Michael’s Blog

Those of you who read my ‘tweets’ on celebs at the Los Angeles Antiques Show know that it was well attended by the glitterati. Zach Braff, Chris Klein, Eva Mendes, and Jimmy Kimmel were, to my knowledge, first time attendees. A couple of significant factors- all of them are young and spent a considerable amount of time at the show. What I mean to say is, they were seriously looking. If they didn’t buy, at least gauged by the amount of time they spent at the show, they must have been intrigued by what they saw.

And why would they not? The show looked terrific, with the entry into the show itself composed of a hall of mirrors, all of different shapes and periods loaned by exhibitors, set the tone for the wonderful offerings within. The show entry was staged by our good friend and excellent interior designer, Lizzie Dinkel.

As well as younger show visitors, a new wave of LA designers was also there, including Oliver Furth, Trevor Goff, Thierry Marchand, and the usual but none the less welcome show stalwarts Joe Nye, Madeline Stuart, Kathryn Ireland, and Martin Lawrence-Bullard. What will Joe think of my characterizing him as a ‘stalwart’? It sounds a more fitting description for a parking bollard than a talented interior designer who’s just completed a room for the Kip’s Bay Showhouse in New York. Joe does read this blog, as one of my 20 or so devoted readers, so doubtless I will receive his redress in the fullness of time.

The miracle, though? That the show happened at all, with dealers jittery and unwilling to commit to participate until the very last minute. Kudos to show chairs Laurent Rebuffel of Habite in Los Angeles  and Robert Willson of Downtown who pushed and prodded, and got a show put together that was at least as good as any in its 14-year history. Rough edges? As a concomitant portion of the overall show miracle, whatever difficulties existed were only marginally apparent to Keith and me- and thankfully invisible to show visitors.

Sort of an abbreviated blog entry today, as the Wi-Fi connection at the show is a bit dodgy, reducing thereby my typically loquacious entry. Lucky you, my twenty devoted readers. I’ll wax eloquent later next week.

While show attendance has been good, what’s not surprising is the pervasive caution amongst potential buyers. Mind you, we’re gratified to find the numbers of people, mostly interior designers, who’ve come into the show just to see us. All of them have said the same thing- projects are on hold, or slowed to a snail’s pace- even projects very near completion.

What we are hearing too, is that the buyers will be back closer to the show’s closing, ostensibly to get a lower price from dealers eager for cash. Sound vulture-ish? Maybe, but talking cash always works for us- the buyer that starts to talk money is just that- a buyer. And this marks a pleasant change from the last couple of months, where no one was talking money.

Stay tuned for the show update.

I can’t tell you how much Keith and I enjoyed watching ‘Valentino: The Last Emperor’. It’s interesting to note that, as often as I’ve been into his atelier in the Piazza di Spagna, it has seemed less vaunted and rarified than it probably should be. Let me take a look at my selection of Valentino ties: after the documentary, they will be revered, and with his retirement, worn less often.

That I was less impressed than I might otherwise be by the atelier emphasizes the distinction between prêt a porter and haute couture. Face it, couture exists internationally for only 1,000 women, maybe fewer, and all the rest of us- including all the men on the planet- are followers, by which I mean ‘storefront patrons’. That doesn’t in any way diminish the effect of Valentino’s couture collections. Far from it- it merely emphasizes what tremendous influence they exert with the highest of high style emanating from a very small sphere. With all that, a couture house is always something small, reliant as it is on the creativity of one guiding force and it succeeds only with his single-minded vision and iron-fisted control of the finished product. It is, though, the spread into mass marketing with the cachet of couture that makes the money.

A truism in business, nothing substitutes for capital, and, at least in Valentino’s business, he’s been blessed with ample amounts of it. Although now effete, Valentino was clearly in his earlier days something of a mensch and always extremely talented and blessed with ample male pulchritude. He leveraged all his assets, including some family connections, to start in business, but it was his relationship with Giancarlo Giametti, whose attributes matched the scope of Valentino’s, that sustained the couturier’s creative platform for five decades. Giametti’s talent for business and personal administration was seemingly the equal of the couturier’s talent for design- and arguably as important.

