| SM Publications |
| Silver Salon Forums - The premier site for discussing Silver. |
| SMP | Silver Salon Forums | SSF - Guidelines | SSF - FAQ | Silver Sales |
|
|
|
|
The Silver Salon Forums
Since 1993 Over 11,793 threads & 64,769 posts !! General Silver Forum
|
| REGISTER (click here) |
How to Post Photos
|
|
 SMP Silver Salon Forums
 General Silver Forum
 Relative Valuations Based on Maker?
|
 SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Relative Valuations Based on Maker? |
|
salmoned Posts: 336 |
posted 07-20-2005 08:03 PM
  
I have read in various places that the works of certain well-known and well-regarded makers command much higher valuations than the works of lesser-known makers. I realize there must be some 'label' effects even in this realm, but I would think a great piece is a great piece no matter who's mark is on it and, conversely, a lesser piece becomes no better when it bears a well-regarded mark. Where does one get a list of these well-regarded makers? IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 07-20-2005 08:15 PM
Don't confuse the quality of the goods with the quality of the merchandising. IP: Logged |
|
agleopar Posts: 850 |
posted 07-20-2005 11:57 PM
One gage of greatness in the silver world is how much a firm produced. So Bateman, Storr and the like are considered the top partly because they made mountains of holloware. Of course they made to a very high standard, each at their level, and lesser makers cut corners either in design, technique or weight. It is easy to say that a Bateman is not as great as a Lamerie and while true, Bateman did make to a price which one asumes Lamerie never had to. Bateman became popular because they made so much and the romantic idea that a woman made it all helped hype it. So a list is not that straight forward, Tiffany, Gorham, yes, Scheibler too, Stone? I have not seen a dog by Stone but some modest efforts, and they are chased after because of rarity (small shop and output) Aside from fads (Bateman perhaps) great makers do always stand out, one exception is when their output is so small that they are only known by academics. Your list is in museums and the best antique shops and most of all your eye... [This message has been edited by agleopar (edited 07-23-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 07-21-2005 12:12 AM
quote: I would argue quite the opposite -- high output is only a sure sign of a full -- and generally anonymous -- staff of bench workers. Ms Bateman made little or no silver and the product of her shop was no more than the standard of the day. Better to train your eye to quality of design and workmanship; leave the hyperbole of "bestness" to car dealers and media moguls. IP: Logged |
|
Ulysses Dietz Moderator Posts: 1265 |
posted 07-21-2005 01:20 PM
Ah, a dangerous topic. "Great" is a word that means something different depending on what you are looking at. High-volume-but-high-quality can be great. So can low-volume, if ART is the main denominator. Names become cult figures and skew markets regardless of the quality of individual objects. Tiffany & Co. was the greatest maker of silver in America. (If there is a greatest silversmith today, it is probably Ubaldo Vitali, and not any company). But Tiffany (and everyone else) made a lot of mediocre silver. Well made, but dull and derivative in design. However, Tiffany bears a premium on its silver per ounce in the marketplace because of the name. Sometimes it's worth it, many times not. Gorham was certainly the largest silversmith, at one time making more silver per year in its factory than ALL OF ENGLAND. Gorham made stuff that's better than Tiffany, and also plenty that's as stupid as Tiffany's dullest. Georg Jensen, too, is a name that is nearly a cult. All Georg Jensen design is good, but not all is great. Great things come in all periods of Jensen's history, but 1904 designs made in 1955 are less desirable than 1904 designs made in 1904. They're not less attractive, but just not "first period," and that matters to some people (including curators). I suspect that from a collector's point of view (and a curator's) Shiebler, Wood & Hughes, Duhme, Fisher, and other folks all made objects that are as good as a lot of what Tiffany adn Gorham made, and therefore are supremely worthy of being collected by museums and anyone else who loves silver. IP: Logged |
|
agleopar Posts: 850 |
posted 07-21-2005 11:37 PM
If we follow Ulysses' very good summation he shows us that even a great firm like Tiffany has its low points. Moving across the pond (and I need help here SL) I thought of Bateman (the works and all those anonymous men and women, not the great Lady herself) as an example of really, very good workmanship (as Wev says) "no more than the standard of the day", just on a modest level compared to the likes of Rundell Bridge and Rundell (Storr), de Lamerie and many more both large and small, such as Garrards (big), John Harris (smaller). These firms I doubt ever made a bad piece of silver, maybe a dog or two but even the best get asked to make some pretty naff things. To sum up I believe that where quality is the priority and the money is there to pay for it you will find the best and some of the best workshops employed large work forces. No they did not create the output of the Batemans but they made an astounding amount of mostly large and complex silver that was the cutting edge of design. I will second Ulysses putting Ubaldo Vitali forth as the best smith today, his technical brilliance combined with his scholarly approach has no peer! [This message has been edited by agleopar (edited 07-23-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
