How old is an Antique ?
Derron Roberts
Is there a definition of how old an article should be in order for it to be
classified as an Antique ?
I would appreciate replies to my email address on individual views on this
subject (even if it's just a one liner saying "I think it's X number of
years" will do).
Thanking you in advance
stuf...@aol.com
BY DEFINITION AN ANTIQUE IS 100 YRS OLD OR OLDER
TOM
LeAnne Davis
by ONE definition.....
Another definition is "an item made before the Industrial Revolution
also known as the Machine Age"
The definition by the rec.antiques charter is 50 years...(which I
don't necessarily agree with, but rec.antiques made it to USENET
before I did...)
--
LeAnne Davis e-mail: LeAnne...@ti.com
Configuration Management
Texas Instruments 972-952-5386
Std Disclaimer: My opinions are not TI's except by coincidence!
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1894/haden.html
John Stone
Well maybe, that 100 year rule seems to be pretty much out the
window these days. I've been seeing a 50 year definition being
used a lot recently. It's an issue that will never be resolved
to everyone's satisfaction. John S.
Amer. Journal of Math.
Perhaps that should be: "BY [YOUR] DEFINITION..."
I can't quite remember what the charter for this group states, but for the
record, the word "antique"--derived from the Latin prefix "ante", or
"before"--simply describes any object, era, etc. which existed prior to
that of the speaker/user. I agree that when used either as an adjective or
a noun (esp. in the context of this ng), the word connotes "ancient" or,
for our purposes, "considerably older than last year's junk," but the
period of time separating new merchandise from antique can and should be
open to some interpretation.
Mike S.
Johns Hopkins University Press
crai...@aol.com
Congress passed a law in 1932 regarding the age of antiques to exempt them
from duty (taxes). They placed 100 years as the LEGAL age of an antique.
My opinion is that anything after the industrial revolution of the early
19thC. is NOT an antique, due to the loss of individual craftsmanship and
originality.
**************************************************************************
Craig Deller
The Deller Conservation Group Ltd
Geneva, Illinois
USA
crai...@aol.com "Conservators make it last longer"
http://home.aol.com/DELLERCON
***************************************************************************
Ellen Aaron
crai...@aol.com wrote:
>Congress passed a law in 1932 regarding the age of antiques to exempt them
>from duty (taxes). They placed 100 years as the LEGAL age of an antique.
>My opinion is that anything after the industrial revolution of the early
>19thC. is NOT an antique, due to the loss of individual craftsmanship and
>originality.
In other words, a hand made piece of furniture made in 1885 would not
be an antique because it was made after the industrial revolution of
the early 19thC and in spite of its being hadnmade would not have any
individual craftsmandship and originality?
--e
Jack
Doesn't it depend in part on what the item is? There are an awful
lot of wonderful oriental rugs, for example, that are well short of
100 years old but would meet most/many people's gut definition of
"antique".
I took an introductory class 20+ years ago, and I thought the
instructor gave a definition that was something like "an antique is
something made primarily by hand". Thus, by that definition, machine
crafted furniture will never be antique, but what does that say about
old books?
The definition is probably in the eye of the beholder.
Debbie Petrides
If anything after the industrial revolution isn't considered antique,
then what do I call the items that belonged to my great great grandma
(who was born in the 1840's)? And all her things were made by hand,
no Macy's where she grew up (far from it, a little farm in a little
island in little Greece somewhere....)
I beleive the word antique should only include objects which have an
inherent aura of mystery. (which increases with age) What I mean to say
is that if there is someone alive (note 1950's cookie jars) who can claim
they owned one... UH-UH its not old enough.... The point is if someone
remembers it how can it be THAAAT mysterious? It doesn't excite...
And if we need to know about the '40's lets just go ask our grandparents.
On the other hand, regarding items belonging to the LONG-LONG past, we
must consult them for clues, their owners are long dead, therein lies
the mysterious part!
WOW, Deb
Severyn G. Hanusz
I wish the antique dealers in my part of the country knew the
definition of 'antique'. Here in Virginia there are hundreds of
'antique' shops which have items like Star Wars games, Snoopy
lunch boxes, even Alf stuff!
Antique? No way!
These are really 'junk shops'
I would agree that an antique is something unusual and not easy
to find because it is so old and that not many similar items
of its kind are left!
But it is difficult to set a precise definition.
SGH
Nancy Dooley
Not really...in this group, antiques are anything over 50 years old,
and the term "junk" is in the eye of the collector.
In the real world (antique shops, etc.) antiques should be at least
100 years old, and again, whether or not it is "junk" is the opinion
of the collector.
Peanuts characters and the like are "collectibles." But you may want
to call them junk.
Ronnie McKinley
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:22:55 GMT, sg...@Virginia.EDU (Severyn G.
