Furnishing:House value ratio

[Geoffrey]

Me too - this time we're determined to stay - also know how Nemesis feels. It's a bit like painting the Forth Bridge I guess.
As to interiors and paintings etc. go with what makes you (and of course your wife) happy. I know of people who have spent over £100,000 on their kitchens and the only thing I am sure of is that when they move, the new owners will likely rip it all out and do something different.
Previously We've had quite traditional interiors - now we're going a bit more with a mix of antique and modern - I doubt it makes any difference to the value - and the nice thing about art is that it shouldn't lose too much value - mind you, that was what I always thought about antiques until I tried to sell some!

 

[Nemesis]

It strikes me that Nigel has a lovely house which would make an excellent subject to commission a painting... choose the artist with care and it isn't so expensive.

Then there are family portraits...


That may keep 'er indoors sweet about the expenditure! Have her portrait painted!


[Open Image]


http://www.therp.co.uk/default.asp


[Open Image]


This is a house in Ripon by John Sibson - but there are hundreds of artists able to paint in any style you could desire! Go outside London and I think you'd find it less expensive than you would at first think.

Pastels and watercolours (and acrylics) are less pricey than oils.


This is one of illustrator Eddie Tibbs' series of fun pictures of Corbridge, where he lives:

http://www.julietrogers.co.uk/illus_tibbs.html


[Open Image]


Outside London and big names the cost will be in the hundreds rather than thousands.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Hmmm.

This is raher more what I had in mind:

The woman in the picture is a first cousin about 16 times removed (Elizabeth Wriothesley - an "IT" girl of her day and much painted). It is for sale at a London gallery. Close up it is not quite as impressive as in the photo; it is from Lely's studio, not by the man himself. The gallery owner propped it up agaist an original Joshua Reynolds when he showed it to me and it rather suffered by comparison. Needless to say it is not in my price range, although I have since discovered large late 17thC canvases do come up at auction for much less.

 

[Nemesis]

Yes, I rather thought it would be what you had in mind. Possibly not great painting but very decorative.

The answer is - buy what pleases you, for whatever reason. If what you want is large decorative paintings then yes they can be had fairly cheaply. Or indeed there are those who will paint portraits of your family now in any style you choose.

My favourite picture is a small local scene (of a place now owned by the National Trust) which is not a great masterpiece, although it shows promise. I love it as it was done by a great uncle who painted it aged twelve. As with so many boys in the north, he left school at the age of twelve and started to work in the colliery. His artistic talent was recognised by the mine owner, who decided to pay for him to attend a school of art and design.

On his last day at the colliery, he was killed by a roof fall a few minutes from the end of the shift.

I have little doubt of course that had he survived he would have become cannon fodder in WWI.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I agree about buying pictures one likes, and this is the rule I normally apply. However when one has a room with a high ceiling and a large area of blank wall, having a picture of a certain size can make a big difference. Large pictures and small budgets dont sit easily together, so a compromise may well be needed between what works for the room, what one likes and what one can afford. This is the circle I am currently trying to square.

 

[Nemesis]

You could cheat...

http://www.healthandharmony.co.uk/item993.htm

 

[Nigel Watts]

Old portraits seem fairly cheap, especially if the painter is not famous and the sitter is ugly. An ugly relative might be tolerable, but I draw the line at ugly strangers.

 

[Nemesis]

You could cheat even more and have Mr and Mrs Watts substituted for Mr and Mrs Andrews.

Ugliness I cannot comment upon!


The problem is instant ancestors are I think sought after - pretty ladies go for a premium, warty and ugly and not too well painted I think may be cheap but I agree hard to live with.

But go outside London and I'm sure the right thing will turn up.

 

[Nemesis]

Another option of course is to fill that wall space with what is at times referred to in decorating mags as 'an eclectic mix'...

Prints, watercolours, drawings, architectural prints, etc etc...

http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/linleysambournehouse/tour/drawingroom/drawingview3.asp

 

[Nigel Watts]

I like that approach too - I have used it in my hall and dining room.

Here is the relative I found (3x great grandfather's sister in law):

The image was published in 1910 in a book on the history of that family (my mother's grandmother's). It had sold on e-bay in the US for about $1,000. I tracked down the buyer and bought it from him (he made a nice little profit on the deal). The picture is currently undergoing restoration, as is the frame. The painter was James Lonsdale according to a label the frame. This seems to be an early picture by him. He later became a court painter and is best known for having painted Wellington wearing a pair of his eponymous boots.

She is not exactly an oil painting (excuse the pun) and the picture is not valuable, but as I have been studying the history of that family I was very keen to acquire it. Her husband was from a newly rich wool merchant family in Rochdale and founded a bank in that town. He also had the dubious distinction, as a JP, of putting down a weaver's strike by calling out the militia. Fortunately it was not a rerun of Peterloo.

 

[Lynn]

You think that is an original frame? I have an old painting from our Norway line of relatives and it has a Victorian frame that was no doubt added later. I don't think the frame suits the subject...here's a few pics:

http://web.mac.com/chakoianfamily/iWeb/Site/Photos.html

[edit] when I looked at what I put on the web it seems I put up a picture before the cleaning and the close-up is after. I really was impressed by the difference after cleaning the soot off. She used to be sort of green and now is quite beautiful.

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.paulmitchell.co.uk/publications/research.html

http://www.countrybookshop.co.uk/books/index.phtml?whatfor=1858940362

http://www.lynnroberts.co.uk/

 

[Nigel Watts]

I think the frame probably is original, but it has been seriously ill treated, having been over painted with cheap gold paint. Interestingly, the name and dates of the sitter and the name of the artist have not been overpainted, but can be seen in a little area at the bottom with a small section of what is probably the original gilding.

The reasons for thinking it original are:

a. It conforms to a type of early 19th century frame in terms of its general shape and profile of mouldings and is consistent with the date of the picture. It is certainly pre-Victorian.

b. It has clearly been in the same frame for some time as the sitter is identified by an old label. That it is the person the label says it is can be in no doubt because the image was published in 1910 by a member of the family togther with many other family portraits.

c. The picture was almost certainly in continuous ownership of the family until the 1970s or 1980s when the final heir ran out of cash and sold everything, thus avoiding the practice that dealers and salerooms used to adopt of routinely junking old original frames when pictures were sold

d. If the picture had needed reframing later it seems unlikely that an exactly sized pre-Victorian frame would have been found, or even considered desirable, as tastes in frames change.

I am having the gold paint removed, the geso repaired and the whole thing returned to a gilded finish.

 

[Nemesis]

I think she's terrific!

I thnk Lynn's pic is too - very different.