MOVERS AND SHAKERS
If you want to know what’s happening where, this is the place to look. This month: The UK and US Columns first published in Issue 28 of Antiques and Collectables for Pleasure & Profit. The UK Column
Dateline? What dateline? Most upmarket antiques fairs still retain early datelines for staples such as carpets, clocks, furniture and silver, then maybe allow them a little later for jewellery, ceramics, watches and art glass or ceramics. Even so, all datelines seem to have eased a little in the past five years. But the big change, universal as far as I can establish, is that all fairs now permit the display of contemporary art; nationwide organisers Galloway Fairs was the last major standfitted fairs organiser to give way on that one, as recently as January this year. Five years ago, Susan Galloway was the last of the major organisers still to be sticking to her guns: ‘People who come to antiques fairs expect to find antiques.’ For a while, Galloway Fairs benefited from the defection of a number of dealers who couldn’t live with the changes elsewhere. So why did Galloway throw in the towel from 2008? ‘Pressure from some dealers, it’s as simple as that,’ Susan told me in May. ‘Art - good art - has always been a pull. But some of our exhibitors were facing two problems. They were carrying nearly two sets of stock in order to exhibit at our events and elsewhere, and that wasn’t helped by the second problem - they are finding it difficult to source good works at prices that leave margins for themselves. So, after a great deal of reflection, Richard and I decided that this small change was the only way to retain the current level of diversity within our relatively small events. And no, it hasn’t been a question of opening any floodgates. Exhibits must be quality items by recognised artists. Our own exhibitors would soon have something to say if they felt something wasn’t up to the mark.’ So what’s the problem? All datelined, standfitted and vetted fairs - the strictly ballroom variety - have pretty similar criteria. If the exhibit is original and signed by a recognised artist, then it’s okay. Ditto if it’s a hand-finished engraving from a tightly limited run. Photographic print from a ‘limited’ run of 5000? No chance. So what’s the problem? There are two problems. Both are highly subjective, making them prime candidates for friction between organiser, vetting team, exhibitor and customer. The first is the question of quality. A couple of months ago I chatted with Margaret Cowley of Garret and Hurst (fine antique art bronzes) and (now) board member of LAPADA. The G&H stand is among the finest at any event. So, doesn’t the admission of some of today’s fresh-from-the-box pictures and sculptures make them wince? ‘Yes, but the issue of quality isn’t always within the remit of the vetting committee. I remember the event you’re talking about and the exhibits in question. My thoughts? They would have looked more at home in IKEA.’ Noble stuff. But doesn’t that standpoint rely on the assumption that age is of itself an absolute guarantee of quality? No, it doesn’t. Put it this way – fine art dealers such as Garret and Hurst sell period bronzes by sculptors such as Barye, Bonheur, Mêne and Moigniez. Unsold pieces can’t be sent back to the sculptor, and items sold can’t be replaced by sending an email to the warehouse. Round two The second issue is the immediate post-sale value of new goods. So you go to a fair and pay a retail price for something ‘antique’. It doesn’t fit in. You decide to sell – back to the trade, privately, at auction or on eBay. How much do you expect? You tell me; fifty, sixty, seventy percent? So much for ‘antiques as an investment’ – but what might you get back for some of the mass-produced stuff that limbo-dances its way into otherwise datelined fairs? Is there anyone out there with research funds available? Case in point? Now for a more positive take. At the end of May I attended Mulberry Hall (York) for the UK release of Lalique’s 2008 collection. Mulberry Hall is a gift shop without equal in the UK. The star item was a 24cm tiger decorated with black enamel - see page 11. A quality item by a big name in art glass, and in a one-off limited edition. Isn’t this just the kind of exhibit that should be encouraged, now that contemporary art is no longer datelined? The price tag of around $7000 doesn’t seem obscene, does it? Pick one up second-hand for a bit less, and you might be laughing in five or ten years’ time. Maybe not, but at least you won’t be left wondering why you wasted so much money on it in the first place. The US Column