Hanusz) wrote:
>I wish the antique dealers in my part of the country knew the
>definition of 'antique'. Here in Virginia there are hundreds of
>'antique' shops which have items like Star Wars games, Snoopy
>lunch boxes, even Alf stuff!
>Antique? No way!
>These are really 'junk shops'
>I would agree that an antique is something unusual and not easy
>to find because it is so old and that not many similar items
>of its kind are left!
>But it is difficult to set a precise definition.
>SGH
an.tique n (1530) 1: a relic or object of ancient times 2 a: a work of
art, piece of furniture, or decorative object made at an
earlier period and according to various customs laws at least 100
years ago b: a manufactured product (as an automobile)
from an earlier period
A precise definition - but does it help?
In antique dealer's terms an "antique" date line 100years old -
"period" date line pre 1837 the last true period - "collectables"
usually 20th century anywhere between the early 1900's to in some
cases yesterday.
You are quite right - even in the UK we have so called "antique shops"
selling junk, but ofcourse "antique shop" sounds better than "junk
shop." Other trades and business would not get away with such
deception -so why do these junk shop's get any with it. At least a
"real" antique dealer's junk is antique junk.
Regards
Ronnie
john...@aol.com
<< Here in Virginia there are hundreds of
<<'antique' shops which have items like Star Wars games, <<Snoopy
<<lunch boxes, even Alf stuff!
<<Antique? No way!
I know what you mean. We've talked about it a lot in this group,
sandwiched in between the posts for Han Solo action figures and Franklin
Mint chess sets. As a collector, I understand the drive to collect and I
say to each his own... However there is an element which insists on
flogging this dreck as antique and I'm afraid it will always be so as they
show no sign of letting up even when asked.
You'll get arguments about what constitutes "antique" and there are
purists who maintain that the term applies to bits over 100 years old.
I'm with them. But I like this group's definition -- which boils down to
things pre-1945 in origin, and I think that covers the playing field
pretty well.
My two cents...
JD
Ted Scott
Um, try that argument on U.S. Customs. I bet dollars to donuts they
assess
the duty if it's less than 100 years.
-Ted
Patricia V. Lehman
john...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You'll get arguments about what constitutes "antique" and there are
> purists who maintain that the term applies to bits over 100 years old.
> I'm with them. But I like this group's definition -- which boils down to
> things pre-1945 in origin, and I think that covers the playing field
> pretty well.
I like this definition, because it includes everything made before I was
born. And isn't that really one of the reasons for all the disagreement
-- that whatever is contemporaneous with us is perforce new, and anything
before us is from a vanished age we can never grasp, and therefore
mysteious and interesting?
Tish Lehman (p...@umich.edu)
Dennis Casanova
I'm constantly surprised by individuals trying to set an age to
Antiques. There truely are none. It changes upward as our society ages
and its tastes change. We all seem to lose track of the True Definition
of the word-Antiques Please see below (taken from the Am. Heritage
Dictionary.
Antique adj.
1. Belonging to, made in, or typical of an earlier period.
2. Of or belonging to ancient times, especially of, from, or
characteristic of ancient Greece or Rome.
3. Of or dealing in antiques.
4. Old-fashioned.
帰ntique n.
1. An object having special value because of its age, especially a
domestic item or piece of furniture or handicraft esteemed for its
artistry, beauty, or period of origin.
2. The style or manner of ancient times, especially that of ancient
Greek or Roman art.
It should be quite evident by its definition that the term Antique
applies to items of an earlier peiod (and in consequence each new year
brings more of yesteryears items into that fold.)
Likewise old fashioned has different meaning to different people. To
many items of the 50's are indeed old fashioned.
I think particularly the section noting that an antique can be anything
of an earlier age that is esteemed for its "period of origin" certainly
encompassing items from the 50's a well established era for many of the
highly collectable antiques sold by many of the countries most
prestigeous Antique sellers in many catagories.
The True market trend is definitely toward the later pieces and the
prices that these Antiques are bringing currently speak to the amount of
esteem they carry in the market.
All too often People like to personally Ascribe to the World of
Antiques what they Personnally consider an Antique instead of what the
market as a whole has ascribed or the given definitions denote.
Just one man's opinion -Le Picker (Dennis)
Barry L. Van Hook
I'm very hard pressed to understand why the 100-year "rule" is so vigorously
embraced, unless you are shipping things internationally .... and that is
probably applicable to a small minority of us. So apply it those cases, and
in the words of the song, "Get Over It" the rest of the time.
Remember, folks, the 100-year thing is a creation of the federal monolithic
system, those wonderful thinkers who brought us a tax system that requires
degree-qualified specialists to understand it, a legislative body that
regularly exempted itself from those rules under which the rest of us lived,
the Branch Davidian massacre, and Teddy Kennedy (okay, okay, ... Bob Dole,
too)!!
