Establishing Provenance
Evelyn
importance of establishing provenance, more as a matter of
historical interest than in establishing value.
We recently inherited the big Victorian "cottage" my
husband's grandparents bought in 1912. It came down from
them to my husband's mother, who recently died at 79, and
hence to us. My husband has lived here for his 50 years, and
I've been here since we married 15 years ago. The place is
full of Victorian furniture and knick-knacks, and my
mother-in-law taught me quite a lot about what's what in
Victoriana. At times I've felt like the curator-in-training
of a small museum :-)
I'm now beginning to catalogue things, more for family
interest than to sell them, and I'm running up against
questions of provenance. For some of the items, we can
establish clear provenance through things like the list of
my husband's grandparents' wedding gifts, the tag on the
back of the piano (always assuming it wasn't transferred
from another, older piano), or the date the framer
scribbled on the back of an etching. For others, we have no
information except my mother-on-law's anecdotes ("Oh yes,
Gramma bought that carpet at an auction house in Atlantic
City in 1926" kind of thing).
I don't mind the job of curatorship, but I'm getting lost
in detail without knowing what to spend my time on, and
what's a waste of time. My question is, what's good enough
to establish provenance? Are anecdotes about where/when
something was bought sufficient? Is it enough (for another
example) that I have a photograph taken in 1946 of a settee
that's still sitting in the exact same spot in the house?
Or that the dining room chairs have women's names written on
the bottom of each, to designate the long-gone aunt who
needle-pointed the cover?
Sorry for the length of this. I've probably given way too
much information, but I have a feeling I'm in very deep
water here for a beginner. A few suggestions about reliable
books or websites would be very welcome. Thanks.
Evelyn
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tsu Dho Nimh
>I don't mind the job of curatorship, but I'm getting lost
>in detail without knowing what to spend my time on, and
>what's a waste of time. My question is, what's good enough
>to establish provenance? Are anecdotes about where/when
>something was bought sufficient?
If they can be backed up by proof the supposed buyer had
opportunity to buy the piece under the conditions of the
anecdote. If family legend has it that great-uncle Alfie brought
back the rhino-foot umbrella stand from his stint as a missionary
in Africa, you have to show that he REALLY was a missionary in
Africa. If your research shows that Alfie spent his days
hustling pool Detroit ... anecdote is bad.
>Is it enough (for another
>example) that I have a photograph taken in 1946 of a settee
>that's still sitting in the exact same spot in the house?
That at least establishes that the settee was there in 1946
>Or that the dining room chairs have women's names written on
>the bottom of each, to designate the long-gone aunt who
>needle-pointed the cover?
record this somewhere, that the names are of the stitcher.
Tsu Dho Nimh
Women don't make fools of men -- most of them are the do-it-yourself types.
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
>Evelyn <uncanick...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't mind the job of curatorship, but I'm getting lost
>>in detail without knowing what to spend my time on, and
>>what's a waste of time. My question is, what's good enough
>>to establish provenance? Are anecdotes about where/when
>>something was bought sufficient?
We've been here before but 'provenance' (in Europe anyway) is only
needed for an **EXREMELY** important item.....Queen Victoria's
knickers asseen by Prince Albert on their wedding night (or the first
cabinet designed by Chippendale etc)....otherwise you are just talking
about 'proof of ownership' or 'past history'....completely different
from provenance and of no great affect to the value!!!
Jon
Please remove the YDOGVY before replying by email.
***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
about other online services we offer our subscribers.
13 Ghosts
> in detail without knowing what to spend my time on, and
> what's a waste of time. My question is, what's good enough
> to establish provenance? Are anecdotes about where/when
> that's still sitting in the exact same spot in the house?
> the bottom of each, to designate the long-gone aunt who
> needle-pointed the cover?
>
> much information, but I have a feeling I'm in very deep
> water here for a beginner. A few suggestions about reliable
> books or websites would be very welcome. Thanks.
>
> Evelyn
Good points already made by Psued and Jon.
I think part of the answer to your question "what is good enough
to establish provenance" will be answered by the question-
Who is it for?
If it is for the grandchildren etc., then the family story should
suffice without any kind of hard evidence.
13 Ghosts
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Evelyn
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>
>We've been here before but 'provenance' (in Europe anyway)
is only
>needed for an **EXREMELY** important item.....Queen
Victoria's
>knickers
************
Oops! Thanks for the correction ;-)
From your reply and the others, it seems that family history
will be more than sufficient. Many thanks.
13 Ghosts
wrote:
On the other hand, family stories do turn out to be incorrect
or untrue in many cases.
My old grandmother has been known to tell a tall tale or two. ;)
And remember, often assumptions lead to error. Probably the most
common one made is that people think that just because something
belonged to their grandmother, it must be old. This happens all the
time.
So, the value of what we are told about things, I guess I am trying to
say, is of dubious value. In the end, there is no substitute for
learning
what's what.
Maryann
>from provenance and of no great affect to the value!!!
>Jon
But wonderful to know. Record all the info you can. someday your
decendents will thank you.
I lived in a house built in 1700 something and no one ever threw out
anything. Most furniture had info written on it somewhere and all
framed family pictures had names, dates etc. It really added a lot to
the enjoyment of some lovely old things (and some not so lovely old
folks!)
Maryann
Michele Mauro
family history!
I certainly don't have all your answers, and I'm sure others will chime
in with their thoughts, but my first suggestion is to leave all those
tags and names attached to the furniture and what-nots. But you might
want to catalog every thing you do know in one place... if the info is
"anecdotal" make a note, if it's from the wedding lists or photos, keep
them with the other info (definitely in an acid-free binder). And don't
be afraid to add new pictures of everything to the book (and sending
copies to your homeowner's insurance agent wouldn't hurt either). <grin>
On items like the chairs, add any info you know into your book - dates
of birth/death of your great-aunts will help give a time frame for their
needlepoint, how they're related to you and your family, etc. If the
house and furnishings were appraised when you inherited them, keep that
info with everything else too.
As to how much to catalog and where to stop, that's up to you - it can
become a life long passion if you want it to be! There are many good
books out there on how to care for your antiques, or books that can help
you ID a time period for that odd bit of furniture stashed in the attic,
and some good pottery, porcelain and glass books can help you with the
knick-knacks.
You can also take photos and post them on your web site. If you have
questions on some of them, post the URLs here and we'll all have a peek
at your stuff!
Good luck, Michele
--
Change NOSPAM to 'chaos' to reply via email.
Evelyn <uncanick...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:27702aa4...@usw-ex0108-058.remarq.com...
charlies
about what you know about each piece while you film it you will have a nice
basic record. Then you could go from there and get as detailed as you want.
Just remember to store a copy in your safety deposit box.
Tina
Gillam Kerley
charlies wrote:
>
> A short cut way to do this might be with a video camera. If you talk
> about what you know about each piece while you film it you will have a nice
> basic record. Then you could go from there and get as detailed as you want.
I could be wrong, but I don't think videotape is appropriate for
archives. IOW, I'm not sure it will survive for generations, even if
properly stored. There's also the problem of changing formats; if VHS
goes the way of Beta, where will your great great grandchilden find a
VCR to play it on?
GK
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
All information on old items is fascinating (our house was built in
1680) and often worthwhile researching and recording...but it ain't
'provenance' in the accepted term in the UK, unless it involves famous
pieces or people. For example: A mirror I bought once was really owned
by the 'famous' Duke of Wellington and had a proven 'provenance' that
added (slightly) to its value. Otherwise it is all just background
history..
Jon
Please remove the ELNTDH before replying by email.
Tsu Dho Nimh
>We've been here before but 'provenance' (in Europe anyway) is only
>needed for an **EXREMELY** important item.....Queen Victoria's
>knickers asseen by Prince Albert on their wedding night (or the first
>cabinet designed by Chippendale etc)....otherwise you are just talking
>about 'proof of ownership' or 'past history'....completely different
>from provenance and of no great affect to the value!!!
Jon -
My Beenie baby with the MINT tush tag and the original sales
slip has as much provenance as Vicky's knickers.
"provenance" ... according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
merely means "the fact of coming from some particular source or
quarter". The definition says nothing about getting an owner's
pedigree, family arms, or appraising the value of a piece before
"past history" can be considered "provenance".
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
I do know what its general definition is, but it is a technical term
in antiques and auction houses, at least here in the UK, and is used
to denote proof of importance of ownership or craftsman.
If you see the UK Antiques Roadshow they ask if the owner of an
ordinary piece has any "history" of the item. If the person is
claiming they have a piece of Napolean's hair taken from his deathbed
placed in a gold locket and given to a faithful servant...they then
start talking about 'provenance'.
Your BB definately does NOT have provenance in this manner,unless your
cryptic name is hiding a very famous one !!!!
Jon
Please remove the QIRIYI before replying by email.
Ronnie McKinley
> "provenance" ... according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
>merely means "the fact of coming from some particular source or
>quarter". The definition says nothing about getting an owner's
>pedigree, family arms, or appraising the value of a piece before
>"past history" can be considered "provenance".
It is commonly accepted (has always been the case) in the antiques trade
in the British Isles that "provenance" has only importance through
previous ownership. The fact that a "Beenie baby" was once owned by
somebody with "no name" or your grannie and we even have a picture with
Mr. No-name, grannie, beenie baby and all will make no difference to the
value whatsoever.
OTOH, if Elton John or the 2nd Duke of Peedle-in-the-Mash once owned the
said beenie baby then that will make one hell of a difference, both to
its monetary worth and the interest shown. Right or wrong, but it's a
fact of life. The auction houses in the British Isles will always make a
big noise on the "provenance" that is, the previous owner/s, the BIG
house will clearly display in the catalogues ... "The former property of
Lord what's-its-name" or "The former property of Lady YaHo" ... or "From
the Estate of Ringo Starr" if it was once owner by Joe Bloggs, I am
afraid nobody really cares.
That's what "provenance" means over here.
Ronnie
=====
Cyanogirl
>in the British Isles that "provenance" has only importance through
>previous ownership. The fact that a "Beenie baby" was once owned by
>somebody with "no name" or your grannie and we even have a picture with
>Mr. No-name, grannie, beenie baby and all will make no difference to the
>value whatsoever.