Ethical issues are traditionally placed on the back burner when it comes to dealings in the antiques and collectables trade, which has no standard code of business practices and ethics; each person sets his or her own standards. As more and more individuals use the Internet to buy and sell antiques and collectables, ethical issues are being raised. I recently received an e-mail from Bob Culver, editor of Night Light, the publication of The Miniature Lamp Collectors Club, that read: ‘On the Internet, the transaction is very public, open to all to see. Do we have any responsibility if we see something amiss? Recently, I observed a reproduction Atterbury Log Cabin lamp offered as an original. I first saw this a few days after the auction opened and already the bid had climbed to $200, a clear sign that the buyer was thinking this was a period lamp. I emailed both the seller and high bidder with the facts and how to tell repros from the period example. The seller responded with a bit of a nastygram saying essentially, ‘Keep out of my business,’ but agreed to check out my facts. A day later, he closed the auction early with a public note saying that the lamp was indeed not old and that it was being withdrawn. No note to me, no note from the high bidder. Do we have a responsibility to intercede in these cases? Is my responsibility as an ‘expert’ in the field of mini-lamps any more than the average collector? Or should I be content to let it be buyer beware (caveat emptor)? Countless auctions are updated as experts provide new information to the seller, but if the seller ignores comments from experts, misinformation wins.’ I have had several experiences similar to those of Don. Recently I checked out the jigsaw puzzle offerings on several Internet auction sites and I found many puzzles falsely described. An English advertising puzzle from the 1980s was listed as being from the 1930s. In many instances, puzzles that were extremely common were listed as rare or scarce. Sellers frequently had no clue as to the maker or correct title of the puzzles they listed and information about whether or not the puzzle was complete was often missing. In order to contact a bidder or potential buyer, one has to register to bid on an Internet site. After several days of just looking, I finally became so angry about the amount of false information I was encountering that I registered. I emailed several sellers but received only one reply. That individual thanked me for my input, said he was going to add the information I provided to his bid site, and did. The others simply ignored my email. Without becoming involved in the determination of what does or does not make someone an expert, I think everyone has an ethical obligation to point out to the Internet seller and any potential buyers the undocumented listing of a reproduction (exact copy), copycat (stylistic copy), or fantasy item (form, shape, or pattern that did not exist historically). Misrepresenting something is fraud. Hiding behind the ‘I did not know’ line is not an excuse. The seller has an obligation to know what he is selling and to represent it properly. Is it possible to regulate the Internet? Many think the answer is no. Because it is worldwide in scope, it is questionable if any government has the authority and power to regulate the Internet. When one reads the rules and regulations of Internet antiques and collectables auction sites, one thing stands out very clearly: the sites themselves take no responsibility for the goods sold on them. Any dispute is directly between the buyer and seller. Ebay’s User Agreement reads: “3. eBay is Only a Venue. Our site acts as the venue for sellers to conduct auctions and for bidders to bid on sellers’ auctions. We are not involved in the actual transaction between buyers and sellers. As a result, we have no control over the quality, safety or legality of the items advertised, the truth or accuracy of the listings, the ability of sellers to sell items or the ability of buyers to buy items... “11. No Warranty. WE AND OUR SUPPLIERS PROVIDE THE EBAY WEBSITE AND OUR SERVICES ‘AS IS’ AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OR CONDITION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. WE AND OUR SUPPLIERS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Some states do not allow the disclaimer of implied warranties, so the foregoing disclaimer may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other legal rights which vary from state to state.” Since most sellers require payment in advance, the seller is in the driver’s seat when a dispute arises - they have the money. The buyer has the questionable object. If the seller refuses to take it back because he disagrees with a buyer’s assertion that the object is not as represented, what recourse does the buyer have? The good news is that most sellers ship objects to buyers via the United States Postal Service. Misrepresenting anything shipped through the mail is a fraudulent act. Do not hesitate to file a complaint with the Postal Service if the seller is intransigent. While the antiques and collectables barrel contains its fair share of rotten apples, they represent only a small minority of the whole. Since it is unlikely that local, state or national authorities will provide policing on the Internet, the burden falls upon private individuals with a strong moral and ethical conscience. In other words, if the antiques and collectables segment of the Internet is going to be policed, we must do it ourselves. Playing policeman is certainly not the route to take if one wants to win a popularity contest. I know; I am a regular recipient of nastygrams. I am delighted to learn from Don that I am not the only one. I grew up in a time period when speaking out against injustice was considered an obligation. It was the American way. I am not about to change and I suspect I will find no end to the opportunities to put my principles to the test as I surf around the Internet. In all honesty, I can use a little help. How about it?
|
Ivor Hughes reports on the shifting sands of the UK fairs and collectibles scenes
Internet Ethics
