or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Antiques - why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Antiques - why?

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
Can't think why I didn't post this in the old SF; anyone interested in antiques? Or absolutely not interested - I know a few members are decidedly modernist in their decorating tastes. So please tell me - why do you have them, and like them, or not?

What particular sorts, and for what reasons? Examples are very helpful.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm supposed to give a sort of talk over a formal club dinner in a few months - the audience will be benign and very well fed, but will want to be entertained, and I would expect them to have quite high academic standards. The given subject is antiques, as it is my field of business. The club is organised more or less like a traditional gentlemen's club, in an old villa with a reputedly very good chef.

It has to be knowledgeable, and funny, but not really serious in any heavy academic way. The title of the thread here might very well be the motto of the talk as well.
post #2 of 59
I would say that I am decidedly contemporary, but I do appreciate good antiques as well. What I do not understand is the idea of living in a way that is completely out of touch with today's world. That, and I absolutly despise new production period furniture.
post #3 of 59
I am very fond of antiques. I appreciate them for aesthetic value as well as the fact that with what the period craftsman had to work with , they still managed to produce items more or less unrivalled in quality and sometimes, taste.
post #4 of 59
Thread Starter 
Late-period Boulle?

Beautiful.
post #5 of 59
Quite.

Made for the Bourbons, I believe.
post #6 of 59
I don't get the conflict between "modernist" and "antique." After all, most of the so-called modernist furniture was either designed between 50 and 100 years ago (Jugendstil through midcentury modernism) or is a riff on themes from that age. By rights, aren't Eames chaises, Le Corbusier couches, Eileen Gray side-tables, Saarinen Tulip tables/chairs, and other such iconic "modernist" pieces also "antiques" by now?
post #7 of 59
I don't think he meant modernist like that so much as people who prefer a modern/contemporary aesthetic. There is stuff be produced now that is distinctly removed from what was considered modern 50 years ago. Personally, I prefer that, but I understand the draw of antiques. Which is not to say lots of people who are into antiques have no taste and just want old things because they're old and expensive, but there is a definite appeal in very old aesthetics that I do understand and appreciate. But when you're 21 and on a tight budget, the only pleasant looking stuff you'll be getting is coming from Ikea. So's not like I have much of a choice anyway.
post #8 of 59
not just antiques, but quickly becoming precious antiques.

i like antiques like rugged old pie safes, and dry sinks, and such.
post #9 of 59
We have a house full of Mid Century stuff. Mixed up really. Deco dining room from the 20's, 30's/40's stuff in the living room, Heywood Wakefield 40's in the dressing rooms, 50's kitch in the kitchen. We use German china from the 20's in the DR and 50's Salem Free Form in the Kitchen. I like it. Its weird and eclectic.

It's antique at this point but not like the high dollar 19th century stuff. We don't have any expensive designer pieces. Probably has much more resale than anything you'd buy at Ikea. Generally it is way better made.

Mostly we have it as it fits our personalities. And I must say I look good on the Breezeway smoking a Cuban cigar in my 6 band rattan lounger.
post #10 of 59
I understand an antique by definition is something over 100 years old so any of the Modernist, possibly Art Nouveau, the German Jugendstil that SGladwell mentioned, would be antique at this point.
post #11 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
I understand an antique by definition is something over 100 years old so any of the Modernist, possibly Art Nouveau, the German Jugendstil that SGladwell mentioned, would be antique at this point.
Yes that is correct. 100 years (some say 75) would be the usual dividing line between "old" and "antique". In addition some suggest that older objects less than 100 years old that have become appreciating assets could qualify. Objects from the 20's Art Deco era are becoming very expensive and not yet 100 years old. I'd call them antique. Antique evaluators routinely call pre war Martin guitars antique and they aren't yet 100 years old. The earliest ones are just getting to be 75. It's a fuzzy line.

Most of my stuff isn't yet "antique" by those definitions. They are appreciating assets however and If I keep them long enough I imagine they will be. Never of course on the level of that lovely table.
post #12 of 59
1. I grew up with antiques - my mother had a shop for most of my childhood, and our house was always full of antiques. As a result, most antiques, espectially nicknacks and china, isn't my favotire stuff to have around. I did get an apprectiation for furnature and silverware.

2. I like hand made stuff, and can't really afford much handmade modern stuff. you can get some very nice, very well made things for reasonable prices if you look carefully in antique stores and flea markets.

3. the aesthetic that I like best was in style maybe 80 years ago - I love the look of stuff from germany, austria and italy from the period around the turn of the century to the 30's. I also really love the look of some victorian stuff. so for me, it is less about the "antiqueness" and more about a specific period.
post #13 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
I don't get the conflict between "modernist" and "antique." After all, most of the so-called modernist furniture was either designed between 50 and 100 years ago (Jugendstil through midcentury modernism) or is a riff on themes from that age. By rights, aren't Eames chaises, Le Corbusier couches, Eileen Gray side-tables, Saarinen Tulip tables/chairs, and other such iconic "modernist" pieces also "antiques" by now?


I think that there is no doubt that "classic modern" is as much a period look as edwardian is at this point. My taste tends to more contemporary, although I do like some modernist and some antique.
post #14 of 59
i'm not into what most "antique connosseiurs" are into, but our house is filled with lots of 50s Heywood Wakefield.

examples of HW that we have



post #15 of 59
Because they are old.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Antiques - why?