The valuation of antique furniture these days tends to focus on original condition, thanks, mostly, to the rise of shows such as Antique Roadshow and to the rise of investment collections, that is antiques bought and sold because of their value rather than their personal appeal.  If it isn’t ‘original’ and/or in ‘like new’ condition, a piece of furniture is substantially devalued.  I could discuss the rather interesting psychological and economic drivers behind this preference for original purity, but I think it better to leave the philosophy aside.  Suffice it to say that it seems to be driven more by status concerns and less by personal preference.*

In any event, it was rather nice to be at a well-known house museum (Hill-stead) the other day, where I am training to be a docent, and to have a sane discussion of the history of furniture.  The furniture there is primarily in the Colonial or Colonial Revival styles, a fair amount of Sheraton and Chippendale influences; most of the furniture is from the nineteenth century but there are some fine 18th century French and late 17th century English as well.  What is strikingly different from today’s antique collectors is that the Pope family was quite happy to buy a late nineteenth century reproduction to match an original couch or chair of the style they wanted, to buy pieces that had been modified with added carvings and embellishments, to re-upholster pieces, and so forth.  In other words, while correct style and quality of workmanship were of paramount importance, ‘original’ was not important.   There is more than one piece of furniture there that has been modified, sometimes heavily, over the centuries, according to taste, needs of repair, or changing function.  This is to be expected when the items are, for lack of a better term, working items.  Today, of course, because the house is a museum the emphasis is now on preserving what the pieces looked like when the Pope family lived in the house.

The incredible mish-mash of furniture in Esperanza also reflects the concept of working furniture versus collected furniture; though, it lacks the same coherency of vision, since it was not put together by one person and only used for fifty years.  Much of the furniture in Esperanza, as in Hill-stead, has little value in and of itself, if valued on the antique investment market.  However, the pieces and the collection have great value as a descriptive picture of historical styles, tastes, and uses of furniture.  Unlike Hill-stead, they remain in use.  This tends to appall both the investment type and the museum curator type, as for both antique furniture is too precious to use.  It would however, make a great deal of sense to the majority of people before the late twentieth century.**   Does it mean that the monetary value of the furniture is reduced? Yes.  Does it mean the furniture is more fully appreciated and understood? Yes. 

*I might also suggest strains of idol worship, ancestor worship, poor self-esteem, and elitism; in a more charitable mood I might suggest a strict adherence to the rational definitions of historical accuracy.

*Of course, one does have to have a little bit of common sense: throwing oneself into a chair, eating on a couch, or putting shoes up on a piece of furniture is verboten, as is picking a piece up the wrong way and so forth.