Photos of these two cabinets have been floating around on our file server for quite a while and I have been meaning to put them up here as another excellent example of differences in quality between Chinese antique workshops and restoration as well as in Chinese Country Antique Furniture in general.
Provincial pieces may from softwoods are often good examples to use for these sort of comparisons as they are generally made from softwoods and require a fair amount of restoration to bring them back to life. Unlike hardwood furniture, there is little debate on the differences in woods and the value of those woods.Â
These are both essentially the same piece, from the same region and approximately the same era (some differences in age but close enough for our example). However each has been restored in a very different manner by two different restoration facilities. Both are antiques, both a once fairly common Mongolian style antique cabinets and even the dimensions are approximately the same.
George's Piece #
Piece A is bright red and comes from a smaller workshop owned/operated by a man we will call "George" who has worked with Chinese antiques for many years. He services mostly foreign customers and claims he offers "good quality."
Raymonds Piece #
Piece B is a deep burgundy red and was purchased from someone we will call "Raymond." Ray is larger volume based, wholesaler who claims to offer "good quality product."
Lets examine the differences in each piece to see which factory really does offer “quality” and which one is simply inexpensive.
DETAILS COUNT #
The first place the differences become evident is, in the overall attention to detail. George’s cabinet has been carefully restored with extra attention paid to smaller details. However, Raymond’s cabinet has been sloppily restored. Area’s where the lacquer has been rubbed off have not been touched up and instead, have been given a quick coat of wax instead – thus saving costs on the lacquering.
Simple (IE the most inexpensive) ring style fittings have been fitted to the door, instead of the larger (IE more expensive) hardware seen on George’s cabinet.Â
Even the painting on the doors of the cabinet alludes to “cheap” – its style clearly from the 1970/1980’s and thus the un-restored cabinet itself probably was much cheaper at the time of purchase as its a new item. In fact, we can even safely assume it was in much worse condition when it was purchase in unrestored form as opposed to George’s which probably cost more as it was in better condition.
Sloppiness abounds #
The original un-restored cabinet would have had a round circular style fitting enabling the owner to lock the doors and drawers together in one action. Impressions of the original hardware can still be seen one both cabinets. Possibly removed during the 1970's during China's great leap forward the un-restored cabinet may have already been missing this hardware. In an ideal world this would have been completely replaced. Nevertheless, at least on George's cabinet, the time has been taken to touch up this area so it looks relatively crisp and clean. On Raymond's cabinet, this element has been skipped over completely. Its messy. One saves time and thus labor costs. The other looks better, despite the high cost associated with the extra effort.
Cutting corners #
Then there is the sides of the cabinet. Often embellishments become damaged, fallen off and then lost over time in China’s harsh peasant countryside. These "butterfly edges" are a perfect example of an embellishment that may become damaged and need replacing. Depending on who restores the piece, these embellishments may be added back on or sometimes skipped all together. I am guessing the embellishments on George’s cabinet was either retained or carefully recreated true to the original form. On Raymond’s cabinet, a down and dirty board has been added to the side with minimal carving detail (again – cheaper) and an even sloppier painting.
Unfortunately we didn’t take a photo of the insides of the cabinet, but if I remember correctly, the shelf inside George’s cabinet was made using a relatively thick board. Raymond’s? A flimsy peice of wood which looked as if it would break before supporting any amount of weight. So which claim is correct?
George or Raymond?
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would put George at a quality level of at least 6. I would rate Raymond at a 3 or 4 at most. Interestingly George’s piece a was not much more expensive then the other one – maybe ten to 15 percent.
Which piece would you rather have in your home?
Don't confuse Rustic! #
Raymond’s cabinet is what some suppliers love to call “rustic,” however, I have seen good quality rustic furniture before and I think “crap” is probably a much better word to describe this piece. This is important – rustic is NOT the same thing as poorly restored and/poor quality. A rustic piece can still be well made, properly restored and good quality.
For more on this topic see our previous posts on this topic:
5 Responses
interesting. I just bought a piece that looks extremely similar to the one on the left (the higher quality one)m but the art is different, has a lion and some wild deer type animals. Is it an authentic antique ? Feel like i was duped. What do you think they are worth?
Thank you, Alain
Throughout your site, you consistently write ‘then’ when you mean ‘than’. They are two different words with different meanings. Among other items, you also use apostrophes to pluralize, which is another consistent error. You could stand a proofreader…
You offering yourself up to do the job? 😉