So it goes, really. Would the world have beat a path to Valentino’s door had it not been for Giametti? Probably not, as it was Giametti whose acumen kept the door open and kept all mundane matters at bay, allowing the maestro complete freedom to create. And that’s what it takes, of course, complete freedom, as the clutter of ordinary matters functions as something of a sop to the creative juices.

They all have them, these seeming dog’s bodies whose entire lives are devoted to the one who receives the accolades. Rembrandt had Flinck, Walt Disney had his brother Roy. I’m reminded of a story my good friend Gene Reese told me that occurred when he worked post-retirement as PA for the famed interior designer Anthony Hail. Hail was stapling fabric samples to a mood board for a client when he abruptly threw the stapler in the wastebasket. Gene asked him why he did that, and Tony answered ‘It’s broke!.’ The stapler had, it seems, just run out of staples. Gene dutifully retrieved the stapler and replaced the refilled implement in Tony’s hand.

While it seems those intensely creative function to treat others like a doormat, it is, I think more of a general indifference toward anything other than their métier. Looked at another way, theirs is a worldview of the narrowest focus, with only the barest of conscious regard for anything, be it human or be it stapler bereft of staples, outside their own intellectual realms in which they are, in effect, wizard kings of creativity.

It occurred to me the other evening after we had been to the third closing down reception in as many weeks for an antiques gallery, that the gallery’s stock which had formerly been composed almost entirely of good quality period material was now a mishmash of period, period reproduction, and midcentury modern pieces. Although slow in the uptake, it finally dawned on me that I’d seen the same sad mix amongst all the dealers to whom we were bidding adieu.

Since these dealers didn’t alter their range of material all at once, one presumes a commercial imperative as they sought to offer a different and possibly broader range in response to customer demand, and a change in customers. I wonder- were these changes real or perceived? For whatever reason, there has existed a fad prominently reflected in the shelter media for so-called mid-century modern material that began, appropriately enough, with a rediscovery of the best of 20th century design. No question, a renewed appreciation of Ruhlmann, Poillerat, Printz, Samuel Marx and Leleu was due, but that material, with its value a function of its fine quality and very limited production, then gave way to pieces that, no other way to describe them, were just kitsch. With the mania for 20th century material, period dealers, while wanting to appear au courant but really trying to chase the market, began to introduce mid century pieces- often not very successfully, both in terms of quality and attempting to merge it with existing stocks of period material. As well, the fad element coupled with internet marketing spawned a price frenzy, with both dealers and collectors fighting to acquire what was in limited supply. Astonishingly, many of the highest prices paid for modern pieces were paid by dealers. In a new and rapidly escalating price environment, who can say what a reasonable price is to pay? It seems that a number of dealers, apparently, assumed that the demand and consequent appreciation would continue unabated and a profitable sale would follow, regardless of acquisition cost, in the fullness of time. It seems that, for a number of dealers, time ran out.

Nothing, of course, stays the same, and while a royal warrant above a trapped-in-time, 19th century a corset shop in Mayfair might assure continued custom from not only the queen but also the curious, we do have to change, but not so much that our client base does not recognize us. In our galleries, acquisition of material happens slowly and selectively. Consequently, we develop a certain look that clients, both interior designers and collectors find appealing. Mind you, le goût Chappell et McCullar is appealing to very, very few of our visitors, but those who find it so become our clients. It has been one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done to adopt the equanimity to accept that not everyone can see what we see in the material we offer. But, gratifyingly, a number do- or at least enough that allow us thereby to continue on in business. Sadly, it appears that, for a number of soon to be ex-collegues, the vortex of change became for them a maelstrom, with their desire and attempts to change resulting in their demise.

