Repurposing vintage items, where to draw the line

[rue]

I have spent half my life talking my parents out of 'modernizing' houses. They flip a lot of houses and with the flippers it's always 'slap some paint up' 'open this room up' and other such things you see on HGTV. I hate that. That's how your ruin a home's charm.

HGTV is a blight on "home improvement".

 

[AtomicEraTom]

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie. If you want a new house, build a new house!

HGTV is a blight on "home improvement".

 

[rue]

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie. If you want a new house, build a new house!

Amen :eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[Pompidou]

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie. If you want a new house, build a new house!

I'm working on two plans to do just that, and will follow through on whatever one proves most realistic. That said, this statement certainly falls under, "Easier said than done". It's a lot easier to get a foot in the door with a premade house and renovate it gradually, especially if the house of one's dreams would be particularly costly.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

You don't have to tell me. My family's been in real-estate for years. Like cars, it's always cheaper to buy used. But you can also buy a house that's already been remuddled than to remuddle the few gems still standing.

I'm working on two plans to do just that, and will follow through on whatever one proves most realistic. That said, this statement certainly falls under, "Easier said than done". It's a lot easier to get a foot in the door with a premade house and renovate it gradually, especially if the house of one's dreams would be particularly costly.

 

[brspiritus]

You don't have to tell me. My family's been in real-estate for years. Like cars, it's always cheaper to buy used. But you can also buy a house that's already been remuddled than to remuddle the few gems still standing.

Tom you're just a font of housing wisdom today. My dearest wish is to buy a home downtown in Springfield and restore it back to it's 1920's look.

 

[Derek WC]

Sometimes, reworking the inside of a house can be beneficial - depends on taste. Turning 70s shag into hardwood floor might be considered an improvement, for example.

To who? Give me your shag carpet!

 

[Edward]

Mr. Artiste is not necessarily pretentious. A lot of people who repurpose stuff are plain old philistines, who unironically regard the stuff as junk in its untouched state.

People like that are stuck with an old idea of "old." It goes back to the techno-modernist myth of progress, that anybody now can do anything better than anybody then. It started in science, took over technology, and then - spurred by the hunger of consumerism - began eating into culture itself, like gingivitis attacking the jawbone.

It seems to me that very often folks nowadays base their judgement on the worth of an item on what it costs, i.e. its contemporary market value. Thus because old, vinyl 78s may be purchased for pennies in charity shops, they are only worth pennies. I myself don't hold with this view, but then I'm not a free-market capitalist.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And it's that price-guide-uber-alles mentality that makes it so hard to get across to such people why destroying these things for the sake of kitsch is so distasteful. Because these items have "no value," they can't conceive of anyone actually valuing them *for what they are,* not for what they'll realize in the marketplace. Try to explain this to them and they blank right out and all they can do keep repeating "but if they were worth anything they wouldn't be so cheap!" How philistinish it is to define someone's culture by its price tag.

 

[JimWagner]

To who? Give me your shag carpet!

Come and get it.

 

[Derek WC]

Alright, but only the golden. I can't imagine green shag.

 

[Shangas]

It seems to me that very often folks nowadays base their judgement on the worth of an item on what it costs, i.e. its contemporary market value. Thus because old, vinyl 78s may be purchased for pennies in charity shops, they are only worth pennies. I myself don't hold with this view, but then I'm not a free-market capitalist.

I know just what you're talking about, Eddie. I've seen lots of that online and in real life. And I've also seen the "reverse" of that, if you will. That being, that just because something is old, it's automatically worth thousands of dollars.

I've seen examples of CRAP selling for fortunes for no other reason than they were old. And I've seen treasures selling for pittances because the seller was too clueless about what he or she had (not that I'm complaining...more bargains for me). But it does infuriate me no end, when I see people trying to hawk off old junk (literally) as the Crown Jewels just because they're old. Age has almost nothing to do with value and price. If it did, my grandmother would be worth a billion bucks.

 

[brspiritus]

I know just what you're talking about, Eddie. I've seen lots of that online and in real life. And I've also seen the "reverse" of that, if you will. That being, that just because something is old, it's automatically worth thousands of dollars.

I've seen examples of CRAP selling for fortunes for no other reason than they were old. And I've seen treasures selling for pittances because the seller was too clueless about what he or she had (not that I'm complaining...more bargains for me). But it does infuriate me no end, when I see people trying to hawk off old junk (literally) as the Crown Jewels just because they're old. Age has almost nothing to do with value and price. If it did, my grandmother would be worth a billion bucks.

Try craigslist sometime. There was a guy selling an Underwood typewriter, no photo, for $200 I kid you not.

 

[martinsantos]

I see a lot of this with photo stuff. The worst thing in world, just because it has the name Leitz or Leica is enough to the price be very high!

Happilly the cosmetic condition is more important than the usefullnes and working condition of the piece. Because this I got some fine pieces for pennies. In a lens, to me, the crystal condition is the most important (as the useful part), not the cosmetics. And not unusual to see a repolished lens (not good) being put to sell at highter prices because it's "beautiful"!

I know just what you're talking about, Eddie. I've seen lots of that online and in real life. And I've also seen the "reverse" of that, if you will. That being, that just because something is old, it's automatically worth thousands of dollars.

I've seen examples of CRAP selling for fortunes for no other reason than they were old. And I've seen treasures selling for pittances because the seller was too clueless about what he or she had (not that I'm complaining...more bargains for me). But it does infuriate me no end, when I see people trying to hawk off old junk (literally) as the Crown Jewels just because they're old. Age has almost nothing to do with value and price. If it did, my grandmother would be worth a billion bucks.

