Author: Michael Chappell

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