With Keith and Jack busy today in the back of the galleries preparing collector and designer packages for the Los Angeles Antiques Show, I thought it might be worthwhile to peruse the Los Angeles Antiques Show website to see what’s new.

What’s new presents itself subtly, with the LA Antiques Show preview party benefiting PS Arts, lists as two of its newest host committee members Ellen DeGeneres and Tobey Maguire. Will they grace the preview with their presence? Highly likely- we were pleased to see Diane Keaton, last year’s most prominent host, making her way around the show preview night. I think I watched ‘Annie Hall’ five times the following month in obeisance.

No question, the celebs are a draw to the show, and I’ve got to say, some we see every year- David Hyde Pierce, Steve Martin, and Martin Sheen are annual attendees. Do they make purchases? What are their collecting interests? If I reported that, it would doubtless be the end of their show attendance. The discreet answer, and one that accounts for the involvement of Ellen and Tobey in this year’s show is that, yes, they are collectors and, clearly, benefactors. Their beneficence, in the first instance, supports PS Arts, a charity that brings art instruction to public schools throughout California where the local districts can no longer afford to provide it.

I was about to say that the host committee members beneficence also extends to the art and antiques dealers who make their way to the Los Angeles Antiques Show. True, all of us are thankful for each sale, but I hardly think that those who make a purchase are exactly distributing largesse. What anyone, host or not, can expect to get at a show of the caliber of the Los Angeles Antiques Show is value for money- that nearly all the dealers are accredited and all the material is vetted for quality assures this.

Sotheby’s has announced further downsizing, including cuts in the number of sales in London and Amsterdam, with the concomitant decrease in staff, and its desire to limit consignments to those items with a minimum valuation exceeding USD$5,000. Nothing really surprising here, with the salesroom ostensibly returning to its former (profitable) business model. The fact is, none of the major houses has ever really been equipped to sell primarily decorative material. Face it, it takes as much time and effort to consign, catalog, and market a $1,000 item as it does a $10,000 item, with the better item, at least for the auction house, far more remunerative. Sotheby’s has for several years now sought to get out of the retail auction business, and one wonders if Christie’s, faced with the same high overhead as Sotheby’s, won’t, finally, follow suit. Christie’s still offers its ‘Interiors’ sales at its South Kensington, Rockefeller Plaza, and Paris locations, but the frequency of sales, and the exotic magazine format catalogs, must surely dig deeply into the +/- 30% buyer’s commission the house charges on most of the lots on offer. Bonhams? With expansion in New York and maintenance of so many smaller regional houses in England, it cannot help but feel a pinch.

Times being the way they are, it is easy to conclude that sales activity has been insufficiently brisk to justify operating at the levels to which the auction houses have expanded in the last several years. No doubt, everyone at all levels of the antiques and fine art trade has felt some considerable contraction. With all that, one also has to realize that, in the auction field there has been a considerable rush to the center and the lower end of the trade, too, with an increasing number of players offering online auction or auction-like platforms. The first and largest of these has made money, although a bit less now than they were, but some of the other newcomers, whose revenue is derived mostly from those in the antiques trade who are obliged to compensate the platform whether they sell anything or not, are doubtless seeing their revenues shrink as their participating dealers go out of business. Even so, we see online platforms introduced nearly weekly. Virtual sites are cheap to establish- and can disappear, along with those responsible for the establishment and operation of the site, without a trace.

Although the actual amount of antique and fine art material available on the market at any given point in time, I’d venture to say, is fairly constant, overexposure on the worldwide web makes it seem as though there exists something of a glut. As serious collectors and surviving dealers of English antiques can tell you, there is if anything a dearth of fine quality material coming up in the auctions that are a traditional run-up to Grosvenor House and Olympia. An expression we hear in England, ‘spoiled for choice’, is appropriate to quote here, as it appears that downsizing in the auction business has possibly as much to do with competition amongst sales platforms than it does with general economic malaise.

