into the hot alcohol coming through the distillation tubing. That is where the term, "drink your self blind" came from.
Since it takes several passes through the still to get high concentrations of alcohol and less water; I would guess that trace levels of lead would frequently be found in the alcohol used to mix up the shellac, whether the person mixing it made a choice to include it or not.
"Lead dissolves in ethyl alcohol fairly readily..."
Metallic lead does not dissolve in alcohol to any appreciable extent. Some lead salts do. The leaching of lead from plumbing or distillation apparati requires the presence of a chemical to first dissolve the metallic lead (usually an acid of some kind) and form a lead salt. This can be a problem in distillation because there is frequently vinegar (acetic acid) present. This reacts with the lead to form lead acetate, which is indeed soluble in water and alcohol.
-Steve
Indeed. It's also true that a bit of lead (metallic) will dissolve in methanol, as methanol is just acidic enough to do the trick (ethanol and higher-order alcohols are not acidic enough, and require oxidation of the lead to an oxide before they will go into solution).
A warning to those amateur chemists that might be reading this thread with interest and want to try period formulas - Dissolving lead in alcohol to form the methyl or ethyl lead compound is INCREDIBLY dangerous!! Unlike metallic lead or lead salts, methyl or ethyl lead will go right through latex gloves, and right through your skin, and will quickly give you a lethally toxic dose. Several researchers have been killed in this manner over the last couple of decades, and in some cases all it took was a DROP of ethyl lead.
Nevertheless, I suspect that "spirit" varnishes prepared from sandarac and the more easily dissolved resins such as pine pitch rarely contained lead, simply because it wasn't necessary and lead was far too valuable in the 18th century (as were all metals) to use in a cavalier manner.
I don't know how you gleaned a subtle message out of this.
I just found it to be an interesting discussion.
Of course you were in earnest and it is an interesting discussion.
My questions to you were in earnest also.The last line was a reference to another member.
Was humorously (or not) referring to "spirit" as in alcohol as in Shellac. The forum has a member who is very fond of shellac and usually has something to contribute whenever the spirit moves him. Most apologies if you misunderstood.Boiler
Clear finishes, to my knowledge, did not contain lead. They consisted mostly of resins such as sandarac, mastic, dammar, copal, amber to name a few.
Add to this the various balsams and drying oils and the finishing alchemists created all sorts of formulas. Many just would not stand the test of time, others were more tenacious.
The point I made was the sckepticism of the original finish concept. I said nothing of lead in clear finishes.
Peter, Thank you. It was starting to get a little blurred on what was being talked about. To your knowledge is there anything known to be lethal in the "old" clear finish areas?Also, is "Decorative and Protective Finishes 1750 - 1850" available on the net or maybe I should contact the Museum?Thanks again,John
John,
Cocncerning anything lethal in old clear finishes;
That could be considered a loaded question because of all the alchemy practiced. I'm not trying to dodge your question but I try never to say never. I don't know if I would gnaw on any of them but that said I don't think you'll find the toxicity in the coatings that you find in the colors and paints.
If you contact Winterthur you can get a portion of it, I'm just not sure how much. I think it's ten pages, maybe twenty.
When I was there for the first time, I was asking the librarian questions about manuscripts concerning coatings. I hadn't finished the question when she wrote out the name and told me it was the one everyone asked for.
I'm lucky enough to have a full copy. I know a conservator who was a friend of Penns and gave me a copy.
Peter
Peter very off the subject.. But I'd say it all depends.
I tend to go off the deep end ALOT! But I will try to keep it in prospective here...
I and my brother had different fathers. Same mother is obvious! She is about 90 something now and will probably live till she runs out of Jack Daniels! I love my Mom but we never got along well.. I'm not sure why.. She was never mean to me..
All I can say is I think it is part of our make up.. NOT to say any way is better or worse than another...
My first step father (a very nice man and I have had a few). I never new my real father.. He loved my mom .. His Mother told me that..
My brother and I got along really well and did all the stupid things kids do! Stepfather at the time was a Linotype operator for the Chicago Tribune?
He would bring us all sorts of Lead scraps to play with! I KNOW he never thought it was dangerous! And as kids we could get all kinds of chemicals.. Make Gunpowder and Make Mercury!
