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.