Comments on: Bonham’s Selling Warner Brothers’ Studio Collection of Herter Brothers Furniture

By: Ulysses Dietz

Ulysses Dietz — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:38:48 +0000

I can’t remember where I learned this–here?–but the couple that bought the Thurlow Lodge bedroom furniture went to Warner Brothers and found the missing crest and canopy there.

I have also learned that in the 1990s, when researching their big Herter exhibition (Met Museum, MFA Houston, LACMA) the curators actually went through the prop warehouse at Warner Brothers, looking for the Hopkins/Latham Herter pieces–and couldn’t find a single one. Apparently they were all in use on movie sets, or rented out to other productions.

In querying my colleagues about this, I found that all of the big museums who might have wanted Herter from this sale seem to have already had what they wanted. Pieces from both Thurlow Lodge and the Hopkins house are in several museums already, so there were apparently no museums bidding in January 2009. So, barring eventual gifts, these things will stay in the market place and not in public collections. There is one exception that I can’t talk about (yet).

Does anyone know what became of the marquetry cabinet in the Bonhams sale–the one that didn’t sell? Back to the Warner Brothers warehouse?

By: misslilybart

misslilybart — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:37:25 +0000

The latest issue of Victorian Homes magazine (June ’09, IIRC) has a short article on this auction.

By: max

max — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:01:36 +0000

I have acquired additional photos of the bed on sale day showing a fabric covered column laying on the bed. There was another fabric covered piece laying there which was probably the canopy frame.
If you have any pictures of a Herter canopy bed or know where there is one, please contact me through this posting.

By: woodwright

woodwright — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:32:33 +0000

Unless I’m mistaken, I’m guessing that the “Max” that commented above is the proud new owner of the Herter Bed, dresser and nightstands from Bonham’s sale – as mentioned in this article: http://antiquesandthearts.com/Antiques/AuctionWatch/2009-01-27__10-34-37.html . If so, congratulations it’s a gorgeous set w/ a great deal of historical significance – unquestionably made by Herert Brothers for MLS – shortest term governor of Ca., and owned by Warner Brothers Studio for 60+ yrs – quite a provenance. Nice to see that most of the BR pieces are staying together and will be restored. woodwright

By: max

max — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:27:51 +0000

zeke
Carlton Watkins photos of which Stanford has a set does not show the bedroom

By: max

max — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:59:22 +0000

FYI
1287 Probably not Herter-Center turning and incise carving not Herter Quality. Lions heads ears not right. Best guess high end Grand Rapids $25000 plus premium
1290-$70000 plus Prem sold to left bid
1291-$70000 +p,1292-$160000+p,and1296-$190000+p sold to Brian Witherall and client on the floor
1293-$270000+p,1294-$19000+p,1295-$50000+p,1297-$85000+p,1300-$40000+p,1303-$80000+p sold on the floor to the another collector.
The bedroom set with the exception of 1296 and1298 will be kept together and restored. There was a valence from the bedroom with a mask and ribbon included with the bed that can be used on the bed or duplicated. I believe the finials are correct but were on the four corners of the canopy. Any original pictures of the bed would be greatly appreciated.

By: woodwright

woodwright — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:01:23 +0000

I wonder how many of these pieces will show up at museums. I would guess many/ most of the big museums were represented at the sale.
The missing ladies face/ mask from the crest of the bed could be replicated from the photographs of the dressers. The overall height and width are given in the listing, from that with an architects scale the scale of the picture and the dimensions of the face can then be calculated. The photograph shows the details well to layout and duplicate the carving. Of course base on the scale of the bed the carving may, or may not have been the same size as the dressers – it would have to be drawn out, or mocked up and see if it fits, and looks right – if not the scale could be adjusted to fit the bed. If I were at the auction and serious about the bed, I would have taken some quick overall dimensions on one of the carvings on the dressers, and taken some large format, high resolution close up pictures of one of the faces before the auction began. At that point it doesn’t belong to anyone (but the owner/ auction house – who is interested in selling it) – after the auction, and there is a buyer/ owner they may object or the opportunity may not exist any longer.
What a shame that the marble was replaced with marbelized wood. It should have been set aside and saved. But it is heavy and bulky and was probably tossed long ago. It could be replaced with new marble cut to fit and the edge profiled to match the original. woodwright

By: zeke

zeke — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:37:39 +0000

I’m with you Miss Lily, I hate the term but it is a very easy catchall term that has become part of the language. I prefer and use the term “Nineteenth Century American furniture”, which is also inaccurate as that would include Federal, Sheraton, shaker, etc etc. It would be nice to have a better term for what is generally called “Victorian Furniture” but then we’d have to change the name of this blog!

Any suggestions for a name that encompasses 19th century American Rococo, Renaissance Revival, Gothic, Eastlake, Aesthetic etc. Furniture?

I think this thread is becoming a new record for the amount of posts!

By: misslilybart

misslilybart — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:53:48 +0000

I dislike it because it is inaccurate and confusing – Victoria wasn’t our Queen, “Victorian” isn’t a style, and the time period the term usually describes when used in the United States) doesn’t even correctly reflect the years of VR’s reign. (Just call me a humorless stickler for accuracy…)

By: james conrad

james conrad — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:14:17 +0000

I dont know on a single american victorian piece but is pretty sure its a Herter record. You hate the term victorian? how come