So embrace it if you must, ... but unless and until someone can
demonstrate what is so sacrosanct about a wholly-arbitrary, annually adjusted
qualifier, don't suggest that everyone else needs to salute it just because
the Feds think it's appropriate.
Barry
(In the words (to the effect) of Lewis Carroll: When I use a word it means
exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more nor less.)
Barry L. Van Hook (van...@asu.edu)
Management Department, College of Business
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006
(602) 965-1217 FAX -- (602) 965-8314
John B
In article <E154y...@Virginia.EDU>, "Severyn G. Hanusz"
<sg...@Virginia.EDU> writes
>I wish the antique dealers in my part of the country knew the
>'antique' shops which have items like Star Wars games, Snoopy
>lunch boxes, even Alf stuff!
>Antique? No way!
>I would agree that an antique is something unusual and not easy
>to find because it is so old and that not many similar items
>of its kind are left!
>But it is difficult to set a precise definition.
>SGH
be anything 100 or more years old. One of the UK's top antique fairs
now accepts it's dateline as pre 1940. So even good old England is
prepared to change it's traditional stance.
--
John B
Ronnie McKinley
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:05:46 +0000, John B <jo...@huncote.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>The accepted age for an "antique" is coming down. In the UK it used to
>be anything 100 or more years old.
Where you got that information from I would like to know.
Within the antique trade in the U.K the dateline for an antique is
100 YEARS.
If it's not then you normally pay V.A.T If it is not then it can not
be shipped without custom Tax. If not then the auction house charge
V.A.T on the hammer price not just on the fees. Within the Custom and
Excise scope less than 100 years old then the item must qualify as a
"work of art" as to be treated in the same way as an antique item -
this ofcourse is were the confusion my be - it does not include 1940s
household crap - but needless to say this is abused by dealers and
auctions as well as the general public.
> One of the UK's top antique fairs
>now accepts it's dateline as pre 1940. So even good old England is
>prepared to change it's traditional stance.
The fair's dateline has nothing to do with an antique now being
reclassed - as before 1940. It has to do with the items made in the
Decorative Arts period 1890 to c1940. Many fine and wonderful objects
were made between these dates and have become very collectable, in
some cases these objects are better made and designed than objects
from the 1860's - or after the industrial revolution.
crai...@aol.com wrote:
>>My opinion is that anything after the industrial revolution of the early
>>19thC. is NOT an antique, due to the loss of individual craftsmanship and
>>originality.
This ofcourse is utter B.S - To say the likes of Wm. Morris,
Mackintosh, Galle, Lalique, Clarice Cliff, Moorcroft, Tiffany, Dresser
or Gustva Stickley - to name only a few - lacked " individual
craftsmanship and originality " is a little strange. Many of these
designers and manufactures made full use of the modern machine as well
as modern materials in that day and produced fine objects that many a
dealer to-day would sell his grannie for.
My view - "period" - dateline pre 1837 "antique" - dateline 100
years "collectables" - dateline 1900-1940 and all have their own
place in the antique trade. But what does not, is the ill made
mass-produced rubbish of the first half of this century that in recent
times have become trendy and only masquerade as antiques, perhaps we
should be asking "what is an antique" not "how old is an antique"
With Kind Regards
Ronnie
Amer. Journal of Math.
Possibly. But since when did some paper-pushing bureaucrat at U. S.
Customs become the ultimate arbiter of meaning for ANY word in the English
language? Your confusing idiomatic usage with a more standard--though
perhaps no more binding--etymological definition. The number of divergent
replies in this thread alone should indicate that, in common usage, the
word can and does have many different meanings. But all of those
personalized "definitions" are nevertheless agreed that "antique" is
roughly equivalent to "old stuff." The age at which something becomes such
stuff is, as has been pointed out, necessarily in the eye of the
beholder--customs or no.
Mike S.
Ronnie McKinley
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:25:55, van...@asu.edu (Barry L. Van Hook)
wrote:
>I'm very hard pressed to understand why the 100-year "rule" is so vigorously
>embraced, unless you are shipping things internationally .... and that is
>probably applicable to a small minority of us. So apply it those cases, and
>in the words of the song, "Get Over It" the rest of the time.
>
>Remember, folks, the 100-year thing is a creation of the federal monolithic
>system, those wonderful thinkers who brought us a tax system that requires
>degree-qualified specialists to understand it, a legislative body that
>regularly exempted itself from those rules under which the rest of us lived,
>the Branch Davidian massacre, and Teddy Kennedy (okay, okay, ... Bob Dole,
>too)!!