The social networking phenomenon is a fact of modern life, even if your life is devoted to the sales of 18th century decorative arts. Odd, isn’t it, that as ordinary life experiences become more intrusive, people wish to expose what’s left of their private lives, even their private parts, to complete strangers.

With all that, keeping our galleries as spaces open to whomever, we’ve got used to being public people. Consequently, we shall bow to the moving spirit of the age, and let those of you who are interested keep tabs on the latest developments in our world on Twitter. Our ‘tweets’ may not be as exciting as those from John Mayer- who, I understand, is a twitter-holic- but for those of you who access our site with some frequency, they will be convenient- specific site updates including new inventory, information about the art world generally, and, finally, and specifically for you, my 20 or so devoted readers, blog updates. As well, we’d like to introduce Twitter as we move toward our antiques show season, starting in a couple of weeks with the Los Angeles Antiques Show. With a number of new dealers at this year’s show, tweets will include particularly noteworthy gear at the show. Noteworthy in a good way, of course- something along the lines of must-have.

Click here to follow us on twitter:  http://twitter.com/englishantiques

We wistfully attended a preview last evening that marked the beginning of the closing down of a well-established antiques gallery. In the design district, their target market was, naturally enough, interior designers who turned out for the closing party in force. Collectors? If there were any, their numbers were rather thin on the ground, but that wasn’t this dealer’s client base.

While I didn’t see any sales made, I presume there must have been some. Amongst the throng, some members from prominent firms were in attendance- not the principals, mind you, but people we nevertheless recognized. Unfortunately, a number there were what might be termed ‘the usual suspects’- people Keith always says would go to the opening of an envelope.

What’s more interesting, for those designers with whom we engaged, all of them told us how busy they were with projects. Yet they are attending a going out of business event- at least the third in the neighborhood in the last couple of weeks, and the design firms themselves are laying off staff right and left. What’s wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong, of course, is the unsettled state of the economy, with fear driving the designers’ clients. Frankly, I believe the designers who told me they were busy were telling the absolute truth. Those who’ve survived are busy- albeit with ongoing projects for the same clients. What’s happened is their clients wish to keep projects alive by chalking up an hour or two of design fees every month, but the clients are either not making or are postponing any real decisions (read ‘anything that would cost money’) for an indefinite period. Design firms can survive this by contracting staffing levels down to only the senior designers and firm principals. The busy-ness for the designer comes from the same pool of work, but shared by fewer designers, and those fewer doing grunt work that, until a few months ago, was delegated to their minions. Unfortunately, those trades people and vendors whose revenue is dependent on the designer’s clients making some big money decisions- the antiques trade, the fabric houses, etc. – are, in this environment, sunk.

Of course, there were in evidence at the function a number of free-loaders, but aren’t there always? But I think the significance of the prominent designers in attendance, though, is more worth noting, as it bodes well for the near-term. Yes, there are fewer of them still in employment, and yes, they may not have many new projects, but the mere fact of their attendance last night means that purchases are in the offing. Even at a no-pressure, ostensibly social event, the better interior designers have always been notoriously shy about attendance if they have no work. The reason is obvious- if asked if they are in work, and they are always asked, they wish to be able to not obfuscate but answer a resounding yes.

That familiarity with period revival pieces might begin to equip someone who wishes to move toward collection of period English antiques evinced some surprise amongst my 20 or so devoted readers.

Certainly, the availability of multiples is greater amongst period revival pieces, and a low table that may have been a non-existent period form might have been available as a period revival piece but the person who has decided to change out revival for period has, often as not, already been apprised of these facts. Consequently, as a dealer, some of the hard work has already been done for us. Someone else has probably told them the things that, even gently put, often give offense. To wit- there is no such thing as a ‘period’ coffee table. A low table that is represented as period is doubtless something that has been adapted for the purpose and, the result of that adaptation, is not the type of thing we would handle. When confronted with a set of side chairs sans armchairs, we’ve had discussions without number about the original function of Chippendale period chairs, specifically that they were only incidentally for dining, more likely for arrangement at the side of a drawing room or parlor, hence the name ‘side’ chairs.