>
>OTOH, if Elton John or the 2nd Duke of Peedle-in-the-Mash once owned the
>said beenie baby then that will make one hell of a difference, both to
>its monetary worth and the interest shown. Right or wrong, but it's a
>fact of life. The auction houses in the British Isles will always make a
>big noise on the "provenance" that is, the previous owner/s, the BIG
>house will clearly display in the catalogues ... "The former property of
>Lord what's-its-name" or "The former property of Lady YaHo" ... or "From
>the Estate of Ringo Starr" if it was once owner by Joe Bloggs, I am
>afraid nobody really cares.
>
>That's what "provenance" means over here.
>
>
>Ronnie
>=====
Darn it, Ronnie! I am about to list some of my panties on eBay. I was hoping
that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide pictures of
myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go, huh?
Cyn
======
Lace me up, would ya, honey?
Ronnie McKinley
For fun .. here's a picture from a Sotheby's estate sale, and you'll
agree, a load of old kitsch junk if ever there was, this was the part
contents of the kitchen. If it had been my junk or Jon's junk or even T's
junk, Sotherby's would probably have told our executors to piss off on
down the street to the local flea.
But oh no!! this junk was embraced by Sotheby's with all the hype they
could muster, with full coloured catalogue, TV and media press coverage
and in the end, silly ridiculous prices. Why? simply because of
provenance ... the former property and estate of Andy Warhol ... viewing
at the time: Frankfurt, 10th-12th March; Cologne, 15th-17th March;
London, 24th-28th March; and Tokyo, 31st March - 5th April with the sale
finally ending in New York between 23th April-3rd May.
Of course there were a few good things as well. :)))
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/the_kitchen.jpg
Ronnie
=====
"what's in a name antiques"
=====================
Ronnie McKinley
>Darn it, Ronnie! I am about to list some of my panties on eBay. I was hoping
>that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide pictures of
>myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go, huh?
Unless Bill Clinton left a few stains behind ... forget it, honey. :))
Ronnie
=====
Ronnie McKinley
>Your BB definately does NOT have provenance in this manner,unless your
>cryptic name is hiding a very famous one !!!!
Btw Jon, did you catch the TV programme on Sir Anthony Van Dyck last
evening ... brilliant programme?
For our American cousins, there is a major exhibition being staged and
planned at the Royal Academy of Anthony Van Dyck's portraiture work, a
mammoth under-taking, bringing together from all over the world Van
Dyck's major works, some being seen for the first time since he painted
them.
The programme showed a major work being removed from the Earl Spencer's
house (the former Lady Diana's family home) this was the first time that
the painting has left the home. Painted by Van Dyck's some 300+ years ago
and still with the same family.
Now that's provenance. :))
Ronnie
=====
Cyanogirl
Come to think of it.... ;)
Cyn
charlies
point. I expect there will be ways to convert old formats to new as they come
along...I mean nobody has 8 mm projectors anymore (except my shop....need one?
It's cheap.), but there are folks who put the 8 mm image on to VHS.
Of course the same problem exists with computers. I guess paper is the
answer, but despite some fine quotes that people here can find, the fact is that
it doesn't always last either. What to do? What do folks suggest to create
lasting information?
Even headstones crumble.
Tina
Smorgass Bored
hoping that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide
pictures of myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go,
(*<~ A picture,you say. Just remember, yellow in front and brown
in back........
Doug W.
~>*)))>< Big fish eat Little fish ><(((*<~
charlies
I think you are going to hear from several of us that would have
loved to have gotten our hands on that load of shite. Gotta pay the rent.
I think that most of that style was already popular before this sale,
but these things became cemented in popularity after the Wahol sale and the
media frenzy that surrounded it. And he sure brought the cookie jar
collectors out of the wood work! The difference between this mega-sale and
some others may be that while the average gal isn't ever gonna get her hands
on the Duchess of Windsors jewels, or Jackie Onassis's stuff that fact is
that you CAN get dishes like Wahols. What's more you can use the stuff and
display it. I mean really, how often can you wear that diamond encrusted
leopard pin?
See, we don't have products with "this brand used by the royal family"
plastered all over it. So what's a poor little social climber to do?
I am digressing from providence...it's just that common lament, "We
ain't gone no history", so we grab it where we can. And we aren't to fussy.
:-)
Tina - getting fussier
Marshall Schuon
wrote:
>
>
>charlies wrote:
>>
>> A short cut way to do this might be with a video camera. If you talk
>> about what you know about each piece while you film it you will have a nice
>> basic record. Then you could go from there and get as detailed as you want.
>
>I could be wrong, but I don't think videotape is appropriate for
>archives. IOW, I'm not sure it will survive for generations, even if
>properly stored. There's also the problem of changing formats; if VHS
>goes the way of Beta, where will your great great grandchilden find a
>VCR to play it on?
>
>GK
________
They could ask future generations of r.a. regulars: WTB: VHS VCR.
But nah, I guess not. They'd get a Greeting 1.
Marshall
Still mastering Beta
Marshall Schuon
wrote:
> Well, I was thinking more of a family archive sort of thing, but you have a
>point. I expect there will be ways to convert old formats to new as they come
>along...I mean nobody has 8 mm projectors anymore (except my shop....need one?
>It's cheap.), but there are folks who put the 8 mm image on to VHS.
> Of course the same problem exists with computers. I guess paper is the
>answer, but despite some fine quotes that people here can find, the fact is that
>it doesn't always last either. What to do? What do folks suggest to create
>lasting information?
> Even headstones crumble.
> Tina
_______
We onetime had a very interesting piece in the NY Times about this
very subject. More and more, of course, all of the world's records
are being put onto electronic storage media of one sort or another.
And what will happen to it as technology changes? As computers (or
their progeny) can no longer deal with legacy programs and disks and
tapes and whatnot? Not to mention if somebody walks by with a magnet.
<g>
Marshall
Marshall Schuon
>>It is commonly accepted (has always been the case) in the antiques trade
>>in the British Isles that "provenance" has only importance through
>>previous ownership. The fact that a "Beenie baby" was once owned by
>>somebody with "no name" or your grannie and we even have a picture with
>>Mr. No-name, grannie, beenie baby and all will make no difference to the
>>value whatsoever.
>>
>>OTOH, if Elton John or the 2nd Duke of Peedle-in-the-Mash once owned the
>>said beenie baby then that will make one hell of a difference, both to
>>its monetary worth and the interest shown. Right or wrong, but it's a
>>fact of life. The auction houses in the British Isles will always make a
>>big noise on the "provenance" that is, the previous owner/s, the BIG
>>house will clearly display in the catalogues ... "The former property of
>>Lord what's-its-name" or "The former property of Lady YaHo" ... or "From
>>the Estate of Ringo Starr" if it was once owner by Joe Bloggs, I am
>>afraid nobody really cares.
>>
>>That's what "provenance" means over here.
>>
>>
>>Ronnie
>>=====
>
>Darn it, Ronnie! I am about to list some of my panties on eBay. I was hoping
>that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide pictures of
>myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go, huh?
>Cyn
>======
>Lace me up, would ya, honey?
_______
I love a lady without Reserve.
Marshall
Are these the blue ones?
charlies
panties. It could be a contest...who'd get more money...you or Cyn?
Or maybe it's no contest.
Tina
Smorgass Bored wrote:
> Darn it, Ronnie! I am about to list some of my panties on eBay. I was
> hoping that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide
> pictures of myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go,
> huh? Cyn
>
Darlene E. Hernandez
> I am digressing from provenance...it's just that common lament, "We
>ain't gone no history", so we grab it where we can. And we aren't to fussy.
Pssst . . . wanna buy an elf?
Darlene Hernandez
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
Hey watch it...that cost me 10 pence...and has great provenance !!!!
Jon
Please remove the MFFYQQ before replying by email.
Ronnie McKinley
> Ronnie,
> I think you are going to hear from several of us that would have
>loved to have gotten our hands on that load of shite. Gotta pay the rent.
>Snip>
This is not my point, Tina. Had this stuff belonged to me or you (ie: the
crap shown in the picture) Sotheby's would not have been interested, at
least NOT in the UK, they would have passed me onto a backstreet auction
house, where the shite would have made its true worth. They (Sotheby's)
busted a gut in the same fashion to sell that hideous shite owned by
Elton John, and although a fine queen himself, he ain't no Royalty. ;>)
How many pieces of the Andy Wahol collection did you manage to buy, at
the cookie jar level? ;>)
The point is "provenance" .... be it some pop-art painter, a very bad pop
singer or the Duchess of Windsor, previous ownership can make a huge
difference even with the worthless kitsch, and worthless as in MERIT!!
The provenance can turn the worthlessness into $$$ signs, but IMO the
worthless objects still remain with little or no merit. That is why I
remarked in a previous post with regards to the question of "provenance"
"right or wrong, it's a fact of life."
I always maintain, one needs huge amounts of money to have really bad
taste, seems the more money these Hollywood type celebrities have, the
worse their taste becomes, why? because IMO many of them don't have "an
eye" in the first place, just pockets full of dosh.
At least with the jewels and the costume paste of the Duchess of Windsor
one could have removed the provenance and the objects would have still
had serious merit, because the object itself had merit to start with, and
so in that case it wasn't solely dependent upon a provenance, but the
provenance did boost and hype the sale. :)
Ronnie
=====
charlies
are saying about provenance at all. I didn't get any cookie jars at all
(sob), but I did sell a cookbook ABOUT the Warhol cookie jars. So I guess it
does trickle down.
I think the provenance part is really brought home when you see those
creepy e-bay sales of 'special dirt' or that creeps Buttafucco's car.
Guess I'm in no danger of getting rich that way. At least I hope not!
Tina - the infamous
Gary & lois Edwards
wind their way into Cyn's panties??
;-}
Still Scandalized.....but LMAO
Lois E.
charlies <charli...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:37DE9BE5...@uswest.net...
Tracy Doyle
Marshall Schuon wrote:
>
> >>>>It is commonly accepted (has always been the case) in the antiques trade
> >>>>in the British Isles that "provenance" has only importance through
> >>>>previous ownership. The fact that a "Beenie baby" was once owned by
> >>>>somebody with "no name" or your grannie and we even have a picture with
> >>>>Mr. No-name, grannie, beenie baby and all will make no difference to the
> >>>>value whatsoever.
> <Snip>
> >>>>Ronnie
> >>>>=====
> On 15 Sep 1999 03:00:15 GMT, cyan...@aol.com (Cyanogirl) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Darn it, Ronnie! I am about to list some of my panties on eBay. I was
> >>hoping
> >>>that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide pictures
> >>of
> >>>myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go, huh?
> >>>Cyn
> >>>======
> >>>Lace me up, would ya, honey?
> >>_______
> >>
> >>I love a lady without Reserve.