Perhaps we should get this right. It is not just the customs in the
U.S.A that say an antique must be 100 years old - the same rules apply
here in the UK and indeed the rest of Europe - so what's the problem.
>
>So embrace it if you must, ... but unless and until someone can
>demonstrate what is so sacrosanct about a wholly-arbitrary, annually adjusted
>qualifier, don't suggest that everyone else needs to salute it just because
>the Feds think it's appropriate.
The Feds? come on this is antique group not - alt politics
The antique trade on the whole have no hangups with the 100 year old
dateline. We do have to have some dateline otherwise the novice will
not know where they are at.
How can a Chippendale chair be the same as a G.I joe or a 19th century
Rosewood Davenport be the same as a plywood bedroom dressing table
from the 1950s or indeed a Victorian porcelain doll the same as a
plastic "barbie" c1964
Time to wise up.
Regards
Ronnie
>
Ronnie McKinley
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:41:20 -0800, LeAnne Davis <LeAnne...@ti.com>
wrote:
>stuf...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> BY DEFINITION AN ANTIQUE IS 100 YRS OLD OR OLDER
>> TOM
>
>by ONE definition.....
>
>Another definition is "an item made before the Industrial Revolution
>also known as the Machine Age"
>
>little snip>
I think some are confused over the Industrial Revolution - here is a
small article on the subject.
The Industrial Revolution (1750-1900)
The term Industrial Revolution, like similar historical concepts, is
more convenient than precise. It is convenient because
history requires division into periods for purposes of understanding
and instruction and because there were sufficient
innovations at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries to justify the
choice of this as one of the periods. The term is imprecise,
however, because the Industrial Revolution has no clearly defined
beginning or end. Moreover, it is misleading if it carries the
implication of a once-for-all change from a "preindustrial" to a
"postindustrial" society, because, as has been seen, the events
of the traditional Industrial Revolution had been well prepared in a
mounting tempo of industrial, commercial, and
technological activity from about AD 1000 and led into a continuing
acceleration of the processes of industrialization that is
still proceeding in our own time. The term Industrial Revolution must
thus be employed with some care. It is used below to
describe an extraordinary quickening in the rate of growth and change,
and more particularly, to describe the first 150 years
of this period of time, as it would be convenient to pursue the
developments of the 20th century separately.
The Industrial Revolution, in this sense, has been a worldwide
phenomenon, at least in so far as it has occurred in all those
parts of the world, of which there are very few exceptions, where the
influence of Western civilization has been felt. Beyond
any doubt it occurred first in Britain, and its effects spread only
gradually to continental Europe and North America. Equally
clearly, the Industrial Revolution that eventually transformed these
parts of the Western world surpassed in magnitude the
achievements of Britain, and the process was carried further to change
radically the socioeconomic life of the Far East,
Africa, Latin America, and Australasia. The reasons for this
succession of events are complex, but they were implicit in the
earlier account of the buildup toward rapid industrialization. Partly
through good fortune and partly through conscious effort,
Britain by the early 18th century came to possess the combination of
social needs and social resources that provided the
necessary preconditions of commercially successful innovation and a
social system capable of sustaining and institutionalizing
the processes of rapid technological change once they had started.
So it would be a little difficult or perhaps misleading to use The
Industrial Revolution as a dateline for an antique. What I think some
posters are getting at, when they refer to the machine age or the
decline after the 1850s was the influence of The Great Exhibition the
world's first-ever international exhibition at The Crystal Palace
London in 1851. From that we entered a new age and the birth of the
Arts and Craft movements which had a major influence on the rest of
the 19th century and through that to the, Novueau and the Deco era and
perhaps to some extent the Modersim of the 1940s.
Hope this is of interest to some
Kind Regards
Ronnie
John B
In article <32945eb...@news.sonnet.co.uk>, Ronnie McKinley
<glenb...@gpo.sonnet.co.uk> writes
My comments on items upto 1940 being accepted as antiques is not my personal
opinion. The fair I refer to is describe as an Antiques Fair and not an Antique
and Collectors Fair which is an entirely different argument. If the mighty
amongst us, i.e. the organisors of the big and reputable fairs change the goal
posts who are we to argue?
I would agree that 100 years is the acceptable benchmark, but given the power of
the trade we will probably have to concede eventually. It is almost impossible
to find a fair that can guarantee that all goods offered have been vetted. The
task would be impossible. Look carefully at vetted fairs, you can a the pieces
that were missed by the "experts"
--
John B
Barry L. Van Hook
In article <32959852...@news.sonnet.co.uk> glenb...@gpo.sonnet.co.uk (Ronnie McKinley) writes:
>Time to wise up.
Don't be so touchy, Skippy ... sorry to have apparently kicked over one of
your icons ... but your high dudgeon aside, you still haven't provided any
rational reason for the canonization of the sliding, arbitrary 100-year "rule"
except for your opinion of need.
