Comments on: Why Victorian Antique Furniture Gets A Bad Rap

By: james conrad

james conrad — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:42:37 +0000

Well, it closed at 21k plus BP which is alot better than i thought it would do. Another thing, if MLB is correct that it’s 20th century and european then i say it did very very well.

By: woodwright

woodwright — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:57:03 +0000

This set clearly illustrates a philosophy of mine as a custom cabinetmaker. “The best workmanship in the world cannot make a bad design look good. While even mediocre workmanship will make a great design look great.” The design is at least as important if not more important than the work itself – do whatever it takes to to get it right. This applies to virtually anything made.
Clearly there is a ton of work in this set – carving is very time consuming and the workmanship looks fine. But it is heavy, clunky and gaudy and would not appeal to very many buyers. I doubt seriously if the realized price will come close to it’s estimate. Although it must have appealed to someone at one point to have been designed and sold (and I’m sure it wasn’t cheap either when new because of the work involved) – but tastes have changed for sure. woodwright

By: RareVictorian

RareVictorian — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:40:00 +0000

For reference here's how I got to Renaissance Revival: 17th century Italian "Real" Renaissance bench with putti, cabochons, etc. + Victorian Details book describes a resurgence of RR in 1880s-1920: "By the 1880s, Renaissance-style had become old fashioned. Everyone had a Centennial set in their bedroom and Jelliff-related sofas in their parlor. And the rich were on to something else. But in the late 1890s wealthy New Yorkers came back to Renaissance-style along with Gothic-revival, Elizabethan-revival and every other form of expensive European furniture treasure that could be reproduced. And these were Diamond-Jim-Brady reproductions -- huge, ornate pieces that would have made their ancestors quake with envy." This is describing the peak "RJ Horner years" of the late 1800s/turn of the century in New York to a tee. I agree this one is quite possibly European.

By: misslilybart

misslilybart — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:47:14 +0000

I’m not entirely convinced that “the Victorians” are the ones to blame for this…. interesting suite of furniture. My gut tells me that it is probably Continental and 20th century, and my head agrees, for a bunch of reasons. Were it actually Victorian, though, it would certainly (As John Hopper mentions) serve as a textbook example of just what the design reformers were working to eliminate from the decorative arts vocabulary… too bad they weren’t more successful in their efforts!

By: james conrad

james conrad — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:49:32 +0000

So how do you like the set?

uhhhhh, noooooooo. It doesnt do much for me, a good example of the “more is better” design school which was common during the victorian age.

By: John Hopper

John Hopper — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:25:08 +0000

That’s very true. The fabric is not doing anything to help, though I think with the best will in the world, and the best fabric, this set of furniture would be difficult to sell. Let’s just say, my partner saw the piece and went ‘omg!’

Maybe if you had a Venetian palazzo with polished marble floors, you might get away with it. Here in the UK, I don’t think anyone would have a room large enough.

But with all that said, it would be an incredible piece of furniture to see up close and a real experience to sit on with a cup of coffee, though you might look a little lost hugging your cup while sitting up one end of the chair, to make use of those handy side tables!

By: RareVictorian

RareVictorian — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:27:45 +0000

John, I think the fabric doesn’t even help it any, compounding the issue.

By: John Hopper

John Hopper — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:33:14 +0000

I have not seen anything this hideous for a while, and the Victorians could certainly do hideous, by our standards, and very often by their own.

It seems a shame that so much good Victorian furniture was thrown on bonfires during the 1960s and 1970s, and this survived. There’s something wrong there somewhere.

However, it is a good historical piece. It fits in well with the Design Reform movements principles, as it is a fine example of the staggeringly awful, so perhaps it does serve a purpose.