Maine Antique Digest May 2015

4-A Maine Antique Digest, May 2015

Letters

The Meeting Place

GET YOUR DUCKS

IN A ROW

Dear Mr. Pennington,

Believe it or not, I do not read

M.A.D.

looking for errors con-

cerning birds, but when I see one

in your excellent publication, I

cannot resist the urge to call it to

your attention.

In the present instance, Mr.

Walter C. Newman in his write-

up of the Quinn and Farmer

auction in December 2014 (see

M.A.D.,

April 2015, p. 7-C) not-

ed that the painting of mallards

by Peter Scott was of birds land-

ing in a body of water. Wrong.

The painting shows two adult

male mallards fighting,

not

land-

ing. Undoubtedly a territorial

dispute.

Sincerely,

James Baird

Petersham, MA

BID REJECTED

To the Editor:

I am a regular bidder in a

Washington, D.C.-area antiques

auction house. It has high-end

and low-end auctions, and reg-

ularly works its way through

estate clearances. From time to

time it also sells real estate, and

occasionally automobiles.

Recently, it had a car in one of

its low-end sales. In the low-end

sales, all items are “as is, where

is,” and you are responsible for

it after the hammer goes down.

I asked around about what they

expected the car to bring, and

I was told $8000/12,000, plus

commission.

The car was advertised in fly-

ers and online for about three

weeks. There was no mention of

a reserve, or a lien, or any other

encumbrances on the car.

The auction of the car was set

for 10 a.m. On the day of the

sale, a couple of prospective bid-

ders, the auctioneer, and I went

out to the car at the appointed

time. Just before 10:00, the auc-

tioneer said that the bid was sub-

ject to the approval of the bank.

I assumed a lien needed to be

satisfied (this, it turns out, was

not true). The bidding started at

$7000 and went up to $10,000

plus commission. The auction-

eer said sold, put down the pro-

verbial hammer, and I won the

car—or so I thought.

The auction house called

the bank, but it could not get

through. I told them I had a

check and was ready to go. They

said wait around a little while.

After an hour, it still could not

get an answer from the bank, so

I left and they said I would be

called. That day went by, no an-

swer. Then the next. I called the

auction house. I was told maybe

a member of the family wanted

to buy the car—did I want to in-

crease my offer? Uh oh.

I said no; I felt the auction

house was being straight, but

something was wrong. I under-

stood if there were a lien, the

bank didn’t want to take a “hair-

cut” and countered my offer

with what was owed. That was

not the case; the car was owned

by the estate free and clear. The

bank was acting as executor to

the estate and, through the auc-

tion house, was asking me what

I wanted to pay—to essentially

open a private treaty sale after

the hammer went down. I felt

that was wrong. Rather than

having someone show up to the

sale who might be interested in

the car (which the auction house

told them to do), or putting a re-

serve on it, they wanted the right

to reject a legitimate bid, while

obligating me to buy it if their

other plans fell through.

It turns out the bank—the es-

tate’s executor—decided to sell

the car to a friend of a family

member for the appraised value

of $16,000 and the auction house

would get its commission. I was,

of course, frustrated by all this.

While I do believe that the auc-

tion house did not know about

the $16,000 offer—an offer that

was in fact made after the auc-

tion—I do believe that this was

not done right, and I was done

wrong.

I was told privately that it was

a messed-up situation, but there

was really nothing the auction

house could do. The bank/exec-

utor could reject the bid for any

reason.

questions

are:

Generally, are auction rules dif-

ferent between auto sales and

sales of antiques/art? Did the

auction house act appropriately

by hammering down the car, as

opposed to passing the car? Did

the auction house have any obli-

gation to have in its advertising

that bids were subject to approv-

al of the executor/estate? Is an

oral statement just before the

auction sufficient? Can a bank/

executor void a sale to a “win-

ning” bidder if it/they did not

have a reserve placed on the item

and/or the reserve was not exer-

cised at the time of the auction?

I’m, of course, frustrated. I

went into the auction thinking

that if I won at the hammer, I

was obligating myself and that

in turn, so was the seller. I feel I

was not given all the information

I was entitled to make a smart,

informed bid. I also feel that my

legitimate bid was voided to ap-

pease the family, so in that sense

it was not an arm’s-length sale,

and my bid should not have been

voided this way once the ham-

mer went down. Thoughts?

David Levey

Washington, D.C.