Barry L. Van Hook (van...@asu.edu)
Management Department, College of Business
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006
Phone (602) 965-1217 FAX (602) 965-8314
Ronnie McKinley
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:50:05 +0000, John B <jo...@huncote.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>My comments on items upto 1940 being accepted as antiques is not my personal
>opinion. The fair I refer to is describe as an Antiques Fair and not an Antique
>and Collectors Fair which is an entirely different argument. If the mighty
>amongst us, i.e. the organisors of the big and reputable fairs change the goal
>posts who are we to argue?
Yes John - but this is not a black and white situation - datelines at
the end of the day can only be guide-lines - like the circa xxx thing
or the William 1V period.
For example take say Rene Lalique starting his early work c1870s - he
was designing jewellery in the Art Nouveau style about 1883 as well as
fans and textiles. In 1905 he was designing mirrors - from about 1918
it was mostly the now famous Lalique glass in the Art Deco style.
There are many other examples of the same thing - designers and
manufactures working in the 19thc and continuing up to the first 30
odds years of this century.
So what do we do John? - Do we say OK if Lalique made it in 1895 it is
an antique thereafter it is a collectable. Do the fair organisors with
a dateline 1900 say Lilique jewellery is OK but Lalique glass is not.
>
>I would agree that 100 years is the acceptable benchmark, but given the power of
>the trade we will probably have to concede eventually.
Do not really know what you are getting at here. - But sorry to burst
you bubble - but the whole antique thing is trade driven away - has
always been. There are more "antique" items sold a year within dealer
circles than is ever offered to the general public. And when I say
dealer circles ofcourse that includes the serious collector as well.
> It is almost impossible to find a fair that can guarantee that all goods offered have been vetted. The
>task would be impossible. Look carefully at vetted fairs, you can a the pieces
>that were missed by the "experts"
Nobody is an expert on everything - sure I go to fairs and auctions -
- visit other dealers and see stuff that is not right - but you never
say anything. The big mistake that he of little knowledge does, is
walk up to a dealer at a fair and say "that's not right - you know" -
if you think it is not right then don't buy it.
Anyways it is great fun this game of antiques - we are all hoping,
dealer and private alike, in making our fortune by someone else
mistake.
Good Hunting
Ronnie
Ronnie McKinley
>In article <32959852...@news.sonnet.co.uk> glenb...@gpo.sonnet.co.uk (Ronnie McKinley) writes:
>
>>Time to wise up.
>
>Don't be so touchy, Skippy ... sorry to have apparently kicked over one of
>your icons ... but your high dudgeon aside, you still haven't provided any
>rational reason for the canonization of the sliding, arbitrary 100-year "rule"
>except for your opinion of need.
Sorry Barry if I have been offensive I bear no anger or resentment to
you or any one else, and whilst, this business is my livelihood it is
by no means a holy crusade.
Your posting implied to me, that the 100 year classification was the
invention of your Federal Government and unique in your country alone
when in fact, it is the same in the UK and most everywhere else that
I personally deal with, in the course of my business.
Prior to this ruling by the Custom and Exice - in the UK - the
"antique" dateline within the trade would have been pre 1837, although
some die-hard dealers would still to-day adhere to the pre 1837 date.
There have been, -again in the UK- advantages to the general buying
public with this ruling, in so much, that an "antique" with a 100 year
dateline can be sold by the dealer in what is called 'special scheme'
which means that V.A.T - that is a purchase tax - is not charged to
the buyer, the V.A.T is paid to Custom and Excise by the dealer from
his profit on the sale - currently 17.5% - perhaps you have something
similar - I don't know. There are many other forms to this scope, now
that is not much to my advantage as a dealer, for inorder to operate
'special scheme' I have to buy the items in on 'special scheme'
Ofcouse you still will say - so what - why 100 years, well maybe only
because it makes a system work - I still do not see a problem. What
defines a Classic Car or when is a car Vintage, what makes a 'work of
art' - division into periods and classification for purposes of
understanding and instruction? I don't mind going back to pre 1837 - I
do mind advancing to 1950.
So tell me Barry, where would your dateline be? or would you have no
dateline? no system no division.
With my very best regards
Ronnie
Barry L. Van Hook
>Sorry Barry if I have been offensive I bear no anger or resentment to
>you or any one else,
Nor I to you .... but I do sometimes become short with those who attempt to
universally define the word Antique (with a leading uppercase letter)
without regard to the environment in which the term is used (and those folk
sometime populate this newsgroup).
