called quality is to an object
of art. We feel it, though we may not be able to explain it. An old
Etruscan jar may be reproduced in form, but it would be silly to attempt
the reproduction of the crudenesses that gave the old jar its real
beauty. In short, objects that depend on form and fine workmanship for
their beauty may be successfully reproduced, but objects that depend on
imperfections of workmanship, on the crudeness of primitive fabrics, on
the fading of vegetable dyes, on the bloom that age alone can give,
should not be imitated. We may introduce a reproduction of a fine bust
into our rooms, but an imitation of a Persian tile or a Venetian vase is
absurd on the face of it.

The antiques the average American householder is interested in are the
old mahogany, oak and walnut things that stand for the oldest period of
our own particular history. It is only the wealthy collector who goes
abroad and buys masses of old European furniture, real or sham, who is
concerned with the merits and demerits of French and Italian furniture.
The native problem is the so-called Colonial mahogany that is always
alleged to be Chippendale or Heppelwhite, or Sheraton, regardless! There
must be thousands of these alleged antiques in New York shops alone!

It goes without saying that only a very small part of it can be really
old. As for it having been made by the men whose names it bears, that is
something no reputable dealer would affirm. The Chippendales, father,
son and grandson, published books of designs which were used by all the
furniture-makers of their day.

No one can swear to a piece of furniture having been made in the
workshops of the Chippendales. Even the pieces in the Metropolitan
Museum are marked "Chippendale Style" or "In the Sheraton manner," or
some such way. If the furniture is in the style of these makers, and if
it is really old, you will pay a small fortune for it. But even then you
cannot hope to get more than you pay for, and you would be very silly to
pay for a name! After all, Chippendale is a sort of god among amateur
collectors of American furniture, but among more seasoned collectors he
is not by any means placed first. He adapted and borrowed and produced
some wonderful things, but he also produced some monstrosities, as you
will see if you visit the English museums.

Why then lend yourself to possible deception? Why pay for names when
museums are unable to buy them? If your object is to furnish yo