> >>
> >>Marshall
> >>Are these the blue ones?
> >>
> >
> >Yup, no Reserve. But Marshall, I could wind up costing you everything.
> >Cyn
> >======
> >Come up and C me sometime.
> _______
>
> C U and raise U.
>
> Marshall
> Women don't make fools of men -- most of them are the do-it-yourself
> types. (Tsorry Tsu)
Marshall..
If she's worth her stuff, she's supposed to raise U - not the other way
around...
Oh, and incidental trivia... Mae West (my personal hero) actually said,
"When you've got some time, why don't you come up and SEE me?" period.
End of sentence.
RAGards,
Tracy
Dame Knight Egberta of the r.a. Garter
--
To respond via e-mail, remove the spamblocker from the address.
Cyanogirl
Art imitates Life. :)
Cyn
======
Even Picasso had a BLUE period.
Lois wrote:
>How is it that all of our discussions with the men in the group, eventually
>wind their way into Cyn's panties??
>;-}
>Still Scandalized.....but LMAO
>Lois E.
>charlies <charli...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:37DE9BE5...@uswest.net...
>> Doug, the way you quote had me thinking that YOU were selling
>> panties. It could be a contest...who'd get more money...you or Cyn?
>> Or maybe it's no contest.
>> Tina
>>
Cyanogirl
>>>in the British Isles that "provenance" has only importance through
>>>previous ownership. The fact that a "Beenie baby" was once owned by
>>>somebody with "no name" or your grannie and we even have a picture with
>>>Mr. No-name, grannie, beenie baby and all will make no difference to the
>>>value whatsoever.
>>>
>>>said beenie baby then that will make one hell of a difference, both to
>>>its monetary worth and the interest shown. Right or wrong, but it's a
>>>fact of life. The auction houses in the British Isles will always make
>a
>>>big noise on the "provenance" that is, the previous owner/s, the BIG
>>>house will clearly display in the catalogues ... "The former property
>of
>>>Lord what's-its-name" or "The former property of Lady YaHo" ... or "From
>>>the Estate of Ringo Starr" if it was once owner by Joe Bloggs, I am
>>>afraid nobody really cares.
>>>
>>>That's what "provenance" means over here.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ronnie
>>>=====
>>
>hoping
>>that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide pictures
>of
>>myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go, huh?
>>Cyn
Marshall Schuon
>>>>It is commonly accepted (has always been the case) in the antiques trade
>>>>in the British Isles that "provenance" has only importance through
>>>>previous ownership. The fact that a "Beenie baby" was once owned by
>>>>somebody with "no name" or your grannie and we even have a picture with
>>>>Mr. No-name, grannie, beenie baby and all will make no difference to the
>>>>value whatsoever.
>>hoping
>>>that the fact that they were owned by me and that I can provide pictures
>>of
>>>myself in them would somehow add to the value. But no go, huh?
>>>Cyn
>>>======
>>>Lace me up, would ya, honey?
>>_______
>>
>>I love a lady without Reserve.
>>
>>Marshall
>>Are these the blue ones?
>>
>
>Yup, no Reserve. But Marshall, I could wind up costing you everything.
>Cyn
>======
>Come up and C me sometime.
13 Ghosts
> But oh no!! this junk was embraced by Sotheby's with all the hype they
> could muster, with full coloured catalogue, TV and media press coverage
> and in the end, silly ridiculous prices. Why? simply because of
> provenance ... the former property and estate of Andy Warhol ... viewing
> at the time: Frankfurt, 10th-12th March; Cologne, 15th-17th March;
> London, 24th-28th March; and Tokyo, 31st March - 5th April with the sale
> finally ending in New York between 23th April-3rd May.
> Of course there were a few good things as well. :)))
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/the_kitchen.jpg
> Ronnie
> =====
I like the big yellow ware bowl.
What is that little doo-dad just to it's left, anyone?
Rings a bell but I cannot for the life of me remember
what it is. Looks like a ball on a pedestal.
13 Ghosts
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Ronnie McKinley
>one man's junk is...
.... another man's over-priced shite
Ronnie
=====
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
>In rec.antiques, 13 Ghosts wrote:
>
>
>>one man's junk is...
>
...................usually mine!
Jon
Please remove the FHGHMV before replying by email.
Ronnie McKinley
>
>>In rec.antiques, 13 Ghosts wrote:
>>
>>
>>>one man's junk is...
>>
>
>...................usually mine!
>
... which ends up on the Ebay.
Ronnie
=====
"What's all about Elfie ... "
=====================
Jane Thomas
> "What's all about Elfie ... "
Hi Ronnie,
I just had a look at Elfie and he has a bid.
How is the "provenance" of relatively common items which are
valuable only by association (such as those in the Warhol
sale) proved years later?
Cheers,
Jane
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
>Ronnie wrote:
>
>> "What's all about Elfie ... "
>
>Hi Ronnie,
>
>I just had a look at Elfie and he has a bid.
>
>How is the "provenance" of relatively common items which are
>valuable only by association (such as those in the Warhol
>sale) proved years later?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jane
>
auctioned as once being Paul McCartney's, but subsequently totally
deniedby Paul himself.
Jon
'Elf Hire' is the trade mark of "The Crazy World of Arthur Brown"
Please remove the OPDSHP before replying by email.
Ronnie McKinley
>How is the "provenance" of relatively common items which are
>valuable only by association (such as those in the Warhol
>sale) proved years later?
Is that a question Jane, or a statement? .. I suppose much like the
Nanking cargo. :)
I believe Warhol was not so much a collector but a hoarder, keeping
virtually anything, plastic shopping bags and empty cartons nearly taped
and dated, which in turn were crammed with everything from valuable
documents, fan-mail, junk mail, back numbers of Hola! and all manner of
rubbish. He even contemplated packaging all this rubbish into metal boxes
to be known as 'Warhol's time-bombs' .. to Warhol, every last scrap of
rubbish had validity by virtue of being memorabilia. His drawing-room was
fitted out with a fine collection of Federal furniture and in the Federal
style, no expense spared, he never actually used the room, as with the
dinning-room, all decorated and finely furnished then just left
uninhabited. It is reported over the years these two 'state' rooms came
to be used primarily as storage space. At first a few crates and paper
bags, but by the time he died, phase after phase of collecting fad
crammed the rooms out and the entire house. In the end he let his
'collections' take over and withdrew to his bedroom and kitchen.
One man's shite is another man's obsession, or should that be the other
way around? :>))
Ronnie
=====
Tsu Dho Nimh
>The programme showed a major work being removed from the Earl Spencer's
>house (the former Lady Diana's family home) this was the first time that
>the painting has left the home. Painted by Van Dyck's some 300+ years ago
>and still with the same family.
And probably hung over the same fireplace the whole 300+ years.
Don't they ever redecorate?
Tsu Dho Nimh
Tsu Dho Nimh
>OTOH, if Elton John or the 2nd Duke of Peedle-in-the-Mash once owned the
>said beenie baby then that will make one hell of a difference, both to
>its monetary worth and the interest shown. Right or wrong, but it's a
>fact of life. The auction houses in the British Isles will always make a
>big noise on the "provenance" that is, the previous owner/s, the BIG
>house will clearly display in the catalogues ... "The former property of
>Lord what's-its-name" or "The former property of Lady YaHo" ... or "From
>the Estate of Ringo Starr" if it was once owner by Joe Bloggs, I am
>afraid nobody really cares.
>
>That's what "provenance" means over here.
Well, when the son of Joe Bloggs becomes rich and famous,
being able to prove that the Bloggs houshold held that that
beenie babie would be a good thing. The problem is that you
never know who will become rich and famous (the pathetic whine of
all ex-girlfriends of musicians then the guy they dumped become
filthy rich) so maintaining reasonable records on items is a good
idea.
Cyanogirl
>
>Marshall..
>
>If she's worth her stuff, she's supposed to raise U - not the other way
>around...
>
>Oh, and incidental trivia... Mae West (my personal hero) actually said,
>"When you've got some time, why don't you come up and SEE me?" period.
>End of sentence.
>
>RAGards,
>
>Tracy
>Dame Knight Egberta of the r.a. Garter
>--
Dear Dame,
I've been raising Marshall for a while now, and it's a huge load to carry. I
don't know how long we can keep it up. It's a lot of pressure. Such a heavy
burden, and it's all on me. (We're still talking poker or antiques or
something innocent, aren't we? <g>)
Regarding Mae West, I stand corrected. But I must say, I do prefer the rhythm
of the adulterated version.
By the way, *you* might know: Was it Mae who came up with the following line?
<pointing to left knee> This is Christmas.
<pointing to right knee> This is New Year's.
Come visit me between the holidays.
And is this how she worded it? Maybe I'll look it up somewhere when I'm not so
busy photographing my panties. ;)
Fun to duel with you, O Great Gartered One.
:)
Cyn
======
Lingerie, Shmingerie
Ronnie McKinley
> Well, when the son of Joe Bloggs becomes rich and famous,
IF
Ronnie
=====
David H. Dean
SNIP
>Your BB definately does NOT have provenance in this manner,unless your
>cryptic name is hiding a very famous one !!!!
The BB has provenance, but that provenance adds nothing to the value
of the BB.
-dave
SNIP
Ronnie McKinley
>Don't they ever redecorate?
>
Why are you so obnoxious?
The picture doesn't hang above a fireplace, it hangs at Althorp House in
the 115ft Picture Gallery, which is hung with a succession of portraits
culminating in Van Dyck's masterpiece, War and Peace, situated on the far
end wall. The room was originally conceived for Elizabethan ladies to
take exercise in on wet days to prevent their long dresses from getting
dirty in the mud.
The first Earl, Henry Spencer, a firm Royalist, served as Charles I's
negotiator in the early years of the conflict with Parliament, a conflict
that evolved into the Civil Wars. In 1643, he was created Earl of
Sunderland. Three months later he was killed at the Battle of Newberry.
Anthony Van Dyck was, of course, the court painter of Charles I.
... why in the name of God I am telling YOU this, is beyond me, call it
educating a bimbo.
Ronnie
=====
Mari miller
I'm well aware that Marshall's a heavy burdon to carry alone, but I
have been trying to give a bit of a hand in that department myself.
(BTW, I'm sure most of the territory markers in this group would be more
than happy to shoot those panties for you;-)
Mari
'Cum Wot Mae Antiques'
Mari miller
Bwaaahaaahaaaaahahaha
Subtle rebuttal,
dooley noted,
things ARE better,
sugar coated.