Your explication of the situation in the UK, with a value added tax, a
bureaucracy established to enforce it, and in particular, a lovely loophole
for dodging the VAT, provide a reason for a 100 year timeline .... not an
inherent reason, mind you, but a good reason, nonetheless! And the system
would work if the timeline was drawn at 99 years, 150 years, etc. ... the
primary difference would be in the number of goods that could escape that
confiscatory tax rate.
>Your posting implied to me, that the 100 year classification was the
>invention of your Federal Government and unique in your country alone
>when in fact, it is the same in the UK and most everywhere else that
>I personally deal with, in the course of my business.
And in this country, the 100 year line is a creation of the government as it
is in yours ... I must apologize for a bit of chauvinistic perspective
originally ... I was only thinking of the US at that time. Given that this
forum is perhaps 90% North American, we often forget the international stage
on which this tableau is played! Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
My main point is that there is nothing inherently sacred about a 100
year time line or a 200 year line or the 50-year line we use here
in rec.antiques .... these are convenient and generally-accepted criteria
given the environment in which we are operating at the time. Sometimes the
"generally-accepted" descriptor is debated, and is always subject to change
depending upon the argument posited for such change and/or the power of the
entity with authority to make such change ... so be it.
> What defines a Classic Car or when is a car Vintage,
At the risk of displaying chauvinism once again ... this is an excellent case
in point. Here is the US we have a Classic Car Club of America and a Vintage
society. Each association has specifically defined those vehicles meeting
their criteria. A 1949 MG TC or a 1957 Thunderbird, while they are both
examples of classic marques and are often referred to as classic MG's or
classic T-Birds by their admirers, doesn't stand a prayer of ever becoming
eligible for membership in the Classic Car Club of America. And to complicate
matters further, there are Antique (note all these upper case leading letters)
auto associations in which true Classics are ineligible.
>So tell me Barry, where would your dateline be? or would you have no
>dateline? no system no division.
That is correct ... at least no universal, arbitrary system imposed upon
everyone by a governmental entity whose primary objective is the pursuit of
its own aim, which is far too often revenue enhancement. The playing court
should be defined by the players directly involved in the buying and selling.
We should allow the frequenters of the Classic Car Clubs their own standards
and criteria, the participants in rec.antiques their own definition, and so
forth. After all, there should be no effect upon the price of the
merchandise, unless the seller must recoup taxes paid; in large measure, an
item is worth what it is worth at any point in time. And should a
particular venue not include sufficient merchandise that I might consider to
be buy-worthy, then I won't frequent that venue again, whether it is a
virtual antique shop or a real one.
>With my very best regards
>Ronnie
And mine ...
Barry
John B
In article <32974f52...@news.sonnet.co.uk>, Ronnie McKinley
<glenb...@gpo.sonnet.co.uk> writes
I think you may have not understood my point. The original question was "how old
is an antique" (or words to that effect) I was making the observation that
whilst the traditionally accepted age is 100 years or more, it is no longer a
hard and fast rule. With regard to making comment to a dealer who has goods for
sale that as you put it "are not right" my observation was in connection with
datelined fairs vetted by a committee and not to general collectors fairs where
anything goes.
To stray from the thread for a minute or two.
I judge from your comment regarding telling a dealer that something is not
right, that you are talking as a dealer. I deal on a part time basis. I am also
a serious collector. Many dealers tend to think and refer to the buyer as a
"punter" and fail to realise that the specialist collector is probably an
expert in his/her speciality
When an enthusiatic dealer pounces on me and gives me chapter and verse on the
item that I can see is "wrong" I tell him/her. It may not suit them to be told
that what they think they have is not all it's made out to be, but that is the
privilage of the customer. I have lot's of dealer friends who value the opinoin
of their customers who they know to be very knowledgeable So your comment "he of
little knowledge" is an insult to most serious collectors, and I have to say is
indicative of the attitude of many dealers.
Having got that off my chest, I would agree with many things you say. there will
always be this overlap between antiques and collectables and the danger of
becoming to rigid in specifying datelines is to creat a less exciting
environment in which to hunt. Squeaky clean fairs are not so interesting as
general A & C fairs but where do you draw the line?
John B
Barry L. Van Hook
>Having got that off my chest, I would agree with many things you say. there will
>always be this overlap between antiques and collectables and the danger of
>becoming to rigid in specifying datelines is to creat a less exciting
>environment in which to hunt. Squeaky clean fairs are not so interesting as
>general A & C fairs but where do you draw the line?
John, the line is drawn--broadly or narrowly--by those who "own" the
venue in question ... they conceived it, they paid to promote it, they manage
it, they should be able to place limits upon its content. As I suggested in
another post on this subject, buyers can choose to attend or not, as is their
desire.
Barry L. Van Hook
In article <3298ef73...@news.sonnet.co.uk> glenb...@gpo.sonnet.co.uk (Ronnie McKinley) writes:
>>>So tell me Barry, where would your dateline be? or would you have no
>>>dateline? no system no division.
