Brexit
January:ATG began a Brexit discussion series with a round table on the benefits and disadvantages of leaving the EU
■ Patrick Matthiesen, The Matthiesen Gallery, London On balance, this gallery can see no downside in the event of Brexit. We would not have to suffer the indignity of constantly having the levels of our export licensing thresholds altered downwards to match the euro.
■ Victoria de Rin, London Your round table was a brilliant, well-informed debate on the pros and cons of Brexit. I would add that though our politicians are a bit flaky on the subject, we need to run our own country.
Ivory
February:ATG’s news exclusive about UK dealers, including John Jaffa and Ken Bull, being forced to destroy objects with CITES-protected elements as they entered the US for the Original Miami Beach Show, split reader opinions
■ John Jaffa, The Antique Enamel Company, London
I admit to being confused about the US laws regarding CITES-protected elements. The laws change from one state to another, making it virtually impossible to identify what you need licences for.
■ Christina Taniewska-Elliott, Cordoba, Spain
I read with horror news of the destruction of valuable and historic works of art by The US Fish and Wildlife Service, simply because these items contained ivory, tortoise-shell and even feathers. What will the Americans decide to ban next – rare rosewood and mahogany furniture to save the Brazilian rain forests?
■ Peter M Craven Hammond, antiques restorer
Maybe a better solution [than destruction of objects] would be a fine, proportional to the amount of ivory and the situation.
■ Tim Martin, New York
Sorry, but your readers’ outrage is misdirected. The US law regarding ivory is clear and ignorance of it is no excuse. Illegally importing ivory to sell it in the US is just asking for trouble. Customs agents aren’t known for their subtlety.
■ Gavin Littaur, London
I fear I am not alone in believing that any destruction of pre-1947 worked ivory artefacts would be a pointless exercise, just cultural vandalism, which would not save one majestic elephant or other endangered species.
ATG new look
February:ATG unveiled a redesign, with a new, larger font size and more white space
■ Barbara Harding, London
I find the text much easier to read and the featured objects now seem to have more room to breathe.
■ Elizabeth Fell, antiques adviser, London
I like the changes you’ve made to ATG. But the curmudgeonly part of me still wishes it was printed on the soft, porous paper you used until the ‘90s, perfect for wrapping glass and china after a successful auction.
Buyer’s premium
July: We reported that the Advertising Standards Authority would probe how auctioneers display buyer’s premium in their marketing. The story unleashed an avalanche of correspondence.
■ Jeremy Lamond, Halls, Shrewsbury
Special conditions related to lots or estimates reflect the fact that a saleroom is not a retail environment but a second-hand one and subject to different parameters.
■ Robert Young, Robert Young Antiques, London
At a time when the art and antiques market is focused on developing greater transparency, it seems timely that auctioneers should aim to make their practices, commissions and fees clear to vendors and purchasers alike.
■ Thomas Jenner-Fust, Chorley’s, Gloucestershire
I have never met a purchaser who was unaware that a premium was payable on the hammer price, suggesting this issue is a storm in a teacup.
■ Derek Newman, Newman Fine Art, Gloucestershire
I don’t know of any auctioneer who doesn’t state all additional charges related to a purchase in a sale, although some are more clearly presented than others. Of course I take all such charges into account when placing a bid in the myriad of ways now possible.
■ John Noott, John Noott Galleries, Worcestershire
Re the possible confusion to buyers, what about vendors? I believe that auctioneers, when offered goods to sell, should explain what the seller would receive out of the total sum paid by the buyer.
■ Ian Harvey, collector, London
The buyer’s premium is here to stay – unfortunately. I say to the squabbling trade: pull together in the common interest of seeing-off interfering regulation.
