Victorian Homes Magazine Attribution Mistake
Archive summary
Antique Furniture Attributions thread on victorianforum.com · started November 26, 2008 by rarevictorian · 8 posts · discussion in 2008.
Did anyone happen to see the attribution mistake in this month's (Feb '09) issue of Victorian Homes magazine? I won't give it away yet in case someone wants to spot it themselves...
Did anyone happen to see the attribution mistake in this month's (Feb '09) issue of Victorian Homes magazine? I won't give it away yet in case someone wants to spot it themselves...
Quote from: Rare Victorian
Did anyone happen to see the attribution mistake in this month's (Feb '09) issue of Victorian Homes magazine? I won't give it away yet in case someone wants to spot it themselves...
What I know about antebellum furniture could be writ on the head of a pin, but isn't the parlor suite on pages 40 + 41 Meeks (not Belter, as per the text), either the "Henry Ford" or "Stanton Hall" pattern? ???
Haha! You found it!
Quote from: Rare Victorian
Haha! You found it!
Huzzah for me! ;D (And a moment of silence for accurate reportage. :( )
I wonder if the mis-information came from the museum house in the article, or if it was an error on the part of the writer?
One guess is that it is an old attribution. It seems that the house was refurnished around 1969 and much of Meeks' fine Rococo furniture was attributed to Belter (by almost everyone) prior to, say, the 70s or 80's. I have reference books from decades ago that put a Belter name on this style of Meeks items.
Like a dusty book on a shelf, the old attribution probably hasn't been revisited recently and was simply conveyed to the writer.
However, there are true Belters in the house, seen on page 34, which could have planted a seed during the reporter's interviews that ended up covering all the parlor furniture by the time the story was written. It could have been a miscommunication or an omission. I'm sure they were more concerned with getting the details on the house captured than every detail of history on every piece of furniture.
Unfortunately the attribution may have been recounted on every tour of the room for decades, with countless hundreds of visitors taking the visions of the "Belter" chairs home with them.
Like a dusty book on a shelf, the old attribution probably hasn't been revisited recently and was simply conveyed to the writer.
However, there are true Belters in the house, seen on page 34, which could have planted a seed during the reporter's interviews that ended up covering all the parlor furniture by the time the story was written. It could have been a miscommunication or an omission. I'm sure they were more concerned with getting the details on the house captured than every detail of history on every piece of furniture.
Unfortunately the attribution may have been recounted on every tour of the room for decades, with countless hundreds of visitors taking the visions of the "Belter" chairs home with them.
Quote from: Rare Victorian
Unfortunately the attribution may have been recounted on every tour of the room for decades, with countless hundreds of visitors taking the visions of the "Belter" chairs home with them.
Don't worry! I've toured the Morris-Butler House and don't recall the interpretive focus being on the furnishings. (And that's typical of house museums, no matter what the period...)
Well, to attribute in error because later research reveals new facts is an honest mistake, to attribute when one knows the attribution is false is a whole other thang, i call it fraud.
Yes, in this case, I think we know it's a mistake, most likely.
James, It's another thing when you use the following reason: "only reason I attributed it to xxx [maker] is that is what the public knows" as you and I recently were exposed to...
James, It's another thing when you use the following reason: "only reason I attributed it to xxx [maker] is that is what the public knows" as you and I recently were exposed to...