An Antique Dealer's Blog: Looking at English Furniture


The death of the third oldest man on record, Harry Patch aged 111, is noteworthy for several reasons. The first is that he fought in the trenches in the First World War, also known as the Great War and was the last British survivor of that conflict. The second is for his opinion that wars should not be fought but that there should be negotiation and compromise instead. I think that if you were in those trenches, that is the only way you could feel as young men, boys really, were slaughtered for no apparent reason.

Wars in the eighteenth century were certainly lethal, but doctors probably killed off more survivors than they saved. There were also surrenders where men were sworn not to take up arms again and released. Although wounds were far more deadly in that day, a surprisingly large number of people survived war time conflict. Horatio Nelson, the famed British admiral, lost an eye and an arm before dying in the Battle of Trafalgar in the arms of his first mate.

When I lived in London in the 1970's I frequented a pub where an old man told me about how the British used to have victorious British soldiers dropped off in Westminster near the Houses of Parliament to cheering crowds. However, when the soldiers were not victorious, they were dropped off in Limehouse in East London where I met this man. He remembered the troops who returned from Khartoum after the failed relief of Gordon in the 1880's when he was a young boy. Life is never kind to the losers. Harry Patch understood that much.


When I said that arranged marriages were largely a tribal affair, I was referring to the society of today. Of course, there are certain eurocentric societies that believe in arranged marriages as well, including the tribe of the European monarchies. Some of them are allowing greater latitude of choice by the heir apparent types, but that latitude seems based less on enlightenment and more on necessity. Their numbers are dwindling.

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu led an interesting life. She variolated (an early form of inoculation used by Turkish doctors) her children against small pox and was severely criticized for so doing. She was the first western woman to enter a seraglio (to view and write about the harem) and she is also thought to have composed a number of Alexander Pope's heroic couplets. Further, on rejecting Pope's amorous advances, he became an arch enemy, pillorying and slandering her in his poetic works. She did, however, elope with her husband against her parents wishes. By the age of 40, however, she separated from him never to see him again.  


A delightful formere assistant of mine was married this last weekend in Virginia. I attended and greatly enjoyed seeing her and her husband's glow. She told me that the week prior had been pretty stressful but it did not show and she looked relaxed and very happy and very beautiful.  The groom also looked very happy and relaxed and the entire event was an enormous success.

The marriages I have read about from the 18th century were all matches designed by a parent for some political purpose. The saddest was that of Caroline of Brunswick who married the Prince Regent, later George IV, who was whiny, egotistical and selfish. Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire, had a tough time because it was ten years before she had her first child. She clearly did not love the Duke and she did everything she could to not spend time with him. All of them, however, had great furniture to sit on.

Arranged marriages, which are "de rigeur" in many tribal cultures, are not so much a bad thing if a person can see his or her self as a political thing. If they can't, then it is life without love in most circumstances. Of the three weddings I have been to in the last year, the radiance of the couples has been quite special, a look I would never associate with an arranged marriage. I may be wrong about this but I think a great marriage is more important than great furniture. The two together, of course, is the "beau ideal".


"The Brothers Karamazov" has the perfect murder. Furthermore, the murderer is a proxy for someone who could never have murdered but feels guilty all the same. And the person for whom the proxy acts is so wracked with guilt, he might as well have committed the crime. There is a phenomenal scene where that person talks to the devil who he realizes is a figment of his imagination, but who is so real that even the reader believes he is real.

Dostoevsky mentions furniture just once. He refers to a house as being furnished in an "old fashioned" style. I can't imagine what that would be, but I would love to know what was considered old fashioned in 1880 and what would have been considered a la mode.

Russian literature which I have read very little of--two novels by Tolstoy, two by Dostoevsky and one by Mikhail Bulgakov--is extremely compelling. They are so rich over the last two to three hundred pages that you don't want to stop reading and yet you hope they won't end. The understanding of human nature in all of these books has been profound. I think about what Thomas Cahill said in "Sailing the Wine Dark Sea" about how the ancient Greeks were into the essence of things and Romans were into the form. The Russians and the Greeks must be related.  


No matter how good and right a revelation seems, it can be wrong. Perhaps that is why most people think of revelations as being spiritual in nature, because a spiritual revelation requires no proof. I, however, like to try and figure things out and when I think I have, I revel in revelation. If I get it wrong, then I start again.

