Breaking up a set
I bought a set of five David Rowland Sof-Tech chairs that he did for Thonet around 1979. I'm going to resell them. My question is, do I break up the set and sell them by the piece or keep them together?
When selling traditional antiques, the rule of thumb is never, never, never break up a set but that doesn't seem to be the case so much with MCM. In fact, there seems to be a preference in this genre for owning just one of a piece. Am I incorrect? The only time it appears to be desireable to keep a set intact is for pairs of lounge chairs or sets of dining chairs.
I'm planning to sell them by the piece, unless you all come storming back at me to tell me I am an idiot. My chairs look just like this one, except the webbing on mine is blue.
Depends on the buyer's goal
If it is to be included as part of a collection or just for display, the buyer would probably just want one. But if the chairs are to be actually used (e.g. for dining), then a set would be desirable.
Five's a set
if you've a round table that'll only accommodate five.
I've heard that Westerners think of sets as even numbers, whereas the Japanese buy sets in odd numbers. Can anyone confirm or deny? I can't recall where or when I heard this, it may be hogwash...
I like the idea of selling...
I like the idea of selling just one and then a set of four. I have seen ebay auctions where the people are bidding on one, with the understanding that the rest would be available to them at the winning price (each).
I've heard the same William....
I've heard the same William. To my recollection, even numbered sets are considered bad luck, while odd numbered are good luck and harmonious. Whether that's the correct or is the whole story remains unresolved for us both.
When is a set not a set?
Y'all are cracking me up. Don't take the term so seriously. I use the word set to describe anything more than two. I will call it a group or ensemble or bevy or herd of chairs from now on.:)
WHC, I don't know if I'd call them dining chairs, either. They are really informal. Maybe for an eat-in kitchen or something. They would also look good in a teenage kid's room or maybe around a card table in a rec room.
Even numbers are unlucky
In Japan, when you give wedding gifts, such as cups, dishes, etc, you always give sets that cannot be divided evenly, as an even number of items is considered bad luck (increasing the possibility that the couple will split up). I have never heard of this rule being extended to dining sets (which generally are not purchased as gifts).
I imagine there are plenty of families that do what I did when I lived there...sat at the kotatsu in a vain attempt to keep warm while eating. No chairs, just zabuton (big pillows for sitting on).
Selling a single dining chair can be difficult. I've had some really nice single chairs that wouldn't move because nobody had the set they wanted to fill in. If you sell all 5, you'll probably have better luck.
fm
posted by Fungus Mungus
edited on 24-Sep-08 07:44 PM [edit]
30-Sep-08
The rule of thumb
Riki,
The "rule of thumb" in business is always, I repeat always, sell for the highest possible profit margin possible. The method that puts the most money in your pocket is right. Who cares what purist think, they are almost always have nots dictating to the haves. Let them be pure and poor!
I understand the rule of thumb is businesses exist to make money.
but is there ever space in the equation to perhaps do more then is expected. Or make a little less to enhance a business' reputation and allow the generated good will to sow the seeds of more business.
Short story: There are about 35 houses on my street, 30 of which are serviced by three separate landscape companies.
One of the 5 homeowners in the cut-it-themselves camp moved and left the house in care of a realtor to sell it. The realtor never had the grass cut.
Two of the landscapers tended the properties on either side of the uncut grass property and both of their respective clients asked each of their landscapers if they might just knock down the tall grass as a favor.
They didn't want it done every week, perhaps once in 7 or 8 weeks. Both landscapers attitudes were, and I'm quoting here: "You gonna pay me? I ain't cutt'in no grass unless I get paid."
The third landscaper who cut the grass across the street from this house ran his mower across the street and in about 6 minutes knocked down the grass when it was really starting to look unsightly. No one asked him to do this, he took it upon himself so that the whole street would look nice.
Word got out amongst the neighbors as to what he had done. Can you guess who now cuts 27 of the 30 lawns on my street. This 3rd guy went from 9 accounts to 27.
Sometimes there's profit, and sometimes there's purity, but oftentimes a little bit of integrity and doing a bit more than is expected can lead to a lot more profit. At least that's been my experience.
I enjoyed your lawn-mowing story, BTM
but the moral of the tale isn't really applicable to the supposed "ethical dilemma" of breaking up a set.
The third landscaper showed benevolence toward the neighborhood through his uncompensated act, he was rewarded with additional business as a result. Perhaps the landscaper did it without motive because he just hates unsightly grass... perhaps he did it because he foresaw the result.
In the case of a seller who nobly (?) refuses to break up a set of chairs-- who's the recipient of this "benevolent" act?
If there is indeed a market for "onesie" dining chairs, it's proof that people want or need them. Is that not "good business"-- fulfilling a need? Would the world be a better place if vintage dining chairs could only be purchased in increments of four, or whatever arbitrary number comprises a "set"?
posted by william-holden-caulfield
edited on 01-Oct-08 12:26 AM [edit]
30-Sep-08
Part benevolence, part sales tactic
The rule of thumb for older antiques, 19th century and older, is to keep a matching group of chairs together and the reason is both monetary and being a responsible steward of your trade.