 

[JimWagner]

I see a lot of this with photo stuff. The worst thing in world, just because it has the name Leitz or Leica is enough to the price be very high!

Happilly the cosmetic condition is more important than the usefullnes and working condition of the piece. Because this I got some fine pieces for pennies. In a lens, to me, the crystal condition is the most important (as the useful part), not the cosmetics. And not unusual to see a repolished lens (not good) being put to sell at highter prices because it's "beautiful"!

I always wanted a Leica IIIg, but I've seen exactly what you've seen in the pricing.

 

[The Lonely Navigator]

LizzieMaine: Using an item as it was intended to be used doesn't destroy it unless it's an actual *consumable* like fuel or food. As an example, I wear vintage stockings -- and when they develop a hole or a run, I mend them. And I keep mending them as often as is necessary. I don't wear them once or twice and throw them away. Same thing with other clothing. Same thing with the vintage appliances I use. Same thing with practically everything in my house. *Use,* proper use in this manner, does not constitute destruction -- unless one buys into the modern cult of disposability, which I don't.

Wearing that vintage leather jacket wouldn't destroy it -- it might wear in places, it might pop a stitch here and there or lose a button. But a user with the wartime ethos would mend the tear, sew the button back on, and keep using it. He'd lubricate the leather occasionally, and see that it was stored properly when he wasn't wearing it. Cared for in this way, it might outlive him -- and would certainly be of greater use to him than some forgettable novelty watch strap.

As far as repurposing goes, *real* repurposing, I do quite a bit of it. My kitchen wastebasket used to contain Texaco 90-weight gear oil. I keep pencils and small tools in the same old Havoline can my grandfather used to use. I keep my spools of thread in an A&P egg carton and a Quaker Oats box. I keep needles and small notions in a White Owl cigar box and buttons in a Christmas fruitcake tin. I keep fabric for sewing projects in a Narragansett Ale crate. I cover my washing machine rollers, when not in use, with an old Pullman towel. And none of these items have been destroyed or compromised in any way, even though they're being used for purposes other than they were intended for. That, to me, is repurposing, not destruction.

And it's that price-guide-uber-alles mentality that makes it so hard to get across to such people why destroying these things for the sake of kitsch is so distasteful. Because these items have "no value," they can't conceive of anyone actually valuing them *for what they are,* not for what they'll realize in the marketplace. Try to explain this to them and they blank right out and all they can do keep repeating "but if they were worth anything they wouldn't be so cheap!" How philistinish it is to define someone's culture by its price tag.

That pretty much sums up how my view is.

 

[sheeplady]

The problem is, however, if someone has an item, sees no practical use for it, and there is no inherit value in it, that increases the chances of it being destroyed (or even worse, thrown out). I'd rather see something repurposed rather than thrown out.

Personally, I think for me:
restoration > non-destructive repurposing > destructive repurposing > landfill

I see nothing wrong with destructive repurposing if the item is broken beyond repair. (For instance, a rusted out wash basin being planted with flowers or cracked china being used in mosaics.) Better than the landfill. Although I hate people remuddling houses, I also know that a remuddled house is ultimately better than tearing it down and putting all the goods in the landfill. I'd really, really prefer that they build a new house someplace else, but that will never happen.

I'm living next to one of those flippers right now, and I really feel sorry for whomever takes over that house. They are purely comestic- new roof over rotten chip board (chip board is not code here for roofs because we have very heavy snow falls), new porch floor over rotten beams, three prong outlets that aren't grounded, etc. It's horrific and its a scam, and in about three years they will have major problems.

 

[Effingham]

I am a great admirer of mediaeval calligraphy and illumination. I was given a couple of framed pages from a mediaeval psalter and another book. One was 13th C, one mid 14th.

So what that means is that there are people out there who buy mediaeval books AND CUT THEM UP AND SELL THEM ONE PAGE AT A TIME.

Makes me weep to think about it.

I later heard that some of these books are, actually, largely destroyed -- fires or water damage has ruined many of them, and some only really have a few decent pages, and those are the ones that get sold as art objects.

Still. Makes me cry.

 

[fluteplayer07]

I'd rather lose half of my investment in a vintage hat, if it goes to a Lounger who will take care of it; than if I made a hearty profit on eBay and it went to a stranger. I see us in the vintage trade as 'curators' of items, rather than 'owners'. These are pieces of history that are entrusted in our hands. No one can 'own' history; we can merely keep watch over it until the next generation comes along.

That said, I don't mind buying/displaying something that has already been 'destructively repurposed' (to use Sheeplady's terminology), so long as my hand had no direct or indirect purpose in it's destruction. I'll buy pages cut from old magazines from eBay or a garage sale, but I'll never ask someone to cut pages out for me. A beat up and stained hat is better worn clean and stretched, than dirty, small, and forgotten. But I couldn't support the alteration of a mint hat in say, a 7 1/4, to a 7 3/8. There's enough 7 3/8's out there to spare a 7 1/4.


That's my general philosophy.
Cheers,

 

[AtomicEraTom]

My pop and I are brewery collectors, and a friend of ours is the authority on Pabst, his collection is the biggest, most extensive there is, blows ours out of the water, and ours is huge. Anyhow, before I derail further, he always told us, you don't own these items, you just hang onto them until your time's up, and then they go to someone else.