>>
>>That is correct ... at least no universal, arbitrary system imposed upon
>>everyone by a governmental entity whose primary objective is the pursuit of
>>its own aim, which is far too often revenue enhancement. The playing court
>>should be defined by the players directly involved in the buying and selling.
>Well then Barry - I think what would happen then in that case, is that
>once again the trade could be driven by the privileged societies in
>the UK for example by the B.A.A and L.A.P.A.D.A - would bring it all
>back to pre1837 dateline and the rest of the century would be defined
>as "The Victorian Era" and 1890-1930 the "Applied Arts" -after 1930
>"crud" So you would have replaced one bureaucracy with another
>bureaucracy - only this one may not let you join in.
More's the pity. If US Customs were to drop all such arbitrary definitions,
absolutely nothing would occur in most of our domestic markets (with the
possible exception of that very small minority of US dealers who import, and
there prices might fall), either from the perspective of price or market
control. The market is far too fragmented for any group or individual to gain
such power ... and the market lacks sufficient profitability for anyone to
try!!
Ronnie McKinley
>Your explication of the situation in the UK, with a value added tax, a
>bureaucracy established to enforce it, and in particular, a lovely loophole
>for dodging the VAT, provide a reason for a 100 year timeline .... not an
>inherent reason, mind you, but a good reason, nonetheless! And the system
>would work if the timeline was drawn at 99 years, 150 years, etc. ... the
>primary difference would be in the number of goods that could escape that
>confiscatory tax rate.
Many UK citizens that read this next statement may not agree - so be
it.
But I personally do not object to the paying of Tax to the government
coffers - either directly as in income tax or by indirect taxes like
V.A.T and I do not feel that UK taxes are that penal. How quite the
U.S tax system works - I really don't - but if it's anything like the
system you use to elect of your President and government I can well
understand the feeling you seem to have regards bureaucracy.
Now I do not want this to become purely a political dicussion - but
you have misunderstood my summary on the V.A.T thing - or I did not
express it very well. There really are no loopholes there are - abuses
yes as in any system - the scope is large - for example a 1930s
Lorenzi gilt bronze figure can be special schemed because is "a work
of art" a fine art painting -date does not really matter- the same. So
yes in that respect 99years 100years 150years 200years wouldn't matter
- would it?
Again personally I feel the V.A.T in relationship to antiques is wrong
I do not see why the general public should be given that privilege -
especially at auction- and if the biggest bureaucracy in the world -
the E.C get their way that would be done away with.
>>So tell me Barry, where would your dateline be? or would you have no
>>dateline? no system no division.
>
>That is correct ... at least no universal, arbitrary system imposed upon
>everyone by a governmental entity whose primary objective is the pursuit of
>its own aim, which is far too often revenue enhancement. The playing court
>should be defined by the players directly involved in the buying and selling.
Well then Barry - I think what would happen then in that case, is that
once again the trade could be driven by the privileged societies in
the UK for example by the B.A.A and L.A.P.A.D.A - would bring it all
back to pre1837 dateline and the rest of the century would be defined
as "The Victorian Era" and 1890-1930 the "Applied Arts" -after 1930
"crud" So you would have replaced one bureaucracy with another
bureaucracy - only this one may not let you join in.
Speak to me soon
Ronnie
Ronnie McKinley
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 20:30:57 +0000, John B <jo...@huncote.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
>
>I think you may have not understood my point. The original question was "how old
>is an antique" (or words to that effect) I was making the observation that
>whilst the traditionally accepted age is 100 years or more, it is no longer a
>hard and fast rule. With regard to making comment to a dealer who has goods for
>sale that as you put it "are not right" my observation was in connection with
>datelined fairs vetted by a committee and not to general collectors fairs where
>anything goes.
I was aware what the original question was - but if we can not open
the debate up a little and widen the scope we may be in danger of
perhaps becoming tiresome to others within the group - what say you?
"not right" as you very well know John is a trade terminology not a
glossary term - and as a trade terminology it has many varied meaning
from dealer to dealer - region to region. When you referred to a
"vetted" fair with a dateline - then an item found within that fair
which falls outside the dateline - can it not be decribed as "not
right"
>
>To stray from the thread for a minute or two.
Yes you can
>
>I judge from your comment regarding telling a dealer that something is not
>right, that you are talking as a dealer. I deal on a part time basis. I am also
>a serious collector. Many dealers tend to think and refer to the buyer as a
>"punter" and fail to realise that the specialist collector is probably an
>expert in his/her speciality
My comment was
<<"There are more "antique" items sold a year within dealer
circles than is ever offered to the general public. And when I say
dealer circles ofcourse that includes the serious collector as well"<<
And again as you very well know "serious collectors" are as much part
of this trade as dealers themsleves. Most dealers myself included
where "collectors" originally - as there is yet, no school or course
on "how to become an antique dealer in 2years" The term "punter" I do
not recall using - if I did please quote the line. Although a term
that I myself never use - it too is a trade terminology beloved by the
"English" dealer. Not much used where I come from.