Mari
Cyanogirl
Oh dear. Mari, you are disturbing my delicate sensibilities! ;)
Cyn
======
Subtlety is my forte.
Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha
Esengo
>I like the big yellow ware bowl.
>What is that little doo-dad just to it's left, anyone?
>Rings a bell but I cannot for the life of me remember
>what it is. Looks like a ball on a pedestal.
Hi T.!
I believe what you are looking at (the doo-dad to the left that looks like a
ball on a pedestal) is a Fiesta Bulb candle holder. Seems logical that it
would be Fiesta, what with all that fiesta in the background.
BTW.....I know some fiesta collectors who would sell their birthright to get
their hands on all that stuff. Once, when I was a teenager, I was in a thrift
store with my mom and spotted a bunch of Fiesta. All the pieces were like 50
cents or a dollar and I told my mom I wanted to start collecting it. Mom said
"Oh NO! That JUNK?! You don't want that ugly, heavy stuff!" Well,
golly.....I did too! And I am still sorry I didn't buy it then. I could be
selling those one dollar plates for $20 a shot right now. Unless I was a
descendant of Andy Warhol, of course. Then I suppose each plate would go for
many times that.
As far as provenance...I agree...why should some famous person's ownership
make any item valuable if it does not have value as it stands on it's own?
(like that soda can that washed up on the beach that "could" have belonged to
JFK Jr.). When someone in the States asks for "provenance" I think what they
are really asking is this: Does it have history? Is it really an antique?
Can you tell me if it was made by an immigrant in Minnesota 200 years ago or
was it made three weeks ago by someone in Taiwan?
When we talk about provenance here we do not talk about famous
owners...(usually) but it is nice to be able to say that it was from an estate
in Pennsylvania, or given to some bankers wife when he returned from Europe in
1920 (because it was inscribed, or whatever). I once had an entire box of
linens that someone had carefully labeled. Each tablecloth had a note of what
event it had been used for! Example: Fred's 60th birthday party, Mabel's
daughter's baby shower, etc. Ok...so maybe it wasn't real provinence...but the
owner certainly attributed some kind of value or interest to the item based
upon these little tidbits of information.
Of course, all of this could just be a nice work of fiction. When they
ask you to start writing it down and putting your John Hancock on it...well
then you better have your "Provenance" Lawyer standing by. Heh, heh.
Talk to you soon!
Fayette
"I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
doesn't look good either." - Sign at my hairdressers.
Marshall Schuon
miller) wrote:
>Now Cyn,
> I'm well aware that Marshall's a heavy burdon to carry alone, but I
>have been trying to give a bit of a hand in that department myself.
>(BTW, I'm sure most of the territory markers in this group would be more
>than happy to shoot those panties for you;-)
> Mari
> 'Cum Wot Mae Antiques'
_________
Burdon? Either a Freudian slip or a mixed metaphor. But I do
appreciate your hand.
Marshall
Where's that Stake 'n' Shake truck?
13 Ghosts
Recently, so I hear, a distant, distant
relative of a relative of mine
died and left a house full
of Fiesta that went unrecognised by the
heirs.
Someone somewhere had a good month
on that stuff, I guess.
;)
Ronnie McKinley
>Once, when I was a teenager, I was in a thrift
>store with my mom and spotted a bunch of Fiesta. All the pieces were like 50
>cents or a dollar and I told my mom I wanted to start collecting it. Mom said
>"Oh NO! That JUNK?! You don't want that ugly, heavy stuff!" Well,
>golly.....I did too! And I am still sorry I didn't buy it then. I could be
>selling those one dollar plates for $20 a shot right now.
> As far as provenance...I agree...why should some famous person's ownership
>make any item valuable if it does not have value as it stands on it's own?
btw ... it was I who originally made the second point.
Now, tell me why this 50cents stuff in your first statement, is now worth
20 bucks ago .... has the merit of the stuff been reassessed? No offend
to you, Fayette, but IMO this is bumpkin. You are attempting to compare
and justify everyday commercial stock with antique objects of real merit.
Forget the provenance or the fact that your auntie Minnie used to set the
table with this stuff when you came for tea as a little girl, what is the
merit of plain coloured utility ware, other than the condition of being
useful or seemingly profitable, what is its real merit?
... and forget the title subject of the thread, that's a buzz word and a
haystack statement. :)))
Ronnie
=====
Esengo
>btw ... it was I who originally made the second point.
Yes, I was aware that you made the point. And a good one it was, too....but
it gets ridiculous when I so obviously agree with everything you say. Gotta
pretend I don't just to stir up argument every now and then. ;-)
>Now, tell me why this 50cents stuff in your first statement, is now worth
>20 bucks ago .... has the merit of the stuff been reassessed? No offend
>to you, Fayette, but IMO this is bumpkin. You are attempting to compare
>and justify everyday commercial
>stock with antique objects of real merit.
>Forget the provenance or the fact that your auntie Minnie used to set the
>table with this stuff when you came for tea as a little girl, what is the
>merit of plain coloured utility ware, other than the condition of being
>useful or seemingly profitable, what is its real merit?
I am not trying to compare Fiesta ware to Antiques of quality. I wanted it
when I was a teenager because it was pretty (mix up the colors) and useful (ya
gotta eat off of something) and I could afford it....hey--I was hoeing Tobacco
and making about 50 cents an hour. PLUS-- I sort of have this happy, chirpy
side to my entertaining. Every day is a Fiesta! (and all that).
Obviously Andy and I were not totally on different planets. Mostly, but not
totally.
I never did buy the stuff....and I'm not all that sappy about Aunt Minnie,
either. And it is everyday commercial stock....unless Sotheby's finds a good
angle to tack onto it.
Now you tell me why you like the elf ashtray? Don't think we have that
here. What is it's real merit - aside from being useful or seemingly
profitable?
Fayette
Ronnie McKinley
> Now you tell me why you like the elf ashtray? Don't think we have that
>here. What is it's real merit - aside from being useful or seemingly
>profitable?
Shhhh! ... it's a sleeper ... email me for the SP ;>
Ronnie
=====
Bob Clark
style for we, the great unwashed! Utilitarian, yes.
Mass produced? Absolutely! Common? Certainly! Beautiful? No more or
less so than a Monet painting, in their own way IMO. As someone who
dines on these plates on a daily basis (with catalin flatware, of
course), I can only say that it adds to my enjoyment of life. Homer
Laughlin Co. hit on a pallette of colors that WORKS! The simple colors
come in a blend of options that pleases my eye and sensibilities. Why
do I need to defend this feeling to the likes of you, Mr. M? The value
has only been reassessed in the market of supply and demand, the same as
"The Waterlillies" - it's only a question of dollar amount. When one
equates "merit" with rarity, it all comes out as eliteism in my opinion!
If you want to talk about your Irish crystal or cased clocks or elf
ashtrays, Ronnie, have at it. I shant interrupt you. But I am sick to
death of your belittling of the simple joys and collecting pleasures of
the majority of the posters of this group under the guise of "raising
their heads" to your Elysian level and your (mis)interpretation of the
role of Rhadamanthus.
Gol, haystacks is all us bumpkins unnerstan'.
Bob
"Let them eat cake . . .with their fingers!"
-----------------------
Esengo wrote:
Once, when I was a teenager, I was in a thrift store with my mom and
spotted a bunch of Fiesta. All the pieces were like 50 cents or a
dollar and I told my mom I wanted to start collecting it. Mom said "Oh
NO! That JUNK?! You don't want that ugly, heavy stuff!"
Well, golly.....I did too! And I am still sorry I didn't buy it
then. I could be selling those one dollar plates for $20 a shot
right now.
-------------------------
To which Ronnie, in full charge astride his Mobo Bronco, replied:
"As far as provenance...I agree...why should some famous person's
ownership make any item valuable if it does not have value as it stands
on it's own? btw ... it was I who originally made the second point.
Now, tell me why this 50cents stuff in your first statement, is now
worth 20 bucks ago .... has the merit of the stuff been reassessed? No
offend to you, Fayette, but IMO this is bumpkin. You are attempting to
compare and justify everyday commercial stock with antique objects of
real merit. Forget the provenance or the fact that your auntie Minnie
used to set the table with this stuff when you came for tea as a little
girl, what is the merit of plain coloured utility ware, other than the
condition of being useful or seemingly profitable, what is its real
merit? ... and forget the title subject of the thread, that's a
Bob Clark
anticipated side effect of your patented tirades.
You wrote:
"In rec.antiques, MOREISBETTER wrote: Why do I need to defend this
feeling to the likes of you, Mr. M?
You don't, so why bother to "defend" anything to "the likes of me?" Did
I ask YOU to defend anything to me, EVER? "
---------------------
I wouldn't expect you to remember. You're much too busy thinking
important thoughts.
You wrote to Fayette:
"Now, tell me why this 50cents stuff in your first statement, is now
worth 20 bucks ago .... has the merit of the stuff been reassessed? . .
IMO this is bumpkin. You are attempting to compare and justify
everyday commercial stock with antique objects of real merit."
Sounded like a challenge to me!
==================
You wrote:
"I'm sure you have more important and pressing matters of "value" to
discuss with the majority of the group, than to annoy yourself with the
"likes of me.""
------------------------------
Rarely do I discuss value here - most of my comments relate to dating
and sources of information for items that are beneath you. I do try to
leaven this with the occasional endearingly cute comment.
===================
You wrote:
"Why "shant" you interrupt me, Bob? Was I interrupting YOU, Bob? Oh
sorry, I didn't realize I was interrupting YOU, Bob. Have I ever
interrupted YOU, Bob? or do I EVER respond to YOU, Bob? ... I think
you would be best taking you own advice on the art of interrupting,
Bob."
--------------------------
My mistake - I thought this was a discussion group.
================
You wrote:
"…Let them eat .. cake?" ... "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," I don't
mind you misquoting Marie Antoinette, however, I do object when you
misquote me and mix other quotes into mine. With a quote like the above,
it would seem to me you must get a kick from other people's suffering."
--------------------------
Who said I was quoting you? However, the shoe does appear to be your
size, sir. As for me, I go barefoot.
===================
You wrote:
"See the "little" symbol AGAIN Bob .... :)))) ... in your misquote above
.. do you know what that means?? "
------------------------
Ireland for the Irish? :-))) (I guess it means I can say any rude
thing I want and not be held responsible for it)
====================
You wrote:
"For Christ sake get real, Bob, you'll be wearing knickers next. Ronnie
"
-----------------
And your point? I feel I made mine.