salmoned Posts: 336 |
posted 07-22-2005 07:00 AM
Agleopar - you made me laugh, penultimate means next to last (I'm sure you meant first, top or best)! Thanks for all the comments. Most names were predictable, but I suppose it's a bit much to ask for personal favorites of lesser-known makers. I just can't get enthusiastic about the Bateman pieces I've seen, but availability competes with quality in driving the market (if you don't have enough output, few will recognize your genius). The best current smiths - now that pleasantly spun me into a different mode of thought... IP: Logged |
|
agleopar Posts: 850 |
posted 07-23-2005 07:56 AM
Salmoned thanks for the editing! I hope Ubaldo missed that... Part of the problem is doing this late at night, and the other is a total lack of education! "I just can't get enthusiastic about the Bateman pieces I've seen, but availability competes with quality in driving the market (if you don't have enough output, few will recognize your genius)." You have sumed up Bateman perfectly. I mentioned John Harris, a casket in the MFA Boston is a truely great example of the art of box making. In the same collection Peter Taylors chinoiserie set of tea canisters are exceptional. These are individual pieces that stand above the crowd and although I have not seen other examples of their work it has to be superb. Going way back, Paulus van Vianen, for shear virtuosity of technique and originality of design. This is just the tip of the iceberg because there are so many (Nelme, Syng, Germain) great makers whos output we know and the lesser makers are only known by a few pieces. The same goes for modern makers except for the well known likes of Benney and Devlin in London I can only name a few in England and hardly any over here. Partly because there is very little work that is really well made and or that is good design. I would get Semour Rabinaviches (sp?) book on silver collecting which has his contemporary collection of fish slices if you want a very good survey of modern makers, both English and US. IP: Logged |
|
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 07-24-2005 02:54 PM
This is a difficult topic, as the market place doesn't always reflect the quality. My personal favourites in USA are 1850-90 Gorham and Fletcher and Gardiner non machine produced pieces. For U.K. It is really difficult as there are so many wonderful makers... Personal favourites include Charles Kandler (who can be credited with introducing Roccoco design in silver to England, I think); Amy Videau (seems to have done all his work 'in house' and does particularly wonderful cast-and-applied work); John Schofield (never bad quality); John Emes (wonderful post-neoclassical designs and splendid quality); William Pitts II (probably the best chaser ever produced in Britain - he could draw two different pictures simultaneously with his right and left hands!) - In Victorian times Jes Barkentin (a Dane who arrived in England with Princess Alexandra). I haven't forgotten Paul Storr (who was really a brilliant workshop manager and, like Hester Bateman never gotten his hands dirty); Paul de Lamerie, Kandler's great rival all too obvious. [This message has been edited by Silver Lyon (edited 07-24-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 07-24-2005 03:33 PM
No Chaudron & Rasch, together and alone? Great invention, dexterity of design, and execution; I think (checking with one eye that my letters don't burst into flame) Fletcher & Gardiner learned a good deal from their work. IP: Logged |
|
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 07-24-2005 03:59 PM
I had forgotten them - Clever you, WEV.!!Those Sauce boats - yum! Then there is Laurent Amiot in Quebec... The trouble is that there are just too many to name. In a way that is part of the facination. IP: Logged |
|
agleopar Posts: 850 |
posted 07-25-2005 11:41 PM
Silver Lyon and Wev as always you give so much. Pitts, Schofield, Emes are in with Kandler, Storr and Lamerie, but Videau, Barkentin and Amiot I have never seen their work and look forward to seeing it as well as refreshing my memory of Chaudron & Rasch. Of the mentioned, Kandler always seems heavy and stiff compared to the others, but an inovator. Going back a little Nelme and Willaume are makers of great line and form. Out of curiosity do you have any favorites of contemporary English smiths? IP: Logged |
All times are ET | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a
|
1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums. 2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development). 3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post. |
|
copyright © 1993 - 2022
SM Publications
All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices |