Attribution Stretch

There are so many of these, I think that I could start up a whole board about them - situations where people are stretching an attribution a bit too far (sometimes way too far).  I'm tempted to start a whole section on it.

here's a Pottier & Stymus attribution that is loose to say the least.  Here's the basis of the attribution as far as I can see: "Has Egyptian = P&S"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ANTIQUE-EGYPTIAN-REVIVAL-POTTIER-STYMUS-CABINET-RARE_W0QQitemZ330209795625QQihZ014QQcategoryZ63563QQtcZphotoQQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

It's even a "Rare" P&S for $1,900.

I agree.  I have seen things attr. to Belter on Ebay that were not even close!  The things people will put in their adds to gain attention can be totally ridiculous at times!

I have to fess up that I write these sellers sometimes and question their source for attribution.  I do it less for my own satisfaction and more because I greatly dislike the propagation of incorrect information and profiting from it when the seller knows it's sketchy.  Especially when you see a $200 "Belter" chair - the seller clearly knows it isn't Belter or they wouldn't price it that way.  I hate to think of the buyers that purchase these items based on the seller's shady description.  The problem is then compounded when the buyer shows their chair to 20 friends over the years as a "Belter" chair, further propagating hogwash.  I guess I picture the cabinetmakers turning in their graves and I'm trying to curtail the damage.  I think the Merklens' graves are some of the most restless ...

My "favorite" current popular attribution stretch is  'India Rubber Comb Co. casters' = 'Herter Brothers' (although that is probably an improvement over the days immediately after the big Herter exhibit when pretty much anything with an ebonized finish was marketed with a Herter attribution).

There is a guy in New Jersey that has been trying to pass off a side chair as having been made by John Jelliff for a couple of years now for a price that would be excessive even if the chair was genuine.  I told him the chair was not by Jelliff and about a year later he finally ammended the description to some degree, but still did not change the title.  Appearently no one has taken the bait thus far as he still has the same chair for sale.

http://njhouseholdgoods.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=377617

The supposed P & S piece that John pointed out above looks to my eye to be 20th century,  probably post 1930.  That (broken) mirror was certainly not silvered in the 19th, as it employs a more modern silvering technique.  Mirrors of course can be replaced, but there is nothing on this piece that says 19th century to me.

Michael

A very good topic.  Would anyone care to comment on this Horner attribution?
http://www.oldworldantiques.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=1513&category_id=6eb2d440c5d83893b54d18b3c39915d0&keyword=&#
thanks ???

Michael - that is quite the hideous chair.  I'd be happy with whatever I could sell it for at auction.  I'd drop dead if I could sell such a thing for $1,200.

Scotchie1 - I'm no Horner expert (not even in passing), but that dining room looks like Horner to me. 

Thank you,

Jason

I believe the chair to be 1890s/1900 time period - out of the core Jelliff time period since Henry Miller who ran the Jelliff shop from 1860s to 1890 retired then.  Jelliff's shop didn't use Mahogany hardly ever and primarily used Rosewood and Walnut save for a stray hall chair during the 1850s era.  Looks more Karpen than Jelliff.  Another one of these attributions: "carved face = Jelliff".