In any case, I am wrong about the decoration on the front of my wine cooler (the strigliation or wavy flutes). It was used at least until 1805. After that date, I have no clear indication of whether it continued to be used. What is clear is that strigliation was introduced post 1760 and that is about all that we can be clear about.

My error was to rely on style as a dating device. Will someone who comes across a pair of Tom Wolfe's spats in one hundred years think they date from 1929 or 2009? Stylistically, they would be deemed to be out of fashion in 2009 and such a dating would be incorrect. And yet 2009 is the correct date.

It would be and always is better to judge by the factual evidence such as the leather, the aglets, the machine work or even the label. These are the clues that can render a relatively accurate date. Even so, I will never rescind the revelation of dental floss. It feels too good.


It isn't often that I have a revelation about antique furniture, but it happened this week. I have a wine cooler on my site with a strigliated front (wavy flutes) and a carved stylized patera top with lion paw handles and feet in brass. On researching the piece, I found that the date put on these coolers ranges from mid-18th century to Regency. The confusion is based, I believe, on the lions which are Regency, but the strigliation is taken directly from Roman sarcophagi. By the late 18th century, Roman influenced design is not only on the wane, it has been completely phased out. In other words, the wine cooler has to date concurrent with the influence of Roman influenced designers such as Robert Adam, James "Athenian Stuart or William Chambers making the date for the coolers circa 1770.

Revelations come in all sizes and this one is not major. I am quite certain that other experts have made this realization before me, but I sense that the confusion is just another shibboleth that riddles the antique furniture world. I would like to think that there is actual evidence of these coolers being made in the 19th century, and it may exist, but I sincerely doubt that such evidence will be found. One should never say never, however.

I have been thinking about revelations because of reading "The Brothers Karamazov". Dostoevsky does revelations very well (Raskalnikov in "Crime and Punishment", Zosima and Alyosha in "The Brothers Karamazov") but his revelations are more Leonard Cohen and less St. Augustine, less dogma and more Delphic Oracle. I know that one of my own personal revelations, minor in the scheme of things but important to me, was dental floss. Seemingly prosaic, but not really.


The Getty Museum in Los Angeles acquired a kouros, the statue of a Greek youth, in the 1980's that many have called a forgery. The provenance of the piece is certainly fake and some scientific tests seem to point to it being of relatively modern manufacture. Other tests seem to indicate that it is old. Aesthetes are divided on the subject. The statue is on exhibit with the tag that it is either circa 530 B.C. or a modern forgery.

What happens to a piece that has been tainted by scandal?  Sadly, even if there is nothing wrong with it or, as happens in English furniture when a piece is enhanced in restoration, the piece is tainted. Rumor and innuendo can damage a piece much more than factual evidence as the story is usually too good to be kept under wraps. The Getty kouros will forever be at the Getty and I suspect that there will never be a scientific test that will mollify the critics or prove the piece a forgery.

The question that begs to be asked is, why do we care if something is not original? There are lots of right reasons for caring, most of them to do with the body of work that is represented by an artist (or cabinetmaker) and any catalogue raisonne of that person's accomplishments. The wrong reasons have to do with investment. Strictly speaking, investment in art matters a great deal to the art world, but when investment becomes the raison d'etre of a buyer, there will be people wanting to take advantage of that buyer.

I have been asked many times how one should set about buying art or antiques. I think the first step is to find someone that you trust and that the second test is to listen to them very closely. No scientific tests, no aesthetic consensus and no verbose descriptions will ever satisfy the over riding question of a collector which should be, tell me why I should buy this item from you? There really isn't any other question that needs asking.


As the art and antiques business gets more pricey, the rationalization of value gets more attenuated. Look in any auction catalogue to see how a more expensive piece is catalogued. There is a description, a provenance if any and then there is more and a lot more if the piece has a huge estimate. That more will include the lives of previous owners to the odd scientific tests.

Further description is important, there is no doubt. Someone may want to buy something owned by an historical figure and related examples are extremely important to know as they give a sense of an artist or craftsman's work in relation to the piece offered. Certain scientific reports can be helpful as you don't want a Michelangelo painted on contemporary canvas. A friend recently read a report to me, however, by a dendrochronologist, someone who dates old wood. When he said "...believed to be" twice to me, I said that was enough. Too many caveats for it to mean anything to me.