Bob
=====
Ronnie McKinley
>Why
>do I need to defend this feeling to the likes of you, Mr. M?
You don't, so why bother to "defend" anything to "the likes of me?" Did I
ask YOU to defend anything to me, EVER? I'm sure you have more important
and pressing matters of "value" to discuss with the majority of the
group, than to annoy yourself with the "likes of me."
>If you want to talk about your Irish crystal or cased clocks or elf
>ashtrays, Ronnie, have at it. I shant interrupt you.
Why "shant" you interrupt me, Bob?
Was I interrupting YOU, Bob? Oh sorry, I didn't realize I was
interrupting YOU, Bob. Have I ever interrupted YOU, Bob? or do I EVER
respond to YOU, Bob?
... I think you would be best taking you own advice on the art of
interrupting, Bob.
And btw ... I do not now or have I ever owned an "elf ashtray." honest
Evans.
> But I am sick to
>death of your belittling of the simple joys and collecting pleasures of
>the majority of the posters of this group under the guise of "raising
>their heads" to your Elysian level and your (mis)interpretation of the
>role of Rhadamanthus.
So you are now speaking for the majority, Bob?
I don't get the impression from the other folk that **generally** respond
and join in my posts, pictures, comments or remarks, (or vice versa),
that I am "belittling" them, or "belittling" the objects they "collect"
in anyway, and I certainly don't think, they are ill, dead or dying.
I didn't read Fayette's post or *her* respond to me that she was taking
any offence to my comments in this thread, or the previous thread/s on
this current "on-going" discussion. In fact, and in Fayette's very own
words she said ........
>"Yes, I was aware that you made the point. And a good one it was,
> too....but it gets ridiculous when I so obviously agree with everything
> you say. Gotta pretend I don't just to stir up argument every now and then. ;-)
Maybe she just sick, like YOU, Bob?
In the past I have posted picture of my own **rubbish** that I collect,
buy and sell, was that stuff "belittled?" sure was, and most of that
"belittling" coming from ME. It's obvious that WebTV needs to offer kill
files to their customers, would save an awful lot of boking on the
customers behalf.
>"Let them eat cake . . .with their fingers!"
What is your problem, Bob? Who took the cream of YOUR cookie?
"Let them eat .. cake?" ... "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," I don't
mind you misquoting Marie Antoinette, however, I do object when you
misquote me and mix other quotes into mine. With a quote like the above,
it would seem to me you must get a kick from other people's suffering.
I think you are merely miffed by a comment I made earlier in this thread,
when I JOKINGLY (and NOT directed at you in anyway but IMO misinterpreted
by you) when I said .... "One man's shite is another man's obsession, or
should that be the other way around? :>)) ... <------- see the "little"
symbol, Bob??
Here's you misquote ....
>To which Ronnie, in full charge astride his Mobo Bronco, replied:
>
>"As far as provenance...I agree...why should some famous person's
>ownership make any item valuable if it does not have value as it stands
>on it's own? btw ... it was I who originally made the second point.
>Now, tell me why this 50cents stuff in your first statement, is now
>worth 20 bucks ago .... has the merit of the stuff been reassessed? No
>offend to you, Fayette, but IMO this is bumpkin. You are attempting to
>compare and justify everyday commercial stock with antique objects of
>real merit. Forget the provenance or the fact that your auntie Minnie
>used to set the table with this stuff when you came for tea as a little
>girl, what is the merit of plain coloured utility ware, other than the
>condition of being useful or seemingly profitable, what is its real
>merit? =A0=A0... and forget the title subject of the thread, that's a
>buzz word and a haystack statement. :))) Ronnie"
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
See the "little" symbol AGAIN Bob .... :)))) ... in your misquote above
... do you know what that means?? ... NO!! well ask, Fayette.
For Christ sake get real, Bob, you'll be wearing knickers next.
Ronnie
=====
13 Ghosts
Clark) wrote:
> The difference is only that Fiesta represents an attainable touch of
> style for we, the great unwashed! Utilitarian, yes.
> Mass produced? Absolutely! Common? Certainly! Beautiful? No more or
> less so than a Monet painting, in their own way IMO. As someone who
> dines on these plates on a daily basis (with catalin flatware, of
> course), I can only say that it adds to my enjoyment of life. Homer
> Laughlin Co. hit on a pallette of colors that WORKS! The simple colors
> come in a blend of options that pleases my eye and sensibilities. Why
> do I need to defend this feeling to the likes of you, Mr. M? The value
> has only been reassessed in the market of supply and demand, the same as
> "The Waterlillies" - it's only a question of dollar amount. When one
> equates "merit" with rarity, it all comes out as eliteism in my opinion!
> death of your belittling of the simple joys and collecting pleasures of
> the majority of the posters of this group under the guise of "raising
> their heads" to your Elysian level and your (mis)interpretation of the
> role of Rhadamanthus.
>
>
> Bob
Personally, I think plastic cutlery is every bit as beautiful
as Fiesta OR a Monet painting. The pinacle of 20th Century
design, whose beauty outshines Cezanne or even the works
of Earl Stanley Gardner, is the "spork", a plastic combination
spoon and fork, the heft and balance of which bring delight
to those who dine at Taco Bell the world over.
Viva la "spork"!
God bless us every one,
Cyanogirl
>Personally, I think plastic cutlery is every bit as beautiful
>as Fiesta OR a Monet painting. The pinacle of 20th Century
>design, whose beauty outshines Cezanne or even the works
>of Earl Stanley Gardner, is the "spork", a plastic combination
>spoon and fork, the heft and balance of which bring delight
>to those who dine at Taco Bell the world over.
>
>Viva la "spork"!
>
>God bless us every one,
>13 Ghosts
>--
Spork of the devil!
<A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~sporkk/">The Spork Page</A>
13 Ghosts
The web is a truly, truly weird place. ;)
I'll bet Monet is up in heaven eating a piece of
humble pie with a spork off of a piece of Fiesta
right now.
;)
Mike Wilcox
>
> The difference is only that Fiesta represents an attainable touch of
> style for we, the great unwashed! Utilitarian, yes.
> Mass produced? Absolutely! Common? Certainly! Beautiful? No more or
> less so than a Monet painting, in their own way IMO. As someone who
> dines on these plates on a daily basis (with catalin flatware, of
> course), I can only say that it adds to my enjoyment of life. Homer
> Laughlin Co. hit on a pallette of colors that WORKS! The simple colors
> come in a blend of options that pleases my eye and sensibilities. Why
> do I need to defend this feeling to the likes of you, Mr. M? The value
> has only been reassessed in the market of supply and demand, the same as
> "The Waterlillies" - it's only a question of dollar amount. When one
> equates "merit" with rarity, it all comes out as eliteism in my opinion!
> If you want to talk about your Irish crystal or cased clocks or elf
> ashtrays, Ronnie, have at it. I shant interrupt you. But I am sick to
> death of your belittling of the simple joys and collecting pleasures of
> the majority of the posters of this group under the guise of "raising
> their heads" to your Elysian level and your (mis)interpretation of the
> role of Rhadamanthus.
>
> Gol, haystacks is all us bumpkins unnerstan'.
>
> Bob
> "Let them eat cake . . .with their fingers!"
>
> Esengo wrote:
> Once, when I was a teenager, I was in a thrift store with my mom and
> spotted a bunch of Fiesta. All the pieces were like 50 cents or a
> dollar and I told my mom I wanted to start collecting it. Mom said "Oh
> NO! That JUNK?! You don't want that ugly, heavy stuff!"
> Well, golly.....I did too! And I am still sorry I didn't buy it
> then. I could be selling those one dollar plates for $20 a shot
> right now.
> -------------------------
>
>
> "As far as provenance...I agree...why should some famous person's
> ownership make any item valuable if it does not have value as it stands
> on it's own? btw ... it was I who originally made the second point.
> Now, tell me why this 50cents stuff in your first statement, is now
> worth 20 bucks ago .... has the merit of the stuff been reassessed? No
> offend to you, Fayette, but IMO this is bumpkin. You are attempting to
> compare and justify everyday commercial stock with antique objects of
> real merit. Forget the provenance or the fact that your auntie Minnie
> used to set the table with this stuff when you came for tea as a little
> girl, what is the merit of plain coloured utility ware, other than the
> condition of being useful or seemingly profitable, what is its real
> buzz word and a haystack statement. :))) Ronnie"
Bob , for about the fifth time this week I sat down and wrote multiple
pages to respond to this issue of Collectibles vs Antiques only to
delete the whole works in frustration. In both camps the true collector
of either cares not a bit about value other than to get insurance, both
love what they collect and do so because something moves them about the
item in question. They collect it because they want to, not because it
is the hot item of the month,or Oprah and Martha tell them " IT's a good
thing". It's this point where the problem sits, what is worthy of
discussion? something whose only merit is it's value as a commodity (
ready made collectibles) or things we find interesting because of their
beauty, age or unusual nature? In my opinion you can collect and discuss
anything you want, but let's face facts, a lot of the stuff we talk
about is crap, stuff our parents and grandparents threw out, whose value
and merit is being blown all out of proportion by demographics and
nothing more. No matter how many articles are written about it or how
much exposure it receives on TV it will always still be crap,
interesting, fun to talk about with other collectors, but still just old
crap. Am l looking down collectors of Fiesta or collectors of similar
items?, no, l collect crap myself , ( I'II bet Ronnie's got a collection
of pot lids);~)) but l'm not afraid to call it what it is, old crap.
It's only redeeming quality is nostalgia and the monetary value other
nostalgic people are willing to pay for the memory.
--
Mike Wilcox
Wilcox & Hall Appraisers Online
Ronnie McKinley
>My mistake - I thought this was a discussion group.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Yes it certainly is Bob, I believe that is the object and the exercise of
this group, thanks for pointing that out. However, I was under the
impression we were already having a discussion until you popped your head
around the corner and turned it into a personal discussion on me, and how
I "belittled" the "majority" of the folk posting to this ng, and of
course, your health problems.
>Rarely do I discuss value here - most of my comments relate to dating
>and sources of information for items that are beneath you.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Over the years I have shown a VAST range of stuff to this group, from
everyday objects, to pieces of period furniture, NOTHING is beneath me,
Bob. I have over the last 25+ years sold all manner of shite, that I
would imagine would even gob-smack YOU, Bob. I pride myself in instantly
recognizing shite, it's part and parcel of this trade, Bob.
