FOR SALE / Wright 20

RJH · Post by **RJH** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:10 pm

Here is another:

http://www2.wright20.com:8080/4DCGI/Web ... s/EYNX/217

http://www2.wright20.com:8080/4DCGI/Web ... s/EYNX/216

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:45 pm

How lovely that this hip photographer has a Frank Lloyd Wright table for sale, and even more charming is the profit that she'll make from the sale................

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:33 pm

It is clearly a case of one fine art not supporting another fine art.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:39 pm

Hey, hang on -- she may have owned and enjoyed the table for a time -- records might show how long -- and has decided to share it with someone else now. Right ?

SDR

dtc · Post by **dtc** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:00 am

Actually this table has everything to do with provenance and pedigree. Designed by the master with I'm sure documented history. And because it is a good looking well proportioned table that would fit in numerous interiors does not hurt.

Also a small price to pay for a piece of history---and bragging rights.

Lets see what it will fetch.

DTC

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:22 am

Provenance? Hmm, how would that read - "this table was taken from a FLW home by an owner that should have left it there, because it is an integral part of the design of the house, but was selfish and kept it?" Or maybe "this table was sold by an unscrupulous owner for a quick buck?" Or better yet, "Christies (or Sotheby's) contacted the owner and asked if they had any furniture they would like to sell at an upcoming auction. It was sold to a hip photographer, and now she's selling the table for a huge profit?" How are any of these scenarios justified? It seems that if a building is no longer standing, or if it was mass produced, then the contents are fair game for the auction houses, but in this case I find it difficult to justify.

Reidy · Post by **Reidy** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:54 pm

Provenance indeed! Ardmore is in Pennsylvania and Bartlesville in Oklahoma. Wright never built anything in Rhode Island. Even Irving Gill knew this in his infamously inaccurate Many Wigs.

dtc · Post by **dtc** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:59 am

Or..."this table is too dark, with numerous scratches, dings, discolorations and if that was not enough, it is also not stable."

Or... "to small for a dinning table, the one I own seats 10."

Or..."a library table? I read everything off the monitor."

I'm not condoning her actions of selling this at auction. But it is what it is.
She will profit from the sale like most consignors do, selling their goods to the highest bidder.

dtc

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:22 am

The horror to me is the splitting up of a set of furniture -- eight matching dining chairs, each in a different place so that eight owners (museums, individuals) can claim a bit of the magic -- or whatever. How sad.

Better that responsible and documented copies be distributed, while the originals remain in situ. But I'm preaching to the choir. . .

Entropy is the law of nature, I guess: we pile up the bricks, and gravity and time reduce the pile to rubble.

SDR

RJH · Post by **RJH** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:23 pm

Wow!

Sold For: US $16,000.00

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:13 pm

RJH wrote:Wow!

Sold For: US $16,000.00

I believe it was actually $19,200.

"Frankly", even if I had the means, I can't imagine shelling out that kind of money for Wright pieces similar to this. The quality of the later furniture varied greatly, and just being from a Wright house would not necessarily make it desirable to me.

I tend to draw a line between the plywood/cypress/almost cobbled together quality of some pieces, and the exquisite and artisan assembled earlier furniture. Sad there is this kind of value considered for them which prevents them from remaining in situ.

That applies to all Wright pieces of course, but if money was no object and they became available, who would not want one of the Dana table lamps or a Martin barrel chair? It is understandable such definable pieces of art deservedly fetch the prices collectors are willing to pay. Of course, I would promptly put them back where they belong!

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:04 pm

In auctions today, there is often both a seller's premium and a buyer's premium paid to the house. So, an item with a winning bid of $16,000 might net the seller only $14,000 while the buyer would pay $18,000 (my figures are imaginary examples only). At least this is how I understand it. . .

SDR

jlesshafft · Post by **jlesshafft** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:15 pm

Usually 20% buyers premium, so gavel price $16k, +20% = $19.2k