Rinker on Collectibles

RINKER ON COLLECTIBLES — Column #1590

When Is an Antique or Collectible "Too Valuable To Use"?

When an antique or collectibles becomes “too valuable to use,” its future enters The Twilight Zone. [Author’s Note: If the reference is not understood, Google “The Twilight Zone.”] The best examples find their way into museums. However, there are limits to what museums can preserve. When this option is not available, some remaining choices are bleak.

For ordinary and above average material, “too valuable to use” is often the kiss of death. Owners limit these items to display or pack them away, either choice driven by the fear of damaging the item(s) or loss. Collecting is memory driven. Do not touch display memories are the opposite of enjoy and handle memories.

An email from Cathy Repp of Pottsville, Pennsylvania, described two Gilman Collamore oval platters she owned. The smaller one measured 14 1/2 inches by 11 1/2 inches and the other 19 inches by 15 inches. Cathy did not indicate how she acquired them. Cathy is in the catering business. During an event when she used the platters to hold sandwiches, a participant informed her the plates “are valuable.” Cathy asked if she should continue to use them.

My first thought was to tell Cathy to keep using the platters. I am a fan of using rather than worshiping antiques and collectibles. I hesitated because of the catering connection. Individuals attending catering events do not always show the same respect to catering serving pieces as they do to those they own. Using them in a catering situation increases the probability that they will be damaged or broken.

It was not until Cathy’s question that I realized that subconsciously I had a fear of breakage index that I take into consideration when handling my own antiques and collectibles. The index measures the degree to which I was willing to put the objects at risk. The higher the breakage index risk, the less I handled them.

[Author’s Aside: I was taught to respect objects by my parents. Replacing or repairing an object diverted funds designated for use elsewhere. It also destroyed the memories associated with that object. During my time in the museum profession, I worked closely with staff and volunteers to ensure objects were handled safely. I lost the battle more than I won it. Although I experienced many horror stories of mishandling and damage, I will recount only one. During my tenure as Executive Director of The Historical Society of York County [PA], volunteer members of the Museum Committee decided to decorate for Halloween. Elaborately carved pumpkins were placed throughout the museum. One was placed in the center of a prized eighteenth-century table that retained its period finish. When the decorations were removed a month later, a Museum Committee volunteer discovered that the pumpkin bottom had rotted and destroyed the eighteenth-century finish beyond repair.]

Since I was unfamiliar with Gilman Collamore, I decided to research the firm, availability, and cost of replacing one or both of Cathy’s platters should they become chipped, cracked, or broken. Davis Collamore & Company, based in New York, was an importer of high-end glass and porcelain in the early and mid-nineteenth century. Black, Starr & Frost and Tiffany were Collamore’s rivals. Specially commissioned pieces were made by Copeland Spode, Haviland, Thomas Minton Sons, Royal Worcester, and Villeroy & Boch. The firm represented Rookwood Pottery at the 1889 Paris Exposition.

Gilman Collamore (1834-1881) worked for seven years for his brother Davis before he broke away and started his own import business in 1861. The firm remained in business through the 1920s. Gillman Collamore porcelain dinnerware appears regularly for sale on eBay. Replacements, Ltd. offers 20 different patterns.

My research failed to discover any exact match for the pattern of Cathy’s platters. Thus, if one of Cathy’s platters is damaged or broken, the difficulty of easily finding an exact match replacement is minimal, if not impossible. The cost for a comparable (similar) Gillman Collamore platter from the same time period starts at $75.00 and rises from there. The conclusion is that if one of Cathy’s platters is damaged or broken, it is a landfill candidate.

At this point, logic suggests I inform Cathy that given the risks involved, her platters are “too valuable to use.” If I tell her this, what do I suggest she does with the platters? As noted earlier, Cathy did not indicate these were family pieces, thus having little to no emotional and sentimental value. The platters could be used for holiday and formal family dinners, assuming Cathy has this type of lifestyle.

To use or not to use, that is the dilemma. Cathy can find less expensive and more durable serving platters at any catering supply house. Countering this approach is the touch of class and elegance Cathy adds to her catering business by using her platters. After careful consideration, my advice is simple. Cathy should continue to use them provided, of course, she accepts the risk of damage and/or breakage and, if this happens, it will not break her heart.

Setting Cathy’s specific question aside, the general question remains. Is there a situation where an antique or collectibles is too valuable to use? The easiest approach is to hide behind the concept that the present owner is the person who decides. Accepting this concept means the owner has the right to preserve an object as well as the right to destroy it.

In previous columns, I wrote about museum quality objects. This means that objects deserve the same care they would receive if they were in a museum’s collection. Another means of understanding this concept is that these are objects that museums would be happy to add to their collections if the present owner would donate them. I am not implying that the only place for such objects is a museum. Serious collectors own multiple museum quality objects as part of their collections and often love and care for them better than museums.

My concern with this approach is that it encourages the worshipping of objects, an approach I do not endorse. Allowing others to handle objects on display is not use. Use means using an object for the purpose for which it was initially made.

My encouragement of use is based on the concept of managed use. Learn to use objects in such a way that the potential for damage or breakage is minimized. Linda’s Fostoria Navarre stemware now is at our Altamonte Springs condo. We plan to use it on our dining room table when we entertain. We will not be using it for events on the sun porch (lanai room). The sun porch has tile floors. If a glass is dropped there, it will break. Linda and I understand the glassware will have to be washed by hand. [Hint: put a towel in the bottom of sink while washing and rinsing to reduce the chances of chipping or breaking the glassware.]

Replacement cost is always in the back of my mind when using any antique or collectible. Like any collector, I am far less willing to use/handle my hard to replace objects. Less willing does not mean I never use them. I do.

Pets, children, grandchildren, and cleaning personnel are among the biggest threats to antiques and collectibles. As I grow older, I continue to be surprised as to how tolerant I have become to damage and breakage. Although I argue that objects have souls and are equivalent to living, breathing entities, I begrudgingly admit there are times when I must accept that things are only things.

The old argument that family things are too valuable to use is no longer valid in the twenty-first century. Chances are that the only person who cares is the owner. Based on current market trends, siblings, children, and grandchildren most likely do not.

Are there antiques and collectibles too valuable to use? The answer is no. This concept is a primary reason behind the continuing decline of collecting. It is time to tout using and enjoying the goodies. If some get destroyed along the way, so be it. The risk is worth it.

Harry L. Rinker welcomes questions from readers about collectibles, those mass-produced items from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Selected letters will be answered in this column. Harry cannot provide personal answers. Photos and other material submitted cannot be returned. Send your questions to: Rinker on Collectibles, 5955 Mill Point Court SE, Kentwood, MI 49512. You also can e-mail your questions to harrylrinker@aol.com. Only e-mails containing a full name and mailing address will be considered.

You can listen and participate in WHATCHA GOT?, Harry’s antiques and collectibles radio call-in show, on Sunday mornings between 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM Eastern Time. If you cannot find it on a station in your area, WHATCHA GOT? streams live on the Internet at www.gcnlive.com.

back to columns page