I took the time, trouble and effort to further the on-going discussion on
provenance, which is what WE were originally discussing or pondering, if
YOU recall?. My effort was to look out some old Sotheby's catalogues and
previews and I picked on the Warhol sale, (I could have picked the Elton
John sale and illustrated some of that junk) I took the time and scanned
and image of everyday ware and commercial stock from that sale (namely
the coloured crockery and the contents of his kitchen) and at my own
expense loaded the image to the group. In the post that accompanied that
image my opening words were ..
"For fun .. here's a picture from a Sotheby's estate sale ... "
Seems to me, you took this to be a personal onslaught on you and the
things that YOU collect, I somehow feel you have missed the plot along
the way, Bob. You are not discussing ANYTHING Bob relating to the subject
at hand, but are away out on some holy crusade of your own. I would
suggest YOU re-read the whole of the on-going discussion and make an
effort to grasp what I am really saying and attempting to discuss. That
is, "provenance" or conceived provenance and how that in turn can affect
the antique and collecting markets on what was once merely regarded as
undistinguished everyday objects and how the big sales rooms can
manipulate the market for no-ones benefit, other than their own.
The question of VALUE seems to be more important to some in this ng than
the actual merit of the object itself. In my own personal field of
collecting, the VALUE is totally unimportant to me, and the object itself
must stand on its own two feet with its merits, and for whatever reason
those merits may be, if its purely a case that a former 50cent object
that was originally regarded as junk but is now "worth" 20bucks a go then
discuss away, and I "shant" interrupt YOU.
>You wrote:
>"=85Let them eat .. cake?" ... "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," I don't
>mind you misquoting Marie Antoinette, however, I do object when you
>misquote me and mix other quotes into mine. With a quote like the above,
>it would seem to me you must get a kick from other people's suffering."
>--------------------------
>Who said I was quoting you?
Huh?? .. You have lost it again, Bob. The "Let them eat .. cake?" is not
my quote, obviously, but a quote *attributed* to Marie Antoinette, it's
is also a misquote, Bob. But the point Bob, is at the end of your
previous post you misquoted me by mixing part of Fayette's previous post
with parts of my post, please pay attention, Bob.
>Ireland for the Irish? :-))) (I guess it means I can say any rude
>thing I want and not be held responsible for it)
That's not rude, Bob, that is, in fact, part of the Irish Free State's
constituent. I believe the correct statement is "An Irish State for and
Irish people." Now, I will freely admit that in some parts of Ireland
"An Irish State for and Irish people" will be regarded as "rude"
although, regarded as more offensive that rude, however, that section of
the Irish constituent is currently under review, or should I say, up for
horse trading at the moment. I very smart and witty bit of satire on your
behalf there Bob, had me rolling in the aisles, that did.
>And your point? I feel I made mine.
IMNSHO you have made NO point whatsoever Bob, other that to launch a
personal attack on me from your haystack.
btw ... I have perfect memory, and I recall the first and the LAST time
we exchanged posts, that too, was no more that a personal attack on me
with your straw argument, or should I say your personal bitching.
Address the current discussion in a proper manner Bob, or be off with ya.
Ronnie
=====
Ronnie McKinley
>Bob Clark wrote:
>But I am sick to
>> death of your belittling of the simple joys and collecting pleasures of
>> the majority of the posters of this group under the guise of "raising
>> their heads" to your Elysian level and your (mis)interpretation of the
>> role of Rhadamanthus.
>> =====================
>Am l looking down collectors of Fiesta or collectors of similar
>items?, no, l collect crap myself , ( I'II bet Ronnie's got a collection
>of pot lids);~)) but l'm not afraid to call it what it is, old crap.
POT LIDS ?? ... good god Mike, I couldn't afford to buy that high end
crap, at a 100+ quid a go??!!!?? ... would break my bank account.
Here's a selection of some of my old crap that seems to find its way into
our house. I am afraid since these photos were taken the crap just seems
to keep on increasing, heaven knows why I keep on buying this bloody
shite, especially, every time "we" have to clean it all, which I must
admit, isn't very often. ;>
Nothing of big "worth" here, just a load of "old" nonsense and with some
of it even, BROKEN or damaged ... damaged!! .. that's a shocker.
I know it's a load of old cobblers, what the hell ... and I am sure most
others that view these images will realize it as well, a load of old
wobble. I don't often show this crap, as it's rather beneath me, but
then, we sometimes sink to the level of others. ;>))
Anyway ... FOR WHAT IT IS **WORTH** ... some of Ronnie's old crap.
Enjoy ;>)
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/glenbourne/old_crap.htm
Ronnie
=====
"let him who is without sin, cast the first stone"
====================================
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
>
>Anyway ... FOR WHAT IT IS **WORTH** ... some of Ronnie's old crap.
>
>Enjoy ;>)
>
>
>http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/glenbourne/old_crap.htm
>
>
>Ronnie
>=====
....wot, no elves???
Jon
Please remove the UDENQW before replying by email.
***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
about other online services we offer our subscribers.
ReyneH
Ronnie - your stuff doesn't look like crap. Actually looks like some neat
porcelain. Unfortunately I am viewing from AOL's compressed webviewer and so I
can't tell too much...
Guys, there are plenty of things I consider crap - but its really not crap if
someone enjoys it. Because its not valuable doesn't make it crap.
There are plenty of high priced antiques "I" think are crap. Because its
expensive doesnt make me think its great.
Many antiques and collectible markets are created just from that memorible or
sentimental warm fuzzy feeling people get over stuff they remember from their
childhood. Once someone writes a book about it - it creates a following and
therefore it becomes valuable.
Ya know - back in the 1940-early 1960's - Tiffany (what I specialize in) was
considered crap. At the turn of the century Louis Comfort Tiffany was
considered one of the most desirable interior designers, church window
designer, lamp mfg, glass blower in America. The price people paid to have
something from Tiffany Studios was outrageous (and it still is) - however when
the Art Deco movement came about, Tiffanys works were thought to be rather
garrish and people began throwing them out (seriously) - many windows were
destroyed, lamps tossed out along with glass pieces etc. When found in
auctions, they would sell boxlots for maybe $30-40.
Lillian Nassau and a few friends decided back in the 1960's to create a market
for these wares. They would attend auctions where his merchandise would be
sold and bid against each other to give the appearance there was a desire for
Tiffany items again. It worked!
Today, prices are at an all time high. I pay up to 5 figures for some pieces
of glass and over 6 figures for some lamps. And you know what....some people
think what I buy and sell is pretty damn neat - and other people still think
its crap.
Reyne Haines
Just Glass Auctions - http://www.JustGlass.com
Vintage Glass - http://members.aol.com/VintGlass/index.htm
Moderator, Art Glass Discussion Group - Ask me about it!
mcat
wrote:
>On 17 Sep 1999 01:51:19 GMT cyan...@aol.com (Cyanogirl) wrote:
>> 13 wrote:
>> >Viva la "spork"!
>> >
>> >God bless us every one,
>> >13 Ghosts
>> >--
>>
>> Spork of the devil!
>> <A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~sporkk/">The Spork Page</A>
>>
>====
>
>The web is a truly, truly weird place. ;)
>
>I'll bet Monet is up in heaven eating a piece of
>humble pie with a spork off of a piece of Fiesta
>right now.
>
>;)
>13 Ghosts
Spork Schmork! Sporks are a blatent rip-off! The utensil is called a
"runcible" or "runcible spoon." According to my dictionary the term
was coined by Edward Lear (1812-1888.) The term was taken from the
poem "The Owl and the Pussycat." See more here:
But their next page states:
"But a Runcible Spoon dates back further in English history to Samuel
Johnson. It was noted by his traveling companion, Boswell, that the
two shared meals using a utensil fashioned from the horn of an animal.
This ancient utensil served as a knife, fork, and spoon and was known
as a Runcible Spoon."
Spork indeed!
mcat
Esengo
But I'd like to say: I just LOVE it when the big boys fight! HA! Let
them eat Cake! 3D3D3D3D (what is all that 3D stuff anyway?)
And I thank T for the sporking. Made me laugh, it did.
And the jpeg of Ronnie's collections....what fun. A collection today -
Tomorrow squeezed into your bedroom like Andy Warhol. Beware! :-D
Now where was I....Oh yes. All this talk of junk and enjoyment and
collecting. Wanted to tell you what I did the other night. I had found an
aluminum table fountain at the flea market. Totally wacky. Totally tacky.
The worst of the worst. I bought it. I had also just ordered stainless
steel chopsticks from William Sonoma. HEY, I like them better than sporks!
So for dinner I served up grilled salmon, couscous (try eating that with
chopsticks!) and grilled vegetables....all on red and white striped fireking
dishes with the aluminum fountain in the middle. Life is an ADVENTURE!
Good thing I can sell all this stuff when I am done playing, huh?
Good luck and be merry!
Fayette
btw Floyd paid me a visit last night....had water up to the doorstep, over
the wheel wells on the cars....had the *tiny* car parked up on high ground so
it would not float away. Heard a loud crashing noise as a large branch fell
on the roof. Son #2 went wading up to his waist in the front yard. No
school today. Don't ya love it! Wish I had some fiestaware for the "after
hurricane celebration".
Ronnie McKinley
>
>....wot, no elves???
>
>Jon
>
Hey, I told you that my lovely green Salvac toadstool vase got broken,
now that I recall, it had three elves on board (not two) one climbing up
the vase, one sitting on the rim and one hanging over the rim peering
down into the vase, probably being sick after too much of the magic
stuff. I was rather sad when that vase was broken, considering I paid £18
pounds for it some 15 years ago.
... even worse, now that Salvac is so hot, Hot! .... HOT!! ;>
So, no elves at the moment ... BUT I have a few Fairy things if that
counts, ducky?
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/glenbourne/fairy.htm
The bowl is Kensington ware, a baby's feeding bowl, although it looks
more like a dog's feeding bowl.
And, an over-coloured framed print of a fairy, most likely an
illustration ripped from some kiddy book.
Now this is the lowest I will go!!
... you'll be asking me next to show off our everyday Arklow blue and
white willow pattern breakfast/tea/dinner service, WHAT!??! Irish willow
pattern, THAT'S a shocker, can't anyways, as it's in the dishwasher at
the moment. ;>))
Enjoy the fairies .... sweetie.
