Post #76126 by boutiki on Sat, Feb 14, 2004 2:21 PM

On 2004-02-14 02:40, smogbreather wrote:
from a collecting perspective, reproductions nearly always drive up the value of all vintage articles - it's a matter of increased awareness.
h

I think that is true in the short term, but it seems that over time if something is reproduced it significantly devalues the original vintage item. One of our other passions is vintage mid-century modern furniture and design. In the mid to late 90s prices on Eames' and others' designs were sky high. Then came the flood of reproductions. All the folks who wanted the "look" but were not concerned if the piece was made by the original manufacturer, or if it was old at all, bought reproduction. That significantly deflated prices for the original. Simple supply and demand dictates that if there is little of a desirable item that will put pressure on the price. So if everyone who likes the design of, say, an Eames rocker can buy one at Modernica for under $500 why would they want to pay $1500 for one (even if it is vintage)? What you have left is a much smaller market of "purists" (read: kooks like us) who care if their chair is original production (or early, middle, or late original production). Same with a Suffering Bastard mug. If someone doesn't have one, and a vintage example is bringing over $100 but they can get a repro for $15 which do you think they are going to buy? Now, if the vintage and the repro were the same price I guess most people would choose the vintage. But when you think about it, except for the name on the bottom, it's essentially the same mug. Just as the vintage and the repro Eames rocker is materially the same.

Before iconic furniture and mugs were being reproduced, you would see something in someone's collection and say, "Wow! You have a Suffering Bastard, or a Van Kepple and Green chaise?!?!" Now, thanks to quality reproductions, it is hard to tell if they have the real McCoy or a current production piece. Not that it matters to many people. You'd have to even know what a Suffering Bastard was to even care, let alone be impressed.

Of course, I am one of those kooks who concerns themselves with the patina of oxidation on the metal or the mellow tone of old wood, or the subtle differences in detail and glaze and markings on old Tiki mugs, but I'm kinda' weird that way. I'm also a real spendthrift and don't want to fight other collectors on ebay and pay the big money. I'd rather be the nut who is at a flea market at the crack of dawn or first in line at an estate sale and find primo vintage Tiki and modern at bargain basement prices (it's also more satisfying that way to me also). I also don't think that these objects we worship are really worth the kind of money that some people pay. Hundreds of dollars for Tiki mugs? Thousands, or tens of thousands for vintage modern furniture? When you think about what good that money could do for someone who has nothing, it's kinda' sick. Much of modern design was intended to be mass produced, and while well designed, affordable for the masses. Tiki mugs were basically restaurantware with flair, intended to add a little more "exotic" to your experience– and if they were the "take home" variety, to function as an advertising premium. None of this was created as artwork or collectables; those are values we have assigned to them. But least I sound preachy, I say do what you want with your money, buy what you want, but buy what you love and try to keep it in perspective. I mean, we are all hoarding what others have at one time discarded.

Just thought I'd share my perspective since I've thought a great deal about this as it is relevant to two of the things we actively collect.

-Duke