I had an eye opener when recently reading a column in Antique Week (Jan. 14, 2008) written by Harry Rinker on appraisals. Mr. Rinker says there are three appraisal values. One, the traditional and familiar one, is collector value. What you’ll pay to own an example you don’t already own. That is what probably the standard the majority on this e-mail list use to price a piece of Carder Steuben.
Another valuation is reuse value. That is becoming more common for many items. Not for
collectible purposes, but utilitarian purposes. Buying a used dining room table that has good aesthetics and worthy of owning, but the dominant reason to own it may be that you can acquire it cheaper than going to the furniture store to buy a new table.
Finally, (the eye opener) is decorator value. Mr. Rinker states that this value has replaced
collector value as “primary valuation for the vast majority of objects sold in the secondary antiques and collectibles trade.” This hit home with me as I’m trying to sort out what trends are going on in the antique business, in general, and particularly as it applies to Carder Steuben.
Many collectors I’ve heard from over time are revolted by the idea that a few dealers are selling and marketing to the decorator trade rather than the traditional collector trade. However, Mr. Rinker’s article on appraising touched a chord of reality.
While the number of Carder dealers is limited, some have moved towards this latter category. A result of this has been the controversial approach of selling “Vintage” Steuben, and then at prices considerably more than the usual and customary pricing collectors have historically seen. All this makes me ponder a few thoughts.
If Carder Steuben appeals to the decorator trade, does this tell us that there is a recognition by this trade that Mr. Carder is one of the great American decorative artists?
While collectors lament that people are buying a vase solely to fit on their mantle because they like how it looks, or the color fits into the homes color palette and only to brag they own a piece of Steuben, but don’t collect beyond that or know anything about it, is it such a bad thing? That is collecting a piece for the mantle because it is pretty, unlike the traditional collector that collects a number of pieces because they are Steuben, studies the techniques of making Steuben, the history of Mr. Carder, where he was born and how he fits into the history of glass, the variety of shapes and colors and techniques Mr. Carder created, is that wrong and regrettable?
Consider that the decorative trade while perhaps being looked down upon by the traditional
collector are doing and buying not that much unlike those who bought Steuben production pieces in the 20s. That is the original sales motif was to come up with designs that would appeal to the decorator styles and likes of the individuals or decorators who were furnishing their 1920s homes. Is this new decorator purpose market similar to the original market that Mr. Carder designed for and market to? Those 1920s purchasers weren’t collectors.
Mr. Rinker suggests–no states as an appraiser–that the highest and prevalent value of antiques today is decorator value; not, antique value. That’s reality.
What is interesting in today’s market as I walk the floor of antique shows I see fewer and fewer pieces of Carder’s Steuben available. Yet, at the same time I hear the traditional collector and antique dealer crying about some of the disappearing antiques business–where are the younger people they question. No more or few new collectors, smaller inventory–so where is it all disappearing to? Maybe Mr. Rinker has pointed out a truism of our changing world. Maybe those who understand the trends see history repeating itself. To me, lots to think about

Jo Ann Godawa hardily challenges the core principle of Mr. Rinker’s article on stating the prevalent means of appraising today is decorator value, and says:

“Mr. Rinker suggests–no states as an appraiser–that the highest and prevalent value of antiques today is decorator value; not, antique value. That’s reality.”
No, that’s poppycock! You just try telling an insurance company that the value of a vase is measured by how nice it looks on Mrs. Jones’ Mantle!
The appraisal value of an antique is measured by the price that someone is willing to pay for it, much like the stock market. It is an antique, in the first place, because of the age. While I do agree that there are three levels of appraisals, the retail value, the wholesale value and the replacement value, I cannot even imagine the decorative value being factored into this equation as to worth. Just my two cents

Then, the counterpoint, first from Gerry Eggert:
I agree with Mr. Rinker. For a good example of a “decorator” shop, not 15 miles west of Corning, see Mike Watts’ Antique Revival’s web site. www.antiquerevival.com.
We know Carder designed for the “decorator” market by Steuben’s advertising at the time. I did donate an ad from “Cosmopolitan Ladies Magazine” to the Library years ago. Clearly the “decorator” market at the time–1926 or so.

Then finally we hear from Dick Stark:
….interesting………..that has indeed been the case as in Tiffany lamps for the fashionable well-to-do and utilitarian or sculptural forms for decor or use…..I have also seen isolated Webb examples in the homes of the super rich old line as well.