Letters to the Editor

MADAM – It was unfair and misleading of Louise Ravula and Jane Alexandra, of Two Million Tusks, to identify the Alastair Gibson petition as “pro-ivory trade”.

MADAM – I read with great interest your ‘The price is right’ report of the recent ATG round table, debating how to charge for expertise (ATG No 2358). I would like to respond to a question you posed as to whether dealers should have to justify their mark-up.

MADAM – Could you please update us on the forthcoming ivory ban: if passed, does it become law that day or will the new rules apply later? Richard Gardiner, Chichester.

MADAM – The views expressed by your correspondents Louise Ravula and Jane Alexandra (ATG No 2359) cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

MADAM – I read with great interest your round table report (ATG No 2358). You asked us to continue the debate, so I write to you to make some observations.

MADAM – In your round table report on charging for expertise (ATG No 2358), you identified topics raised in the discussion and asked us to give our views them. So here goes:

MADAM – As representatives of Two Million Tusks, we are writing to express our profound disappointment at ATG’s promotion of Alastair Gibson’s pro-ivory trade petition [Editor writes: petition is to increase the proposed de minimis exemption for antique ivory from 10% to 50%].

MADAM – I read the letter from Gavin Littaur (ATG No 2355, August 25) and the letter of the previous edition from Nick Silver (ATG no 2354, August 18) with more than a little puzzlement.

MADAM – Those still reeling in shocked disbelief over the painting Glass with two pears by William Nicholson being judged as not being by his hand [as part of a BBC Fake or Fortune? programme], might take heart from an article on page 9 in ATG No 2355.

Jamie Rountree of Rountree Tryon Galleries writes to let us know the result of the annual cricket match between the Art Trade and Christie’s Auctioneers.

MADAM – Your news story (‘Ivory removed from Chippendale before sale’, ATG No 2356) draws attention to the deliberate and unforgivable removal of original ivory elements from an important commode by Thomas Chippendale, England’s most famous cabinet maker.

Our story last week revealed that ivory elements of an important piece of Chippendale furniture, the Rowland Winn commode made c.1766, were removed for its appearance at a Christie’s auction earlier this year, the commode having been imported from the US.

MADAM – ATG letter correspondents Peter Cameron and Gavin Littaur (ATG Nos 2353, 2355) have hit the nail on the head in many ways.

MADAM – In his letter (ATG No 2355) Michael Baggott references the possibility that, following changes in the law, antiques could be mutilated because of their ivory content.

MADAM – A friend in the trade asked me over a year ago, ‘what will you do if antiques containing ivory are made illegal?’. Since then I’ve given it serious thought. What can any of us do?

MADAM – I write regarding your Pick of the Week article (ATG No 2354,) on the Walter Crane vase (1890) for Maw & Co, sold at the Kingham & Orme auction in July.

MADAM – Peter Cameron writes in ATG No 2353 that only 691 people have signed the ivory petition [now at 1688 as we go to press], that a response from the government requires 10,000 signatures, and that 100,000 are needed to raise a parliamentary debate.

MADAM – Six hundred and ninety-one people is actually a fairly decent response from a trade in which there are only a handful of interested parties (Letters, ATG No 2353).

MADAM – For the record, Mr Jeremy Thorpe (Previews, ATG No 2353) did not refuse to give evidence – he was advised by his lawyers not to and reluctantly took their advice.

MADAM – I thought your readers might be interested in having a greater understanding of the importance that CITES plays in protecting wildlife and fauna.