Comments on: Thoughts On Furniture Attributions & CDWA

By: A Real Galusha In Our Midst | Rare Victorian

A Real Galusha In Our Midst | Rare Victorian — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:36:33 +0000

[...] will go one step further than “attributed to” and use the CDWA qualifier of “probably by” in connection with Elijah Galusha for Gordie’s [...]

By: Associating Herter Brothers With Decorative Inlay | Rare Victorian

Associating Herter Brothers With Decorative Inlay | Rare Victorian — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:11:43 +0000

[...] for that particular set (but I won’t even go so far as to classify that association as “possibly by“). Date of manufacture was probably at least 10-20 years later than [...]

By: james conrad

james conrad — Sat, 02 May 2009 08:42:58 +0000

The flip side of this is the reality that auction houses must compete against each other for clients and thats where most of attribution issues start.

By: Carlo Bugatti - A Century Ahead Of His Time | Rare Victorian

Carlo Bugatti - A Century Ahead Of His Time | Rare Victorian — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:39:01 +0000

[...] the $1,500 price that they are offering it up at makes me think that they are more likely to mean “manner of” than the “attributed to” that they are [...]

By: woodwright

woodwright — Fri, 01 May 2009 06:31:59 +0000

I agree that many/ most if not all pcs. attributed to the big name makers may indeed not have been touched by them at all. As with virtually all businesses, I’m sure they all probably started off small – and touched most or all of the work that was produced when they began and were small. But from reading – virtually all of the big name makers had large successful businesses that grew and employed many – often in the hundreds of employees. As their companies grew in size – I would suspect that the company owners (Belter, Roux, Henkel, etc) spent most their time managing the business and employess, finding work/ jobs, marketing their furniture, possibly creating or overseeing new designs, managing the money end, etc. and didn’t have the time to do a lot for hands on work once they were large. Something that could be left to a competent craftsman – while they managed the important things that kept their business going.
If you look at 2 of the same pieces of furniture from the same shop – odds are they were built months or even years apart – and probably by different employees. Yet it is hard to see a lot of difference between them. Because they were made of the same material, the same design, the same construction technique, etc. – probably all established by the owner/ designer of the first pieces like it when they were first designed and made. Which illustrates a philosophy I have that the design is the most important part of the process and that even mediocre workmanship can make a good design look good, but the best workmanship in the world can not make a bad design look good. woodwright

By: RareVictorian

RareVictorian — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:05:00 +0000

Thanks, Zeke. I hope to have some positive effect somewhere with this blog. Worldwide domination of Victorian searches in Google would be nice

Notice I put “manufactory of” in the applicable list. I was thinking the same thing you were – e.g. a piece “by Mitchell & Rammelsberg” is highly likely to not have been executed in any significant percentage by the head honchos themselves.

By: zeke

zeke — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:09:44 +0000

Great analogy John and furniture is an art form. I would like to add though, some thoughts on attribution:

One often reads statements like “chair made by John Henry Belter” For sake of argument we’ll use Belter, although any of the major cabinet makers with a shop that employed multiple individuals would do. While it may be rock solid that this chair came from Belters shop, there is no way of determining if Mr Belter actually even touched the chair. Rather we should say “made in Belters shop under his auspices” or “Manufactured in Belters shop from an original design by Belter and produced on machinery invented or adapted by Belter” and so on and so on ad nauseum. In this and many similar cases Belter (or another maker) may or may not have actually made the piece in question, but it did come out of his shop. I don’t want to throw a monkey wrench into the works but the whole attribution thing is mind boggling.

All this aside, I think this website is doing so very much to thwart false attributions of Victorian furniture. This blog comes up so many times when i google Victorian furniture that I’m sure the good word is being spread across the net for all to see and read.

Excellent work John, I think you are way too modest to admit the far reaching effects of your efforts here!

By: Paul Tucker

Paul Tucker — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:23:43 +0000

I agree that use of these categories would be a great plus for furniture historians like us. But I wonder how you get the antique dealers that “know a Hunzinger when I see one” based on a lifetime of misidentification. There are too many that really don’t care. It has been interesting to watch the identification of Merklen pieces since my Magazine Antiques article on the company came out in 2005. It is a great deal better now with most antique sellers listing pieces as Hunzinger/Merklen. But I’ve also seen pieces that are now identified as Merklen with no proof. The pendulum is swinging too far in the opposite direction! Possibly the small corrections and the power of the internet will improve the situation.