Not all knowledge is quantifiable. The knowledge of an artist's style is something learned by looking at a great deal of the artist's work. No matter how good at it you get, you can still be wrong. This is also true with furniture. Wood tests and analyses don't necessarily answer any questions, they just certify some facts that still have to be synthesized into a reasonable conclusion. That conclusion may, alas, be incorrect.

I would suggest to anyone wanting to buy the best of the best in any field that they find one person to trust and then, once you trust that person, learn to listen to that person. It is more important than additional descriptions, it is more important than all the scientific analyses you can imagine. It is, in fact, the crux to buying good artworks.  


The interesting thing about people who are politically partisan is that, in this day and age, they tend not to acknowledge any other point of view than their own. My conservative friends think I am a liberal Democrat and my liberal Democrat friends think I am a conservative Republican. That is because I disagree with both of them often. I also disagree with waste and corruption and I strongly disagree with the synthesis of church and state.

I have liked a great many Republicans and Democrats over the years. Without naming names, the last two mayors of New York have been terrific, in my opinion. I haven't liked the presidents over the last sixteen years, but one tends to learn to live with that situation. I have hated the politics surrounding those two presidents.

Politics lacks the essential skill of negotiation at this point in time. We seem to have lost that skill. Perhaps it was the injection of family values into political debates or perhaps religious zealotry that has drowned out the essential strength of two sides reaching a compromise.

The former Treasury Secretary (briefly) under George W. Bush, Paul O'Neill, wrote a great article about waste in the health care system. That is what should be fixed first and foremost. We seem to want to protect and enlarge a system that is broken, not because it works, but because it already exists despite being riddled with corruption and waste. Why is that?

The people in politics remain open to ridicule. There are currently three Republicans that are imploding on a national level, but they don't own the title for bad behavior--it is shared with the Democrats. So, for my partisan friends, I suggest they take a more jaundiced view about politics and politicians and not be quite so dogmatic about everything save for one issue--getting this country to work properly.  


It was William Sidney Smith who thwarted Napoleon at the siege of Acre in 1799. Smith seemed to understand Napoleon's next move before Napoleon was able to make it. Acre was the fulcrum that might have tipped the entire east to Napoleon, but instead he returned to Egypt. Destiny, for Napoleon, was delayed.

It was not such a bad thing that Napoleon returned to Egypt. His eastern dreams put on indefinite hold, he chose to return to France, taking with him many of Vivant Denon's drawings of the ruins of the Upper Nile. These drawings were the fodder for designers for years to come and echoed strongly among elite aesthetes such as Thomas Hope, Percier and Fontaine and William Beckford.

Napoleon's desire was to enlighten Egypt which is why he took 167 "savants" with him. These were artists, mathematicians, cartographers, naturalists, etc. who were to establish an academy of learning in Cairo. The ignominious surrender by the French of Egypt does not tarnish the incredible work done by these savants including the discovery of the Rosetta Stone on July 19, 1799. It was immediately known to be important as the key to understanding hieroglyphics. It could be said that the invasion was a failure but the cataloguing of Egypt was a huge success. It is just another aspect of the best and worst of Napoleon Bonaparte. 


The world of politics has to be the strangest world of all. The New York State Senate will probably do their best to submarine the Governor after their enforced sessions in Albany this weekend to get some work done. As a resident of New York, I think the Governor is trying to get us our money's worth from these gentlemen.

"Napoleon in Egypt" is a book by Paul Strathern about Napoleon's foray into Egypt that was to turn him into a true "man of destiny". A man of destiny is both a doer and a strategic thinker, soemone who isn't daunted or deterred by events as the next choice is always the right choice. Nelson's legendary opponents, Nelson and Wellington and the Tsar, all benefited from this decisiveness. A strength can just as easily be a weakness depending on circumstance. Just ask Achilles.

There were plenty of men of destiny in the twentieth century--none were senators from New York, however. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Churchill all qualify. FDR might also fit the bill but democracy doesn't seem to create such men as readily as totalitarian systems. That may be one of the better things about democracy after all.  

I think I posted this some time ago, but as it is nearly the season, I am posting it again in great anticipation of the first ripe tomato.


Those who like to say to-mah-toe

Enjoy the tone, the deep vibrato.

