Letters to the Editor

MADAM – I have been reading the responses in your letters pages from the antiques trade to the stringent ivory laws appearing around the world.

MADAM – Regarding General Patton’s sword referenced in your militaria feature (ATG No 2287), the details supplied as to the background of this weapon are not totally correct.

MADAM – Having read your story about the reappearance on the market of boatswain whistles that had been pulled from sale in 2008 by the Antique Plate Committee (ATG No 2282), I would like to draw the attention of your readers to the work of this committee and the Hallmarking Act 1973.

MADAM – As someone with a foot in both artist and auctioneer camps, I’d like to add a contrary view to the often one-sided debate on Artist’s Resale Right (ATG No 2287).

MADAM – I read your Editor’s Comment on ARR and Brexit (ATG No 2286) with interest and write to you now with a different perspective.

In April dealers and auctioneers were warned to be vigilant about invoice scams on email after fraudsters appeared to have hacked accounts and intercepted invoices. Here one dealer makes a suggestion to help prevent such fraud.

In the debate about transparency of auctioneer fees, sparked by the Advertising Standards Authority December 2016 ruling that buyer's premium needs clearer promotion, the point of view of vendors needs to be heard too, three letter writers argue.

This is an edited version of an open letter by Anthony Coleridge, chairman of Christie’s South Kensington (CSK) 1987-2001, to Christie’s owner François Pinault (see also news, ATG No 2287, for Christie’s response).

MADAM – I was amused to read in the Previews section of ATG No 2285 that the “star” in Locke & England’s March 30 sale would be a large organ clock, estimated at £3000-5000 (lot 100). This is certainly not the case.

MADAM – Constance King’s reminiscences of Christie’s South Ken (ATG No 2285) mention the difficulties of parking outside to load one’s purchases.

MADAM – I write for the purposes of maintaining the trade in general, and in advance of knowing the provisions in the forthcoming law regulating the UK ivory trade (which can only act to the detriment of the trade and do nothing to save the elephant). The law could consider the separation of items solely made of ivory from those that contain ivory as a constituent part.

MADAM – In case there is any doubt about the need for more clarity in auctioneer fees, the following figures illustrate the confusing situation faced by the seller.

MADAM – I was amused to read in ATG No 2283 that a bronze reduction of An Athlete struggling with a Python by Lord Leighton, which will be sold by Bonhams on April 5, had been bought in 1934 for 57 shillings and 17 pence.

MADAM – I’d like to add some personal memories to your recently published retrospective on Christie’s South Kensington (ATG No 2283).

MADAM – Tributes to Charlie Truman have been well merited and well stated (obituary in Letters, ATG No 2282).

MADAM – I write regarding your reference to two paintings of Minorca’s Port Mahon by Anton Schranz (1769-1839), sold by Thomson Roddick at £20,000 in February (Art Market, ATG No 2283).

On an unrelated but more important subject, I am delighted to see the current debate on ivory getting so much coverage in the Gazette, but concerned about the minimal discussion recently about the possible effects of Brexit on the antiques trade.