Ronnie
=====
Mike Wilcox
Hi Reyne, the crap l collect has little value( stereo scopes and cards),
l love the stuff, but it would still be crap if it were worth six
figures. I like it because the views are like little time capsules , I
find them interesting and that's why I collect them, what other people
feel about it matters not. It's the people that try to elevate these
mundane things, give them special status as works of art that's
laughable, not us humble sods that collect the stuff because we love the
'Crap';~))
Carol Millar
would think they had died and gone to heaven. All a matter of
perspective, ay wot? :-)
Carol
> Anyway ... FOR WHAT IT IS **WORTH** ... some of Ronnie's old crap.
>
> Enjoy ;>)
>
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/glenbourne/old_crap.htm
>
> Ronnie
> =====
jon.d2...@ukonline.co.uk
Well really, ducky....I asked a civil question....blast, bother..
smudged my nails now......anyway seriously (whoopsy)....my daughter
would KILL for fairy stuff, she ****really**** wants to be one!
Jon
PS: I read ....."and one hanging over the rim peering
down into the vase".....as:....."and one hanging over the rim peeing
down into the vase"....Freudian (Xigman) slip !!
Please remove the CRYKIR before replying by email.
Ronnie McKinley
>......anyway seriously (whoopsy)....
Seriously? .. OK I've put my straight face on.
>my daughter
>would KILL for fairy stuff, she ****really**** wants to be one!
Well I suppose the sweet wee thing just wants to be like her daddy. :)
>Jon PS: I read ....."and one hanging over the rim peering
>down into the vase".....as:....."and one hanging over the rim peeing
>down into the vase"....Freudian (Xigman) slip !!
Peeing over the rim .. LOL .... WOW!! now, wouldn't that be a cracker
to have? ... god I would have committed hara-kiri over that one.
You're KILLING me.
Ronnie
=====
sometimes a pee is just a pee,
except when it's a sore eye,
then, it's just a sore eye
========================
ReyneH
Isn't "some" photography considered art?
Reyne
13 Ghosts
> Spork Schmork! Sporks are a blatent rip-off! The utensil is called a
> "runcible" or "runcible spoon." According to my dictionary the term
> was coined by Edward Lear (1812-1888.) The term was taken from the
> poem "The Owl and the Pussycat." See more here:
>
> http://www.runciblespoon.com/
>
> But their next page states:
>
> "But a Runcible Spoon dates back further in English history to Samuel
> Johnson. It was noted by his traveling companion, Boswell, that the
> two shared meals using a utensil fashioned from the horn of an animal.
> This ancient utensil served as a knife, fork, and spoon and was known
> as a Runcible Spoon."
>
> Spork indeed!
>
> mcat
mcat,
LOL!
Many thanks!
Rich Maxson
> Isn't "some" photography considered art?
I've got some postcards of naked Amish women butter churners that I happen
to consider high art.
FR
Mike Wilcox
>
> Hey Mike
>
> Isn't "some" photography considered art?
>
Yes , but certainly not mine, I've even got some crappy old cameras.
Ronnie McKinley
>"But a Runcible Spoon dates back further in English history to Samuel
>Johnson. It was noted by his traveling companion, Boswell, that the
>two shared meals using a utensil fashioned from the horn of an animal.
>This ancient utensil served as a knife, fork, and spoon and was known
>as a Runcible Spoon."
ROTF ... that is of course a complete nonce.
So, here is one ... a real utensil that really existed. Can you guess its
name, its function and it's approx early date of origin ... anyone??
Not for, Jon or Jane. ;)
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/xobject.jpg
Ronnie
=====
ReyneH
>to consider high art.
>
Ewwwwww ;-)
Charleen Bunjiovianna
>
>So, here is one ... a real utensil that really existed. Can you guess its
>name, its function and it's approx early date of origin ... anyone??
Wild guess: sweetmeat fork, early 1700s.
Charleen
Ronnie McKinley
>Guys, there are plenty of things I consider crap - but its really not crap if
>someone enjoys it. Because its not valuable doesn't make it crap.
>
Value, Reyne?
>There are plenty of high priced antiques "I" think are crap. Because its
>expensive doesnt make me think its great.
>
Expensive value, Reyne?
>Many antiques and collectible markets are created just from that memorible or
>sentimental warm fuzzy feeling people get over stuff they remember from their
>childhood. Once someone writes a book about it - it creates a following and
>therefore it becomes valuable.
Valuable again, Reyne?
>Ya know - back in the 1940-early 1960's - Tiffany (what I specialize in) was
>considered crap. At the turn of the century Louis Comfort Tiffany was
>considered one of the most desirable interior designers, church window
>designer, lamp mfg, glass blower in America. The price people paid to have
>something from Tiffany Studios was outrageous (and it still is) - however when
>the Art Deco movement came about, Tiffanys works were thought to be rather
>garrish and people began throwing them out (seriously) - many windows were
>destroyed, lamps tossed out along with glass pieces etc. When found in
>auctions, they would sell boxlots for maybe $30-40.
The ass, as in "value" may well have fallen out of the Tiffany market,
but I don't suppose you are suggesting the merits of Louis Comfort
Tiffany's work ceased to be meriting, are you, Reyne? .. it may have
ceased, for a time, to be unfashionable, that's all.
>
>Lillian Nassau and a few friends decided back in the 1960's to create a market
>for these wares. They would attend auctions where his merchandise would be
>sold and bid against each other to give the appearance there was a desire for
>Tiffany items again. It worked!
Then it became of value again, Reyne? or the *merit* of Tiffany were some
how reassessed? or what? ... or fashionable through manipulation of the
market .... oh! someone was making that point early .. I wonder who that
was? :)
>
>Today, prices are at an all time high. I pay up to 5 figures for some pieces
>of glass and over 6 figures for some lamps. And you know what....some people
>think what I buy and sell is pretty damn neat - and other people still think
>its crap.
Expensive neatness of value and expensive crap, it that what you mean,
Reyne? What about the merits of the stuff you sell, Reyne ... forget the
value, it's manipulative, does your stuff have any merit in the big
picture of the time frame, in the decorative/studio glass history, or was
Louis Comfort Tiffany a mere bummer? :))
Ronnie
=====
ReyneH
>>Guys, there are plenty of things I consider crap - but its really not crap
>if someone enjoys it. Because its not valuable doesn't make it crap.
>>
Ronnie writes:
>Value, Reyne?
Value is a matter of perception. What I find valuable might not be what someone
else finds valuable. Value can equal $ or sentiment. There is no price that
can be put on sentiment.
Reyne writes..
>There are plenty of high priced antiques "I" think are crap. Because its
expensive doesnt make me think its great.
>>
Ronnie writes..
>Expensive value, Reyne?
** again, this is a matter of perception. What I might find expensive, you
might not. I think things over 50K are expensive. Some folks consider over
$500 expensive.
>
Reyne writes..
>>Many antiques and collectible markets are created just from that memorible
>or sentimental warm fuzzy feeling people get over stuff they remember from
>their childhood. Once someone writes a book about it - it creates a following
and
>>therefore it becomes valuable.
>
Ronnie writes..
>Valuable again, Reyne?
>
** You might not have this commercial on your side of the pond however its a
Visa credit card commercial. It goes something like this - The cost of a
peanut butter sandwich $0.75 - the price of the gas to drive to the park to
have a peanut butter sandwich picnic $2.00 - the price of having this picnic
with your best friend from kindergarten....Priceless.
(snip)
Ronnie writes.
>
>The ass, as in "value" may well have fallen out of the Tiffany market,
>but I don't suppose you are suggesting the merits of Louis Comfort Tiffany's
work ceased to be meriting, are you, Reyne? ..
** absolutely not - IMO he was a fabulous artist which to ME always had merit
> it may have ceased, for a time, to be unfashionable, that's all.
>
** Agreed however desirability does influence value. Supply and demand.
<snip again>>
Ronnie writes..
>Then it became of value again, Reyne? or the *merit* of Tiffany were some
how reassessed? or what? ..
** Many people to this day buy Tiffany because its fashionable, but yet they
know zero about the artist and its history whatsoever. This does not apply to
everyone, but the majority unfortunately.
<snip 3rd time>
>
>Expensive neatness of value and expensive crap, it that what you mean,
>Reyne?
** I'm not sure what you mean
What about the merits of the stuff you sell, Reyne ... forget the value, it's
manipulative, does your stuff have any merit in the big
>picture of the time frame, in the decorative/studio glass history, or was
>Louis Comfort Tiffany a mere bummer? :))
** My personal opinion, Louis was an incredibly creative, talented man. I
believe his items have historical merit, artistic merit, and also played an
important role in the art nouveau movement. No bummer there.
Reyne ;-)
Gary & lois Edwards
invented the spork......what's next? The foon?
Lois E.
And we ain't even gonna talk about Cyn's drawers, or the lack
thereof........
Cyanogirl <cyan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990916215119...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >
> >Personally, I think plastic cutlery is every bit as beautiful
> >as Fiesta OR a Monet painting. The pinacle of 20th Century
> >design, whose beauty outshines Cezanne or even the works
> >of Earl Stanley Gardner, is the "spork", a plastic combination
> >spoon and fork, the heft and balance of which bring delight
> >to those who dine at Taco Bell the world over.
> >
Esengo
>Well really, ducky....I asked a civil question....blast, bother..
>would KILL for fairy stuff, she ****really**** wants to be one!
>
"A golden fairy --She is decidedly fair in colouring, full of laughter and
happiness, very open and fearless in expression, and is surrounded by an aura
of golden radiance in which the outline of her wings can be traced. There is
also a hint of mockery in her attitude and expression, as of one who is
enjoying a joke against the poor mortals who are studying her."
Taken from my Book of "Faeries"
http://members.aol.com/esengo/private/littlefairy.jpg
Yours, Fayette (which actually means "little fairy")
Good luck, be merry, and follow your heart.
Tish
>
> In rec.antiques, mc...@cecomet.net.nothere (mcat) wrote:
>
> So, here is one ... a real utensil that really existed. Can you guess its
> name, its function and it's approx early date of origin ... anyone??
>
> Not for, Jon or Jane. ;)
>
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/xobject.jpg
Hmmm. The fork end is for stabbing gobbets of meat and turnip, the
spoon part for slurping up broth, ummmm 17C? [Based on sheer rendom
guessery.]
But somehow I keep visualizing something FLAPPING on that fork end.
Tish
Bob Clark
spoon" - early 19th C., I've heard.
Bob
==============
Ronnie wrote:
So, here is one ... a real utensil that really existed. Can you guess
its name, its function and it's approx early date of origin ... anyone??