>When an enthusiatic dealer pounces on me and gives me chapter and verse on the
>item that I can see is "wrong" I tell him/her. It may not suit them to be told
>that what they think they have is not all it's made out to be, but that is the
>privilage of the customer.
Do you give the dealer your opinion and dicuss the item in question
merits and defaults - and pointout the possible area that would make
"you doubt" the item in question - or do you simply tell "him/her" -
there is Iam afraid a big difference
> I have lot's of dealer friends who value the opinoin
>of their customers who they know to be very knowledgeable So your comment "he of
>little knowledge" is an insult to most serious collectors, and I have to say is
>indicative of the attitude of many dealers.
You are "stirring it up" John. You know the relationship between
dealer and collector in the UK - you know that collectors can give as
good as they get and you very well know that collectors have their own
little book of terminology - and many collectors will "stand in" at
auction with the dealers. And many dealers buy with a particular
collector in mind and many collectors or part-time dealers will buy
with the trade in mind - the trade needs the collector as much as the
collector needs the trade - agree?
>
>Having got that off my chest, I would agree with many things you say. there will
>always be this overlap between antiques and collectables and the danger of
>becoming to rigid in specifying datelines is to creat a less exciting
>environment in which to hunt. Squeaky clean fairs are not so interesting as
>general A & C fairs but where do you draw the line?
Yes - and as much as there will be "overlap" whether antique or
"collectable."
When does a piece of George 1 furniture become a George 11 or is an
1830 piece George 111, Regency, George 1V or the abused William 1V and
-what were Gillows making in the 1840s? Victorian furniture?-
The trade in general has fallen into decline since the boom of the mid
80's and the crash of the early 90's dealer and collector alike,
confidence was shattered - it left a huge vacuum within this business
which unfortunately was filled with the crud we see today labelled
"antique" -now that a little of the confidence is coming back it is
time to reverse this nonsense and get back to the real thing again - I
draw the line at GI-joe's - Barbie dolls - 50s 60s household furniture
- 60s brightly coloured vases being called "Art Deco" - and
reproduction furniture/objects being called "the antiques of tomorrow"
But well designed "Modern" - studio glass - studio ceramics - tubular
metal and laminated constructed furniture - all made by individual
artists and craftsmanship using contemporary materials construction
and design - but then that's a different can of worms.
Regards
Ronnie
Ronnie McKinley
>
>More's the pity. If US Customs were to drop all such arbitrary definitions,
>absolutely nothing would occur in most of our domestic markets (with the
>possible exception of that very small minority of US dealers who import, and
>there prices might fall), either from the perspective of price or market
>control. The market is far too fragmented for any group or individual to gain
>such power ... and the market lacks sufficient profitability for anyone to
>try!!
Yes sure Barry the trade everywhere is a bit like that at the moment
as we would say over here "The Yanks are not buying" but it will not
always be like that - the "Yanks will buy again"
In most of the 80s my main markets were North America and Australia
that went down the pan in the early 90s - but you must remember
America is the big one for most dealers over here. What happens to the
suff when it arrives over there - I do not know.
You keep saying "with the possible exception of that very small
minority of US dealers who import" I really do think you are
under-estimating the number of American dealers that buy from overseas
sources.
The market lacks profitability in the "middle ground" but I think the
right goods at the upper end is Ok.
Regards
Ronnie
John B
In article <329993a5...@news.sonnet.co.uk>, Ronnie McKinley
<glenb...@gpo.sonnet.co.uk> writes
I think we both know the sort of "dealers I refer to, and I would not presume to
include you in that catagory. I only discuss suspect pieces that fall within my
interest and say why I think they are suspect. I do not go out of my way to look
for such items with that objective in mind. I many instances I just leave the
item and move on. It's when I am leapt upon and given chapter and verse about
the merits of the piece that I feel obliged to give my opinion. On the other
hand I have many dealer friends that keep items aside to ask my opinion. So I
apologise if I generalised too much. Within the trade there are very many
pleasant and genuine people who help to make the whole experience of antique
hunting a pleasant and social activity..
I agree without reservation on your last paragraph. I personally collect from
the Georgian period with a cut off date at 1810. My wife on the other hand
collects 1970's Poole stoneware sculptures by Barbara Linley Adams. We both
appreciate each others tastes and judging by the recent increase in prices for
her stuff. (driven by the publication of the book) They deserve to be the
antiques of tommorrow!!!!
John B