First, the money. It's been my experience that I can sell a group of chairs for the same or more than the sum of the sale of the individual chairs. The more chairs there are, the higher the differential becomes between the sale price of the group and the sale price of sum of the individuals. Groups of four and six are still quite prevalent of 19th century chairs and the dealer probably won't realize any more money selling them together than by the piece. Groups of 8 and 10 are more rare and command a higher dollar just because they are a matching set so the differtial goes up. The ultimate coupe is to pick up a set of 12 or higher and now we're talking 1stdibs prices.
Secondly, and to me, more importantly, is what I feel to be an obligation as a person who respects and deals in antiques to keep pairs and groups of matching furniture together. They were made by the same craftsman in the same shop and have managed to survive as a group for over 100 years and I'm not going to be the one to separate them. I'm only talking about obvious matching pieces here, i.e. dining chairs, pairs of twin beds and nightstands, pairs of candleabras, sconces, bachelor's chests, etc.
I do separate big case pieces that go together but are for different purposes like a sideboard and a matching huntboard or armoire, because they are not exact pairs. I don't know why I feel differently about these pieces, but there you have it.
My original question was to ascertain if there is a different mindset between older antiques and MCM pieces. Someone above already pointed out that MCM items were factory made and made in greater numbers than older things which was a great point.
WHC, I wasn't responding directly to the set break-up issue
but rather the issue of purity, integrity and perhaps greater gain in the future where a poster stated as an "absolute rule of thumb", do whatever to make $$$'s.
Yes a person can do anything they want with their chairs, sell em one by one, break them up and part them out, but as Riki said, sometimes the integrity of a set can be more desirable and ultimately more valuable.
Personally, I once had been alerted to a set of two side tables for either side of the bed, they would have been perfect. Before I could get to the shop, the woman had sold one, needless to say I wasn't interested in a "set" of one, and apparently no one else was, as the single table languished in the shop for years afterward. These tables, I might add, were an obvious pair.
Of course a person can go for the "short money" sell two singles and then maybe hold the three for a long time. I like the solution up thread, sell a single and a set of 4
i appreciate the views and values in this thread. i also like the critical thinking in dealing with the inherent tension of a decision such as this.
riki, i admire the value represented in your point of being a "responsible steward" of your trade [or object of interest]. when one begins to speak in those types of terms within a culture that is so driven and dictated by the dollar [or euro, krone, rupee, etc.], the possible responses will often include those who look at you as though you claim to have been abducted by aliens.
thankfully, that's not been the norm here, though there is a strong case legitimately made for the strategy which will yield the most desirable [viz., biggest] financial profit. indeed, there's nothing "wrong" with realizing one's full economic potential.
nonetheless, i do agree with the notion that there are sound, time-honored reasons to live on a plane which is--dare i say--"higher" than what is represented by the haul of coin i'm able to enjoy with a given transaction. and despite what anyone might say to the contrary, i do believe an overwhelming majority of us live that way to an extent.
as an extreme example, let's say an individual chair can fetch 100 quid. to move in the opposite direction of a set, imagine we could get 75 quid for half a chair. perhaps some who were previously fine with separating the set are now not so keen on getting out the hack saw to realize a greater profit. why? because there's this notion of a greater good--something more important than money. imagine that.
in my understanding, it's not an ethical choice, nor a moral one, but rather an aesthetic and even spiritual compulsion which leads one to resist what appears to be personally rewarding in order to make room for a greater good--whatever that "good" happens to be. this, i believe, is the stuff of a civilized society--an ascent toward higher living, a pursuit of virtue, and in so doing a dethroning of self.
i'm reminded of g.k. chesterton who wrote [pardon the paraphrase], "a person has begun to understand the idea of eternity when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will never sit."
Agreed Kdc
although in reference to your Chesterton quote and I'm absolutely being light here. My grandfather actually planted apple trees on his 80th birthday from seeds, with the intent of making pies. He did make pies from those trees as he lived another 22 years.
But yes, sometimes the higher ideal is what makes us more of a civilized society, appealing to our better angels if you will.
In my heart, I just can't believe that it should always be about the dollar, perhaps a bit naive but it has always stood me in good stead. I acted as such in my business career and was able to retire at 40, so I personally know it works.
great story of your grandfather; he was obviously an amazing man. too many at even a younger age run out of ambition and sink deeply into the easy chair. what a legacy.
this whole deal is not altogether different from the values we hold in our efforts to preserve our earth's resources and leave a better place for those who will carry on after we move on. we've had discussions here that reflect our willingness to make personal sacrifices for the betterment of our planet. granted, selling chairs and maintaining clean waterways are miles apart in their relative importance, but the manner in which we arrive at our decisions has striking similarities.
finally, i'm now envious of your retirement at such a young age. i've personally given up on a quest to retire by age forty since i'm just a short hike away from fifty. but then, i'm now working on my second million, mainly because my first million didn't work out! but to high-five your point, the getting is secondary to the manner of getting.