SPRING POTPOURRI

Dear Clayton,

Data on a variety of topics

from the

M.A.D.

March 2015

and the April 2015 issues have

inspired me to put pen to pa-

per. Hopefully, by organizing

my comments according to the

different article titles and their

respective placement in each is-

sue, your readers will be able to

follow along.

“Acroterion, Randal Daw-

kins, Kinderhook, New York”

by Frank Donegan (March, pp.

26 & 27-A). I look forward to

each of the Donegan articles

on antiques dealers. I particu-

larly enjoyed the coverage of

Georgia-born Randal Dawkins,

another Southerner “up here in

the North.” Donegan created an

interesting, informative story

about the young dealer’s already

eventful life, and Dawkins’s op-

timistic comments about the

trade in high-style furniture were

insightful. The article encour-

aged me to research Acroterion’s

impressive, eclectic presence on

1stDibs. I hope Dawkins’s busi-

ness succeeds.

“New Ownership and Strong

Victorian Sales for Farmer” by

Walter C. Newman (March, pp.

10-12-B). Captions below sev-

eral of the photos on page 12-B

were incorrect. Knowledgeable

dealers and collectors of Amer-

ican mid-19th-century Rococo

Revival furniture agree that the

maker of the “three-piece parlor

set” (top, left) remains, at pres-

ent, unknown. These items form

a part of a small group of related

seat furniture that have been at-

tributed, variously, to New York

City cabinetmakers Belter, the

Meekses, Roux, and Baudouine

(as was the case here). While the

objects seem “more NYC” than,

say, Philadelphia, Boston, Cin-

cinnati, or New Orleans, the ori-

gin of the “Birds” pattern group

still mystifies.

The pair of pole fire-

screens (top, right) are probably

mid-19th-century English, in the

Rococo Revival style, not “late

19th century...Beaux Arts style.”

The “Classical design breakfast

table...likely English” (low-

er left) appears to be of New

York City origin, in the manner

of Duncan Phyfe; this would ex-

plain the difference between the

presale estimate, $300/400, and

the price realized, $4312.50.

“American Neoclassicism—

Jefferson versus Emerson” by

Bob Frishman (March, pp. 10-

12-C). This was a well-written

review of an event that I would

have liked to have attended. The

topic has been of interest since

childhood, and many of the

speakers are longtime friends.

As a Historic Deerfield Fellow,

Class of 1969, any visit to Deer-

field is nostalgic. Thanks for the

speakers’ photos, too, Bob.

“Very Rich & Handsome:

American Neo-Classical Deco-

rative Arts” by Lita Solis-Cohen

(March, p. 31-D). The Hirschl &

Adler Galleries special exhibi-

tion of primarily American dec-

orative arts at its New York City

gallery (mid-December 2014 to

mid-February 2015) was beau-

tifully presented, and the ac-

companying catalog (reviewed

in this article) was the equal of

the gallery’s similar, previous

catalogs that also chronicled

exhibitions. There was also a

fine topic-specific website, and

those objects that remain in the

gallery’s inventory can still be

found online.

I “second” all of Solis-Co-

hen’s comments about the show

and the catalog, but would like

to offer addenda. All of the pre-

vious Hirschl & Adler decora-

tive arts catalogs are available

from the gallery or through vari-

ous online outlets.

In addition to the objects dis-

cussed and illustrated, I found

the introduction and the bib-

liography quite useful. From

the text in the former, I learned

that Massachusetts scholars

Robert Mussey and Clark Pearce

are in the process of creating a

show about the Boston-based

Vose firms for the Massachusetts

Historical Society. And on page

24 of the catalog, I noted a pre-

viously unpublished illustration

from the Anthony Quervelle-at-

tributed sketchbook now in the

collection of the Philadelphia

Museum of Art.

“Carved in Stone: Ameri-

can Stone Books” by Ian Berke

(April, pp. 22-24-C). Kudos to

Ian Berke, obviously a dedicat-

ed, passionate collector on a fine

article about a charming, quirky

hitherto-unappreciated

topic;

bravo to

M.A.D.

for continuing

to offer such “personal pearls”

from collectors. The author, a

longtime friend, conveyed this

collecting interest to me some

time ago, but I’ve yet to see any

examples in the antiques/col-

lectibles marketplaces in upstate

New York. Berke’s assemblage

of about 300 examples would

seem to be the

ne plus ultra

the genre, and I trust his obser-

vations.

