Author: Michael Chappell

When my partner Keith McCullar first entered the world of work 25 years ago, he would frequently return home in the evening dramatically out of sorts. He would grouse, complain, pick fights. None of this would have made much difference, but yours truly was always the target. During the course of the evening, Keith would let on that something happened at work that put him, let us say, on edge. This went on for quite a time, until I finally asked Keith the obvious question- ‘Do you take your work related problems out on me?’ He looked at me like I was more than a little dim and responded emphatically ‘Of course!’.

Although Keith thought to be a free lance punching bag was my role in life, I wasn’t too keen on it. Being a bit more mature in years and consequent experience, I suggested to Keith that he might try to mitigate a bit of his pent up irritation by directing it back toward those at work who had engendered it. Don’t pick a fight, but if you have a disagreement or feel put upon at work, don’t be afraid to give it voice. Keith gave this a try, and, pretty generally, it worked, and our domestic bliss was restored. 

We all get angry though, don’t we? And frustrated? The constant dissipation of one’s anger is essential, unless we all want to be either the shooters or the random targets in shopping mall shootings.

Although some misdirected souls use assault rifles, it is surprising how many people use e-mail to say things they would never have the guts to say personally. So it’s always been, even with snail mail, and that nearly now extinct form of spleen venting, the letter to the editor of the local newspaper. My British friends still are firm believers in the efficacy of what they term a stropping letter. Personally, stropping letters always find their way immediately into whatever round file I find nearest at hand, or sometimes are joyfully fed into the paper shredder. My attitude is, if someone had some real issue that needed my involvement for resolution, they would have contacted me personally.

But the e-mail has almost entirely taken the place of the stropping letter in this country. As I think about it, the e-mail is the communicative equivalent of the assault rifle, or the high altitude bomb, something that can be lobbed onto a hoped for victim from a long way away. None of this had occurred to me until I was having a beer at a Christmas function last night and Hans Koch, a San Francisco builder-developer, joked about it. Considering all the crap Hans has doubtless put up with in the development of his great residential project, the Residences at Jackson Square, Hans must be the soul of equanimity. The city permitting and inspection process, the building trades, goofy neighbors with time on their hands- all with access to e-mail and all with what seems a mission from God to be transmitters of free-form rage.

What we both agreed on, though, was the often paradoxical nature of the hostile e-mail, paradoxical in that these are often follow-ons from what might seem positive face to face meetings. Who knows why they so degenerate? Keith McCullar, in his own comforting way, always tells me that I’m to blame, since I am known to bring out the worst in people. He, however, always tells me that personally: his e-mails are generally quite cordial.

‘Fungible commodity’- futures trading in truffles? Not exactly. What I’m referring to is a shorthand term for any class of merchandise that has an established market price. That might include truffles, come to think of it.

In this context, though, I’m thinking of antiques, particularly the kind that we deal in. Yes, they are all of them hand made pieces, with no two alike, but 18th century cabinet makers mostly conformed to patterns and types of pieces in particular demand during the time in which they were made. As well, 18th century pieces also generally conform to so-called national schools. An English mid-18th century chest of drawers, for instance, will always look and be constructed differently than a contemporary French example. Although London styles certainly aped those popular in Paris, one will never mistake an English dovetailed joint for a French one.

With all that, a London made piece is generally more sophisticated than a country made piece, if not always in construction then in design. As well, a front of house piece- something that was placed in a public room and made for conspicuous display- hence the term ‘show piece’- will always be more desirable than its equivalent that is made more simply and not meant to be seen. However, even a back of the house piece by Thomas Chippendale might be worth as much if not more than a front of the house piece by Wright and Elwick of Leeds or Henry Hill of Marlborough.

