Here’s a parlor set that will be sold at auction by Steven’s Auction Company during their July 27th/28th sale that is marked down as a Horner set. I have seen this same set attributed to Horner and Karpen in the past but it was actually done by Stickley-Brandt and was in their catalog as model numbers 589 and 588. The chair originally sold for $10.35 in Oak and $13.35 in mahogany. The settee was $29.60 in oak and $35.55 in mahogany.

I recommend you stop by the Stevens auction catalog and check out all the Victoriana being sold in this auction. There are some fantastic pieces by Belter, Herter, Pottier and Stymus, etc. The Belter sofa below from lot 27 will be sold on the 28th.

Up for auction is a pair of J & JW Meeks side chairs made in the Stanton Hall pattern with coral damask upholstery. Expected sale range is $1,200 to $1,500 with starting price of $600. Here’s a pair of the same chairs for $12,500.

You’ve seen my previous posts on the problems with attributions. I wanted to share one more related theme that I tend to encounter too often when I write to antique sellers about the pieces that they are selling.

If I’m looking at a piece that a seller attributes to a particular maker and something looks awry, I will often ask a seller what their reasoning is for the attribution. I’m expecting to get: “it is a pierced-carved piece with 7 1.6mm thick lamination layers, so it must be…”, or “we have a picture in a reference book that matches” or “family records provide proof”, or “it’s labeled/stamped”, etc., or at least something meaningful about the piece itself. What I often get instead is “I’ve attributed it to Belter based on 30 years in the business” … which speaks nothing of the piece itself. I’m surprised at the number of people who will talk about their 3 generations in the business and not convey any particular observations about the piece itself. I’ve had two different sellers in the past two weeks provide that as their foundation for attribution.

A trained eye is essentially what they are getting at. Once you’ve seen 1000 Belter or Meeks furniture pictures, you can pick one out of the furniture equivalent of a police lineup quite easily. But hopefully 30 years in the business allows one to convey to a potential customer the detail elements of a piece that make it attributed to a particular maker. The Belter/Boudoine piece is a recent example of a seller who is standing by their 3 generations of business reasoning and, in my opinion, discounting or ignoring photographic evidence that I have provided to them. It is their right to have their perspective and I respect their decision to stick with the Belter attribution.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t intend to be the “attribution police” and I don’t have the years of experience to be the right person do to so, but I do think that the marketplace is rife with flippant attributions. I will politely question them when I run across them and respect their positions.

Thanks for listening and I welcome other comments. By the way, here’s one more Boudine chair that matches the “Belter”.

Sometimes you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone and I have just learned that lesson very recently. I recently purchased the above pictured credenza at a small auction house in the country that usually doesn’t have items that would be considered high-end. Their auction house has allowed me to create the base for my many future years of “trade up” and allowed me to have furniture in my 1887 Victorian that would have otherwise taken many more years.

I spotted this credenza against the wall buried behind several layers of other furniture. Being the only ebonized piece in 60,000 sq feet of furniture will make a piece stick out. Also, I have been looking to buy a Neo-Grec or Aesthetic credenza someday and so I was immediately drawn to it. I knew however that I was not going to keep this one but rather resell it if I got it for an acceptable price, which I ultimately did.

It sold on Sunday on Ebay for about $1600 which was very satisfactory to me as I quickly tripled my money but I later had a long discussion with the buyer about his idea on who had made the piece. He had related to me that he is a rabid collector of Leon Marcotte pieces and was very certain that this was by Mr. Marcotte. There are several telltale signs from his perspective which mostly center on the incorporation of the letter “M” in the incised lines on the piece. I have captured the various “M’s” in the pictures below for your consideration. One contrary observation that caught both our attention was the blatant presence (more-so than the “M’s”) of the letter “H” – four of them on the front of the piece, which made us wonder if there could be a tie to Herter Brothers.

Anyway, I’m glad the piece is going to a happy home where it will get a new touch-up job on the incising and new french polish. If you want to read more about Marcotte, see here. If you want to see more pictures of my credenza, see here.

Up for Auction is a very nice Rococo Rosewood armchair I will attribute to Charles Boudoine, and I believe incorrectly marked as John Henry Belter for it’s auction. In looking at the listing, the “earlobe” carving on the chair back reminded me of Boudoine but not of Belter. Charles Boudoine was of French descent, born in 1808 in New York and made furniture in the Rococo style. A notable employee of Boudoine’s was Anton/Anthony (I’ve seen both) Kimbel of Kimbel & Cabus. Boudoine’s work to me looks like a combination of Meeks and Belter influences. You can see a full parlor set including an identical armchair on the far right by Boudoine here. You can see the full description and $29,900 winning bid by scrolling down to lot 1149 here. Bidding on this chair starts at $1,750 and ends June 29th.