There is a fantastic piece up in the New York Times about the popularity of vintage clothing. It's always exciting to see vintage trends hitting MSM (they even mention etsy!!), but the article brings up a good point- what place do reproductions have in the vintage world?
I agree that reproductions are very different when it comes to clothing. It can be a lot easier to find something that actually fits when it is made for modern bodies and with synthetic materials. Also, you won't feel like you've destroyed a piece of history when you spill wine on a repro cocktail dress.
Homewares, I think, are an entirely different story. It's not that there isn't a market or demand for reproductions of vintage home trends, there certainly is. And blending reproductions and authentic vintage finds can give your home a thoroughly modern yet curated look. My problem is that reproductions of homewares have historically been disingenuous. I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to find cheaply made fake Nippon, or worse yet, very well made fake Nippon, only to discover that it is a dupe. My father called me incredibly distraught that he had missed out on a jadeite Fire King pitcher that he later found out was worth upwards of $10,000. I, being equally distraught, did some quick research and found out that these pitchers are so valuable because only three are known to exist, and that a number of reproductions have begun popping up to capitalize on the scarcity.
There is a big difference between genuine reproductions and "fakes," and there are a lot of advantages to buying newer things- they may be cheaper, hold up better in the dishwasher, and breaking or ruining them is not as heart-wrenching. However, as a collector, the whole issue of repros raises lots of red flags for me.
What do you think? Does the demand for vintage legitimize the market for reproductions?
No comments:
Post a Comment