Finally, “American Surprises

at Pook & Pook” by Lita So-

lis-Cohen (April, pp. 28-31-C).

Seeing the online material about

the large, varied Judson collec-

tion of Tucker porcelain was

most informative. Since I wasn’t

a bidder, the condition issues,

which, according to Solis-Co-

hen, affected selling prices, had

no adverse effects on me.

Like Solis-Cohen, I noted the

mislabeling of lot 227 prior to the

sale: “a woman with a dove” was

actually the Apostle John, with

his symbol, the eagle (photo, p.

30, top); arguably, the figure did

have a feminine look. As for the

adjoining photo of another Tucker

vase, here was another catalog er-

ror; rather than “Napoleon burn-

ing Moscow,” a more accurate

description of the scene would be

“a dejected Napoleon watching

Moscow burning,” since Russian

sabotage started the massive Sep-

tember 1812 fire that burned

about three-quarters of the city

before it was contained.

I feel certain that each of the

above-mentioned vase images

has a print source, but I have

not been able to find either yet.

These lots were, no doubt, spe-

cial commissions, and perhaps

there are—or once were—com-

panion vases: three other evan-

gelists and some other scene

from Napoleon’s disastrous

Russian campaign, respectively.

Collectors, be on the lookout!

Ed Polk Douglas

Lyons, NY

OUT OF TUNE

Dear Clayton,

I have just tried unsuccess-

fully to buy a 203-year-old

keyboard instrument currently

in England. I first saw, photo-

graphed, and examined this in-

strument in 1972 when it was in

Edinburgh, then owned by the

father of the current owner. It

was described and pictured in a

Ph.D. dissertation several years

ago, and it could have been in-

cluded in another. It would have

filled a critical gap in my col-

lection, and it would have been

used in a recording to illustrate

tonal progression. Made in the

year Handel first came to Eng-

land and transformed the pop-

ular taste, it would have served

as an organological link. Its 22

sharp keys, however, are ivory.

The problem is last year’s fed-

eral ivory ban. This ban prohib-

its “actual or intended transfer in

the pursuit of gain or profit.” In

my case, despite my intent not

to resell, this verbiage has been

stretched to include my intend-

ed purchase. Even my Congres-

sional representative has been

unable to challenge the word-

ing’s interpretation.

While ivory importation for

research purposes might seem

to be allowable, “research” is

restricted to “genuine scientific

purposes that will contribute to

the conservation of the species.”

Last year’s ban is the exten-

sion of the 1989African Elephant

Conservation Act that exempt-

ed antique ivory. The 2014 ban

isn’t a law—just an “order” by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-

vice (USFWS) (Director’s Order

#210). As it is merely an order,

USFWS was able to skirt the re-

quirement for public comment

necessary for laws. This order

makes no distinction between an

antique and a modern artifact,

and no distinction between an

itemmade solely of ivory and one

with an incidental ivory part, such

as the tip of a violin bow. (Note:

international transport of these

bows has caused problems.)

The order appears to allow ivo-

ry importation as a “household

move or as part of an inheritance.”

However, one of several restric-

tions would probably rule this out

for almost anyone. An item must

come to the U.S. through a desig-

nated “Antique Port.” It must be

accompanied by a “valid” CITES

certificate. It can’t have been

transferred “in the pursuit of gain

or profit” after February 2014.

It can’t have been repaired with

ivory of any vintage after Decem-

ber 1973. And, it must have been

“legally acquired prior to Febru-

ary 26, 1976”! Proving all of this

could be difficult, and it suggests

there is something more sinister

afoot than the laudable intent of

saving elephants.

There are good reasons and

real reasons for almost anything,

and I think the real unstated rea-

son here is the desire to toxify all

ivory, old and new, and make its

ownership infra dig. Only then,

with its popularity diminished,

will ivory’s worldwide price

decline, making poaching no

longer gainful. Never mind an

artifact’s historical importance

or artistic merit. Never mind the

scope of its ivory content. Nev-

er mind the potential losses to a

collection or to a museum.

There is evidence for this trou-

bling outcome. The 2014 order

follows from a President’s Ex-

ecutive Order 13648, issued in

July 2013 with the commend-

able aim of “combating wildlife

trafficking.” However, hidden

in the miasma of much vacuous

phraseology, such as “to enhance

coordination of U.S. govern-

ment efforts—and assist for-

eign governments with capacity