What I am getting at, and what I hope you are getting a sense of, is the complexity of elements from with which we determine ‘market price’, and I haven’t even touched on condition issues, including patination, repolishing, original handles. And unique design. And scale. The list goes on and on and all positively and negatively effect value. This should seem bewildering to the occasional collector of antiques, including interior designers. It should be a matter of course to a good antiques dealer, who might personally inspect in excess of 1,000 objects each month, from which he purchases 3 or 4. ‘A good eye’ is the shortest of shorthand phrases for the dealer that can quickly sort out the myriad details of quality, condition, and rarity that, when achieved in the right confluence, yield a piece of quality inventory. Moreover, the best dealer will also know what the market value is for the piece. No dealer that has a hope of staying in business will acquire something in inventory and then just mark it up to achieve a profit. He should know what something with nearly the same characteristics has sold for at auction or in another dealer’s gallery within the last couple of years, and his should be priced accordingly.

Moreover, I am happy to discuss the rationale for pricing on any item we have in inventory, as no price on any of our stock is arbitrary. It is surprising, though, the numbers of poor comparisons we are presented when a customer occasionally takes us to task on price. While auction records, eBay, and some collective websites can be useful tools, the occasional collector who accesses the internet every once in a while shouldn’t expect to become an expert. In this regard, nothing can substitute not only for the depth but also the breadth of experience of a good dealer. A prominent federal judge who is also a good client and a good friend put it this way- ‘You can’t know your jewels, so you should know your jeweler.’

Earlier in the year, a client of ours mentioned he had a Pop art painting he planned to sell. Although not our typical stock in trade, we told him we knew of someone who might be very interested in the picture and would be happy to offer it. This was a picture of a type and by an artist well established in the canon, with a number of recent sales records, making a reasonable market value fairly easy to determine. Our client, however, told us that, not knowing we would be able to handle this sale for him, he had been in contact with both Christie’s and Sotheby’s, with representatives from both houses scheduled to call within the next couple of days. What happened then, judging from what both houses have been doing in the last couple of years, should come as no surprise. The houses got into a bidding war to acquire the picture for sale. Christie’s ended up putting the most on the table, offering our client up front $1,200,000, about 120- 130% of what we considered the market value of the picture, plus a 50/50 split on anything over that amount that the picture realized at auction. This was done, as well, with no commission charged to our client- in fact, no out of pocket expenses at all, with Christie’s bearing the entire risk. When our client informed us of all this, our suggestion to him was to agree to it before the auction house changed its mind.

In this instance, Christie’s sold the picture for slightly more than their minimum guarantee. However, it is an open question whether or not the buyer’s premium, 12% on lots in excess of $500,000, was sufficient to cover Christie’s direct selling costs, much less allowing for any contribution toward their huge overhead. As well, I think Francois Pinault, the French billionaire who owns Christie’s, probably likes to see a bit of net profit, as well.

This story is repeated over and over, and often with a not happy ending for the sales rooms, witness last week in New York, where Sotheby’s important impressionist sale had 20 of the 76 offered lots unsold. Further, of the sold lots, ten sold for below low estimate. All of this has resulted in massive losses on guaranteed lots, and a nearly 30% fall in the value of their shares. Financial results for Christie’s are speculative, as the company is privately held, but it is my understanding that M. Pinault is heard to utter with extraordinary frequency the word ‘merde’.

It is really hard to have any sympathy for the salesrooms. One has to go back only a few years to remember the premium fixing scandal that sent senior officials of both Christie’s and Sotheby’s to jail, and resulted in millions of dollars in rebates to both buyers and sellers. That episode nearly broke Sotheby’s, and doubtless forced M. Pinault to pump a lot of additional capital into Christie’s.

What all of the present mess points to is not only what fools some of the folks running the houses are, but how the major auction houses are yet again overcharging the buying public, this time running up the price on items that they have a financial stake in. Of course, in last weeks’ sales, the auction estimates were clearly vastly in excess of what the buying public thought the pieces were worth, but what about the instances, as in the case of my client’s picture, the painting was offered for an amount only marginally in excess of what sales records clearly indicated it was worth? The cumulative effect of this apparently frequent practice is arguably far more egregious.

