Everybody wants to be Herter

Hi folks,

In looking at the furniture e-Bay "finds" so nicely posted for our perusal on the forum, I noticed at least two claiming Herter Bros. provenance. Just as it seems "Tiffany" became a generic term used and abused for almost any old leaded and stained glass lampshade, so too is "Herter" being labeled for almost any ornate late 19th century piece of furniture. Example one is this highly marquetry inlaid table: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270629123052
To my eyes, it could not possibly be a Herter item although it certainly could be an Alexander Roux or Pottier & Stymus piece. I've studied Herter pieces for years and most of their pieces have a certain character and flair this otherwise fine piece does not have.  What do you think? The Great American Auction in Poughkeepsie, NY, has gone retail in some of their recent transactions and have this Moorish flavored table from c. 1885-1895: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170525023850 Once again, they are pasting on a "Herter" attribution, but based on what evidence? The fact that it is somewhat exotic? While there's an outside chance it could be a late Herter piece (the once legendary firm steeply declined in the late 1880's and during the 1890's was living off of it's past reputation.) it is far more likely to be from any of a dozen mid to upper range makers during this period. As for the listing price, in this sluggish economy I wish them good luck. They seem to get the occasional Orientalist-Moorish antique furniture piece, must have been popular in the upper Hudson Valley at one time. John

John:

If only everyone on E-Bay were as thoughtful and well informed as you are!  I've often wondered about the Great American Auction. Their prices are great, but the information is always sketchy if not downright questionable. They've got an amazing etagere they attribute to Roux - and maybe they're right - but on what evidence?

I fear that the big names - Tiffanny, Belter, Herter - will always be thrown around when there's money to be made and gray areas to exploit. Due in part to your input, I've decided to call my Jelliff-like armchair "in the manner of Jelliff" and have done with it. Good enough, I say.

And yes, that inlaid table is a beauty, no matter who made it.

I agree.  There were at least 4 Herter pieces (4 Herter pieces in one sale, what luck?) in the last Great American auction, including a pair of chairs that they gave a pre-auction estimate of $600-$1,200.  Now tell me.  If anyone truly thought that they had a pair of Herter Brothers chairs, would they estimate them to go for $300 - $600 apiece?  The answer is no.  And as far as I can see from the promotional ads, they aren't even listed as "attributed to".

My opinion is that it is inappropriate to put unqualified (ie. without "attributed","manner of") names on pieces unless you are going to mention your basis for your unqualified assignment to a particular maker.  The sheer quantity of items from a top-tier maker such as Herter Brothers that show up simultaneously at each sale should tip everyone off that the unqualified assignments are being overused and therefore all should be suspect.

A recap from my attribution post:

No attribution qualifier: Using no attribution qualifier indicates that the repository and most or all scholars believe that the attribution to the named artist is certain.

attributed to: Use to express minor to moderate uncertainty  regarding the attribution to a known artist, architect, or corporate body, as when the work’s provenance, style, or physical characteristics strongly suggest a given creator, but the attribution cannot be validated with absolute certainty (e.g., attributed to Frans Hals (Dutch painter, ca. 1581-1666)).

probably by: Use to express minor uncertainty regarding the attribution, generally indicating a slightly stronger probability than attributed to.

possibly by: Use to express significant uncertainty regarding attribution, indicating notably greater uncertainty than attributed to.

Excellent list of ID qualifications! While Colonial era furniture identification has become such an exact science that even obscure local and regional makers are well documented and easily attributed, (At least they seem to be in the Antiques Roadshow and Magazine ANTIQUES) that is certainly not the case with Victorian era furniture and furnishings. Their once gilded reputation was badly tarnished during the 20th century when nearly everything Victorian was considered a lapse of good taste according to contemporary critics. Accordingly, few if any scholars kept up with the origins of many otherwise finely made Victorian pieces. That is precisely why Rare Victorian Forum is so important because it helps to illuminate this still evolving area of study. I've certainly learned a lot in the time I've spent here and I think others would concur similarly. I look forward to the day when "Herter" pieces truly are Herter and not one of many possible others. I think collectively we are making a little progress one message posting at a time  ;)

"I think collectively we are making a little progress one message posting at a time."

Quite so. ;)