Those who say it is to-may-toe,

Know their god, know who to pray to.

To them, to-mah is pseudo-classy,

To-may, to me, is just too brassy.

There is proof, alas, that one is right.

It comes sublimely, after one sweet bite,

The syllable that escapes the lips,

As it slips and slides and slides and slips,

It is contentment, what one says aaah! to,

That makes the long "a" obligato.  

The news is so interesting these days that I wonder whether it is just the moment or that we, the world at large, are more focused on every little thing that occurs. I can't help but be interested in all of them, particularly after having just finished Thomas Cahill's, "Sailing the Wine Dark Sea" or "Why the Greeks Matter". There is no question in my mind that the ancient Greeks matter now as much as ever.

One reason why the Greeks matter is because they gave us the concept of hubris which roughly translates as pride. The antiques business is one of many that has suffered from hubris. As dealers, we believed that antiques were not only good investments but integral to the lives of rich people everywhere. For people that know and care about antiques, they are integral because they are so much more than just furniture, but the rest of the world could care less. Hence, a noteworthy news item to antique dealers that the Grosvenor House Antiques Fair is no more, comes as a shock. The apparent reason is that the hotel no longer wants to host the event.

The Greeks were said to be interested in the essence of things. In other words, they always wanted to know the story behind the story. It is said that the Romans of that era could care less about the essence of things, they just wanted a semblance of what the Greeks had so they just copied everything that was Greek. Fortunatley, a lot of what the Romans copied was copied well, but it wasn't really until the Renaissancethat the Italians could be said to be truly creative in both their thinking and their arts.

It is said that no news is good news, but if you think about the play, "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles, Oedipus was incapable of escaping his fate no matter what the news was. Fate, per se, does not worry me, but my twenty-first century sense of free will makes me want to believe that one can ameliorate some aspects, global warming for example, of the future. I guess that is what someone who lives on a fault line or an Iranian Ayatollah also believes. Antique dealers have it easy.  

The "cultural values" wicket that the conservative wing of the Republican Party has held to seems to be losing its stumps as one conservative politician after another proves to be not only fallible, but human. I am happy they are human and I only hope that those hurt by their actions can understand that it is hard to be a cultural icon. In fact, as seen in the life and death of Michael Jackson, it is virtually impossible.

Samuel Bentham (1757-1831) was a pragmatic visionary who, among many other talents, figured out a production line for making pulleys. A British ship required over one thousand per vessel and Bentham created a means for making them more quickly. This was, in essence, mass production, and it was one of many sparks to the Industrial Revolution. It was also the downfall of many bespoke industries, not least of which was cabinetmaking.

The Luddites were an early 19th century group who believed that machines and mass production were taking away jobs. The fallacy echoed an earlier destruction of a timber mill in East London three centuries earlier. Fallacies such as these, not unlike the cultural values being a cornerstone of the conservative right, are ripe for the fall. It is not unlike the belief by many of the world's "true" religions who would as soon as kill to make their point as to see another man's point of view.



Samuel Pepys, the noted diarist who bared all in his coded diaries, also worked for the British Naval Board under Charles II and James II. Pepys was there because of patronage, but he took his job very seriously. He realized that patronage was virtually out of control to the extent that the navy was ill prepared in many ways, even down to having ships that could float, let alone go into battle. Pepys systematically reformed his department and built the foundation for what would be the great British Navy. In a way, Pepys' work was about his personal responsibility to himself, the Navy and the Nation as a whole.

The ideological debate that the right is dying to have with Obama is centered on Obama's government involvement in virtually everything--finaince, health care, energy, etc. Clearly, our taxes will be going up and that is a great worry to any privately employed person. Scare tactics about rising taxes have worked for the right in the past, but because the economy was so screwed up on the watch of the Bush administration and its laissez-faire policies, it almost seems that the government could not do much worse.

I believe that if the right ever wanted a leg to stand on, they should focus, like Samuel Pepys, on the corruption, waste and fraud that exists within government. It doesn't have to be an ideological fight that wins the day. In fact, it seems that most people are tired of the ideological cant that radio personalities seem to obsess on. How much better it would be to have a reformer that seems to care about what we have that is being wasted rather than on how our lives are being ruined by socialism. Nothing would please me more to see the ideologues put in the back seat while people that care about making America work do the driving.