In any event, the person that becomes the collector has invariably been a party to these kinds of discussion at least once before, so we are not then the bad-news messengers who get shot. At this point, let me say thank you, you  proud but battered nameless antiques dealers and auction house experts, who have subsequently been shunned by a client merely for telling them the truth: you’ve done yeoman work.

Mercifully, for the sometime concern expressed about pricing, we’ve only seldom had to remarket material on behalf of a client- even non-period material- where the client did not recover their initial investment. This may get me into trouble, as this is no guarantee that a Chippendale revival piece from 1900 will be worth tomorrow what a body paid retail for it today. However, the passion for interior design has exponentially increased the demand for period look, if not price, and has certainly fueled a price escalation for pieces with some age and venerability that, in terms of percentage, might even be in excess of the appreciation for 18th century pieces. Further, there were some excellent makers in the period revival business- Edwards and Roberts, and even the vaunted Gillows of Lancaster and London, not to mention the Parisian firms of Linke, and Sormani, with anything stamped by these makers in high demand. James Archer Abbott’s 2006 monograph on Maison Jansen has had a marked effect on pieces made by or for that remarkable and prodigious interior design firm. At the most basic level, of course,  even period revival pieces are in finite supply, with demand continuing to increase.

That a private client can upgrade with oftentimes no loss on their initial purchase makes the prospect of purchasing finer quality period pieces an even happier prospect.

My blog entry yesterday brought some significant response that included my partner Keith McCullar, to whom I occasionally pay attention. He has a client, a real estate developer, to whom we’ve sold a huge number of French and English antique pieces and artwork. Although he is one of my favorite people personally, professionally his antiques purchases could hardly be considered connoisseurial. ‘Acquisitive’ more accurately describes this gentleman’s purchases. Mind you, amongst the items he’s acquired, he does have some fine pieces, but overall, the quality is, shall we say, mixed.

Moreover, he has no desire whatsoever to become a connoisseur. Development of taste is not his objective. We have encouraged him to weed out his possessions and upgrade, but with no result. He’s been lucky enough to travel widely, and, gifted with a winning, expansive personality, he enjoys nothing more than going into a dealer’s shop in, say, Bratislava, making the purchase of some bit of antique arcana and shipping it back to the US- usually telephoning us to arrange customs clearance while always missing critical documents. When one makes purchases after a long-ish lunch and topped-up with some Moldavian wine, one is apt to be forgetful.

Clearly, this was not the gentleman I was referring to in my last blog entry. Before I begin to sound really snotty, let me say whether a connoisseur or an acquisitor, our objective in the antiques business is to be, as best we can be, value-neutral and generally helpful. Our acquisitor may in fact become a connoisseur, as the thing that all our private collectors have in common is a high degree of physical and intellectual energy. They are never completely at rest, and this level of uber- activity can often masquerade as and be mistaken for a lack of focus.

I consider in this regard another gentleman who is now winding down his business career. Acquisitive over the course of the last two decades, he now sleeks to upgrade his collection, replacing period style with period pieces. For us, this is wonderful, as he knows what he wants, and knows that the pricing differential between period style- even something that is itself an antique from a now-century old wave of revivalism- is many times more than what he paid for the ‘looks like but isn’t’. Still,  since he’s been sufficiently acquisitive he’s been able, consequently, to begin to develop an eye and also knows something about how pieces were used in historic context, so we are able to communicate with him in nearly the shorthand terms that Keith and I will use when we discuss the relative merits of a piece. The challenge so far has been replacing multiples and pairs of period reproductions, with multiples and pairs of period pieces. He now knows why so many sets of period material are labeled ‘matched’ or ‘harlequin’- the fashion for sets has long since outrun the available material.