The net effect of all this is, the auction houses maintain their soiled reputations. A few weeks back, my blog entry was about whom to trust in the art market- dealers or auction houses. Any opinions?

Although we don’t do the San Francisco Fall Antiques Show, of course we want to see it successful both in terms of attendance and at-show sales. The simple fact is, the better the attendance, the more chance for not only at-show sales but follow on business. Even for those of us on the outside, a successful show is going to have a knock-on effect, bringing buyers to town, both private and interior designer. A good gate certainly raises the profile of the art and antiques trade, and an exciting show one year will certainly be a platform for a successful show the following year.

The Fall show had some noticeable changes this year, from the vignettes in the entry, all themed with material in each vignette limited by decade- 1930’s, 1940’s and so on. The lecture series and loan exhibition likewise focused on 20th century design. The show has had over the last couple a years a heavier concentration of 20th century material, but, this year, the show seemed decidedly less glamorous. Maybe it was the overall theme, maybe the mix of dealers, but the confluence didn’t yield the sparkle and excitement that makes a great show. Mind you, it was a good show, with some decent business done by some, but by no means all, dealers. But it wasn’t a particularly well attended show, and for all of us, numbers of punters are critical.

In speaking to dealers and show goers, my sense was that the show sought, with its focus on 20th century material, to capture the attention, attendance, and, presumably the wallets, of younger collectors and interior designers. However, as a dealer who handles both period and 20th century material, I can tell you that the buyers for period and contemporary material, both designers and collectors, are in the same demographic group. In fact, they are pretty generally the same person. We recently sold to the same collector a pair of late 18th century gilt wood pier tables and, on the same invoice, a circa 1950 Jacques Adnet writing desk. All were wonderful pieces, and I guess that is the basic message- good design is good design, whatever the period. And, both collectors and interior designers have the facility to blend both effectively. Consequently, any antiques fair that expects to achieve success needs to maintain a balance of material, because it is material from all periods that designers and collectors seek.

Finally, a great fair needs to be just that- a great fair, with excellent quality material from the best dealers, both local and international. And, it needs to be promoted that way. Quality has always cost money, and the best dealers have the best quality goods. However, show attendees need to know in the advance promotion that what’s at the show are not $500 collectibles, but material that makes it worthwhile for the best designers and the most discriminating collectors to travel not just from Los Angeles, but from Seattle, Salt Lake, and Kansas City to attend.

The show season is upon us in a big way, with the Merchandise Mart International Fair just concluded in Chicago, and the International Fair in New York now underway. The San Francisco Fall Antiques Show will preview this coming Wednesday, briefly overlapping the New York show. The country is blanketed in quality fairs. Is this overkill? Not in my opinion, as the best fairs provide not only a buying opportunity, but an educational opportunity for interior designers and collectors both. With the inclusion of 20th century design in most fairs, the move toward eclecticism in contemporary interiors is made manifest, with plenty of dealers, including Chappell & McCullar, blending contemporary and period art and design in their show stands. It’s interesting, when we began to do this a couple of years ago, taking our lead from Godson and Coles in London, famed for their pairing of cutting edge art with 18th century English furniture, we found we were befuddling our clients. Even two years ago, designers had a general tendency to pair type with type- contemporary interiors contained only 20th and 21st century design, and period interiors with period design. At last we’ve seen a synthesis, with a blending of objects and artwork from all periods in the same interiors, and where the attempts might formerly have been at least quirky and often bizarre, now popular design has found its sea legs. We’ve changed, too. Our galleries now include examples of late 17th century Baroque within spitting distance of classic mid century modern.

If I’m trying to say anything in this blog entry, it is that the fairs, often thought as traditional and dowdy, have become the crucible of 21st century interior design. Go out this next week, and see for yourself. By the way, please don’t leave your wallet at home.