Not for, Jon or Jane. ;)
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/xobject.jpg
Ronnie
=====
Ronnie McKinley
>** My personal opinion, Louis was an incredibly creative, talented man. I
>believe his items have historical merit, artistic merit, and also played an
>important role in the art nouveau movement. No bummer there.
>
Exactly Reyne, and that is the point to my previous respond to you,
although I may have appeared rather cryptic. - Anyhow, it's not merely
YOUR opinion on Tiffany, it's the general universal opinion. That's what
is really important and what matters. Sure Tiffany was influenced by
others, both contemporary and what went before, but in turn, he had a
massive impart within his own time frame, remove him from that overall
time frame of the period and there would be an exceptionally large
missing piece of the jig-saw, a big empty hole. Removing him from the
time frame would have resulted in a different design of decorative
arts/studio glass movement, not only in America but in Europe as well.
It is the same, only to a bigger extent, in removing someone like William
Morris from the period, the whole of the 19thC and 20thC decorative
movement would have been totally different, perhaps even non-existent.
That to me, is the important thing, and the merits of these people, their
work, their designs, how they influenced further generations and even
their philosophy and ideals were immense.
The **monetary** value, worth, book price, market price, call it what you
wish, is TOTALLY irrelevant, be it 50 cents or 100000 bucks a go, it will
make no difference to the real merits these people left behind and how
they effected the history of design and influenced that design for others
that followed.
Now, can we say the same for J.&G.Meakin flow blue china, Japanese willow
pattern, colourful utility crockery, 19thC bric-à-brac, nondescript
silver plate and all the other mountains of useless shite we discuss in
this ng? - take away *their* monetary value and the personal sentiment of
this nondescript carp and what is left? ... NOTHING IMO .... because
this sort of stuff and its like has no other merits whatsoever .. other
than "how much is it worth .. today?" and "how much can I sell it for?"
Pay no attention, I'm just ranting again, got any crap to show us? ;))
Ronnie
=====
"it's just a job"
===========
Cyanogirl
>
>http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/xobject.jpg
>
>
>Ronnie
>=====
Ronnie, I never thought this pic of me would surface. Where did you find it?
Can't believe you found one of me without my panties. But it's so
unflattering. I was way too thin then. I look like Calista F. with that big
head and no body to speak of. What happened to my arms?! And my skin has
never looked worse. Thanks a LOT, ol' boy, for making this public.
Ronnie McKinley
>Hmmm. The fork end is for stabbing gobbets of meat and turnip, the
>spoon part for slurping up broth, ummmm 17C? [Based on sheer rendom
>guessery.]
>
>But somehow I keep visualizing something FLAPPING on that fork end.
>
Clever miss Charleen got it right off :) .. It's a sweetmeat fork or a
"sucket fork" for eating sweetmeats or sucket. I have no idea the date of
this one, probably 17thC yes. A two or three pronged fork at one end of
the handle and a spoon bowl, usually of teaspoon size, at the other.
Early inventories of c1550 mention these utensils, but most of the few
surviving English and American examples, which are usually made of
silver, date from the late 17th century.
Whilst we are NOW discussing forks you will enjoy these couple of quotes,
at least I hope you do, but you'll love the spelling that's for sure. :)
Early reference to a fork c1463, no exact source .... "my silvir forke
for grene gynor" ... 50 years later another was described as being used
for the same delicacy ... now what the hell is "grene gynor?" I have no
idea.
Another, this appears in Coryat's, Crudities, c1611, in which Thomas
Coryat tells of his five month of travelling on mainland Europe, he
wrote, ... "I observed a custome in all those Italian Cities and Townes
through which I passed, that is not used in any other country that I saw
in my travels, neither doe I think that any other nation of Christendome
doth use it, but only Italy. The Italian, and most other strangers that
are cormorant in Italy, doe alwaies, at their meales, use a little forke
when they cut the meate" he goes on to say, that the Italians dislike
meat on a dish being touched with the fingers .... "seeing all men's
fingers are not alike cleane ..."
And this one, a Joseph Brasbridge, who was a retail silversmith in Fleet
Street, London c1770, wrote about an invitation to dinner he received
from one of his clients, at a fashionable London hotel .. "where the
cloth was laid with a profusion of plate" but Brasbridge could not do
justice to the occasion. In his own words .... ' " because" said I,
taking up one of the silver forks, "I know how to sell these articles,
but not how to use them". ' - he must have been a Yank, Eh? :)))
Ronnie
=====
Ronnie McKinley
>Ronnie, I never thought this pic of me would surface. Where did you find it?
>Can't believe you found one of me without my panties. But it's so
>unflattering. I was way too thin then. I look like Calista F. with that big
>head and no body to speak of. What happened to my arms?! And my skin has
>never looked worse. Thanks a LOT, ol' boy, for making this public.
Hey YOU!! ... I am STILL awaiting that reply from our last email
correspondence .. don't tell me you've chicken out?? :)
Ronnie
=====
Double D Auction
1800's for testing the doneness of meat with the pronged end &
basting with the spoon?
Debbie
mcat
McKinley) wrote:
>In rec.antiques, mc...@cecomet.net.nothere (mcat) wrote:
>
>
>>"But a Runcible Spoon dates back further in English history to Samuel
>>Johnson. It was noted by his traveling companion, Boswell, that the
>>two shared meals using a utensil fashioned from the horn of an animal.
>>This ancient utensil served as a knife, fork, and spoon and was known
>>as a Runcible Spoon."
>
>
>ROTF ... that is of course a complete nonce.
>
>So, here is one ... a real utensil that really existed. Can you guess its
>name, its function and it's approx early date of origin ... anyone??
>
>Not for, Jon or Jane. ;)
>
>
>http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/xobject.jpg
>
>
>Ronnie
>=====
Nonce word that "runcible" may be, it still has more class (and
history) than "spork."
Your sweetmeat fork is interesting. Not enough detail in the photo,
though. I couldn't tell if that was a spoon or a bulb at the top.
How big is it? What's it made of? The tines look too blunt to stab
anything with, have they been dulled, or were you meant to scoop &
lift, not stab?
mcat
Charleen Bunjiovianna
>
>Clever miss Charleen got it right off :) ..
Well, I'll be a one-eyed yellow-bellied tree toad.
I'd like to thank the members of the Academy and my mother. Her giving birth
to me was a big turning point in my life.
Charleen
mcat
Gee, Fayette, did you get the right picture? That fairy looks like
she's giving someone the evil eye. She doesn't look too golden,
either.
mcat
Smorgass Bored
Well, I'll be a one-eyed yellow-bellied tree toad.
(*<~ I just KNEW I was right...... IMO
<g>,
Doug W.
~>*)))>< Big fish eat Little fish ><(((*<~
Gillam Kerley
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
>
> Exactly Reyne, and that is the point to my previous respond to you,
> although I may have appeared rather cryptic. - Anyhow, it's not merely
> YOUR opinion on Tiffany, it's the general universal opinion. That's what
> is really important and what matters.
But .... surely that was not the general universal opinion a few decades
ago, when Tiffany was selling for peanuts. Wouldn't a consensus that
his work was historically important have created enough of a market, if
only among the "experts" to have kept prices high? Isn't the evaluation
of historical merit subject to fad and fluctuation just as monetary
value is? Which came first, the "general universal opinion" on Tiffany's
importance, or the artificial creation of a market as described by
Reyne?
GK
ReyneH
I hear what you are saying and in part agree, however here is a side thought...
just my 2 cents
I have a kitchen full of depression glass. I am 31 yrs old, so far from it
being something of my childhood memories.
Is it valuable? Well...there is definitely a strong market for it, and alot of
people buy it because they like it, enjoy collecting it etc. There are
definitely those that buy it because they can make money selling it - but those
people dont' count. The people like myself that buy it really enjoy it.
Now...this was made during the depression era which I am sure I don't have to
explain to you. It is mass produced, machine made crap.
BUT! (there is a BUT) if you ask me....the mfg of glass from that time period
were often very creative in their exterior designs, colors manufactured and
shapes created. At the time much of this merchandise was sold in dime stores,
and or given away in soap boxes, at banks, movie theaters etc.
Now when you compare depression glass with the equivalent such as Corelle today
- seems to me like depression glass is far more artistically impressive, and
historically significant.
So does this qualify as crap? or not?
Many people think depression glass is cheap shit/junque if you will. But from
its qualifications, I would say its far from crap.
Reyne
Ronnie McKinley
>So does this qualify as crap? or not?
>
>Many people think depression glass is cheap shit/junque if you will. But from
>its qualifications, I would say its far from crap.
>
Reyne, it may have some context from the USA viewpoint, but for the rest
of us, this side of the pond, it has no significance whatsoever, it is
merely, pressed glass from the 1930/40s, plus.
I have a friend that's a serious glass collector, but he would also buy
cheap pressed glass for everyday kitchen use, amongst his accumulation of
pressed glass he would have a number of US pieces, as well as, English
pieces of the same time frame. This is not a collection, he uses it and
sometimes he accidentally breaks it, and no tears are spilled, the stuff
is treated like any other kitchen utility ware, or for dishing up a salad
or serving deserts, sticking bunches of flowers into .. etc etc.
Anyways, to the point. I honestly see little difference between his US
examples and the English pieces, except, the US pieces would be a lot
more gaudy. I am sorry, but you wouldn't wish me to lie, just to win
friends and influence people. ;)
The English Victorian pressed glass is equally as gaudy, but over here,
pressed glass is cheap, no-one really wants it, and most times it's VERY
hard to sell, it really needs to be cheap in order to move it on. It's
the sort of stuff that the auction houses put into box lots and we pick
up at car boots sales, jumble sales and in the second-hand shops. Some of
this Vicky stuff dates from the mid-late 19thC, makes no difference how
old it is. The stuff has never been a good seller, we see it around the
antique fairs, week after week, month after month some times years, just
sitting on dealers stands collecting dust, why the hell they buy it in
the first place is a mystery to me. Good money down the pan.
Early, 3 or 4 parts mould pressed stuff is slightly different, it does
sell but only amongst knowledgable glass collectors, the general public
wouldn't know ass from elbow if presented with an 1830s press moulded
piece. It's also cheap compared with quality pieces of the same time
frame. There's some history behind the early pieces, but as I say no
significance with late Vicky stuff onwards, it was mass-produced in the
millions.
That's the story from over here, is it crap?? ... well IMO, from what I
have see of it, and the stuff on the web, and the stuff that is sometimes
posted in this ng ... YES .. it is crap, be it English, US or Timbuctoo,
pressed glass is pressed glass is pressed glass. :)
Ronnie
=====