We did that on the kitchen stove! Red powder? Mercuric oxide? I think! Mom never got mad as long as we cleaned up after.. Heat that red stuff in a pot until we saw Mercury beads!
Grandpa went off in a huff because he thought is smelled funny in the kitchen!
Hell, we even made gunpowder in the kitchen! My old granddad knew the smell and sent us outdoors!
NOBODY said NOT to do it! Or knew it was dangersous..Not sure we would have listened anyway.. My VERY cool younger brother died from MS.. I get along these better that I could hope for!
Back in the very eary 60' I was in the Second Armord 16 th. (Armord Artillary)
Army NEVER gave us Ear Protection.. Just SALT tablets! Ever hear a 8 inch, or 5 inch, or 155, go off when you did not cover youe ears!
I loved my Army days.. I had a M88? So long ago I forget...Tank retriver! The best MAN tool ever!
When shipped off to Germany during the Cuban Thing... (Kiserslatuen?) Not sure of the name spelling now..I got a package of WWII food out in the mud after some Officer told us we were expendabel! If the enemy came! A big package.. AND a Carton of Lucky Strikes with the green circle! Had no meaning to me then!.. I never smoked much before then! But just sometimes I thought I had to look cool for the girl walikng by! I just loved MY CARTON OF LUCKIES the Army gave me! Been smoking them for MANY years!
I would suppose I could try BUT I'd never feel the same.. Some million in the bank! OR how good I felt smoking on those Luckies!
I'd think a even exchange!
Thank god you never came in contact with one of those original painted surfaces!!
Maybe I have.. Sort of. One of my uncles was a house painter. As a kid he would let me 'help' him? Or do the hard work. Not sure but I'd have to mix some Thick white paste into the paint and mix and mix until I could not move my arm anymore. I'd guess I was mixing the 'lead' in. Not sure. My uncle liked me and I'm sure he would never do anything to hurt me on purpose.
I think most of my 'kin' are from Germany. Most came to the US before WWI.
I lived with my Grandfather (his very large house) with my mom and dad and brother. Grandpa had all sorts of painted furniture and whatever that came from different parts of Europe and most old when they got it! In fact, I do not remember anything you would call stained. Just going from memories as a child. Every room and especially the attic was his warehouse!
They were 'rich' folks in Germany but just 'grunts' here in the USA! I do not think he cared a bit abou that. We always raised the flag in front of his house before he went to work! Yes.. He got everybody up! Sun, rain, or snow! GrandPa was very easy to get along with.. AS LONG as you did things HIS WAY!
Anyway, alot of that painted furniture was used by the family every day and we were all pretty healthy. Then again, I'd have to face GrandPa if I chewed on any of his stuff!
Long winded way to say.. You have a point there!
Edited 6/18/2008 12:20 pm by WillGeorge
Peter,
Good enough! I'll give them a shout.
Thanks
John
All that you are saying is that YOU wouldn't pay for that story, but economists gave up objective measures of value a long time ago. The Classical economists (Smith, Ricardo, Marx) thought value was labor content, but that doesn't generate a consistent theory. So what we are left with is subjective, and values are still the construct of human intellect, but not just intellect, emotions have every bit as much to do about it.
A Goddard tea table is worth what someone is willing is able to pay for it. Period. And if the romanticization, as you term it, is important to the buyer, then it is--how can anyone say otherwise without also saying that they were a superior being. You might be able to fool that buyer with a fake--but he would have every right to be extremely disappointed if it were unmasked.
Would the money be "better" put toward feeding the starving masses or improving education. Who knows--maybe it feeds the soul of the buyer so much that he or she creates foundations with the rest of their hundreds of millions. I've seen Allan Breed's work (and taken a class) and personally I might well prefer the Breed table, but there is nothing objective about that either.
interesting post.
some years back i inherited a small box containing 4 or 5 letters. each was written on old llined paper and each describes some aspect of army life as it was during the early 1860's. all of the letters were written by young men fighting, not the civil war, but, rather the apache nation in the areas that were to become arizona and new mexico. the provenance of these "objects" is obvious. where they came from, what they had to go through and the information they now impart,for me, makes these "things" valuable, not to mention fascinating. it is the enjoyment of this fascination that keeps me going to museums as well as enjoying threads such as this.
thanks,
eef
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled