Wardrobe vintage ?

Can someone tell me how old this is and if it’s worth anything ?

Small wardrobe 142 cm x 82cm depth 42cm. Not in fantastic condition

thanks in advance

 

1920's, early 1930's in style. Forgive profiling but it was not a socalled hi-end piece at any time.

For general info: Homes, houses, built for residential use in the early part of the 20th century, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, were property-taxed not just on size, locale, grounds, but even on number of bedrooms, and, also, [oh, horror!] the number of closets it held.

Not having yet arrived at the conspicuous consumption the later part of the 20th century became known for, people in general had fewer items of clothing before, say, 1950s.

When not in use, or out of season, clothing was then generally stored in chests in the attic, preferably of cedar as moths do not like it. Or there'd be naphtalene powders in them, same purpose.

Ladies' dresses were often taken apart as well, seams ripped out because in the season that followed they'd be refitted either for the size the wearer had then become, or for another wearer in the family. Local seamstresses, often spinsters or widows, made a nice living refitting, restitching the wardrobes of the better-off members of the local society.

What's this all gotta do with the pictured wardrobe someone asked?

Easy: If there were no clothes closets where one lived one would buy a wardrobe like this one. If moving around some, maybe in different boarding houses, or in domestic employment, one's wardrobe traveled with, was one's own in a new unfamiliar environment. Nicer wardrobes even had locks, keys, to keep sticky fingers out.

This one appears to show a keyhole in the door on the right in the image. I'd say it was probably a "traveling wardrobe," therefore small, lightweight, could be carried up to a high floor by one very strong person or two average strength ones. It has the look of a maid's wardrobe, just big enough to fit in a maid's room and hold a few dresses, a coat, hats, toiletries, shoes.

As for country, I think it's European since I have no ref. to where it now resides. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Similar wardrobes were common in the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. as well.

 

Wow very interesting, it’s currently in the U.K. Lancashire.

It is small but would be very heavy for one person to lift.

does anyone have an idea of what they are worth or are they worth very little. Does have some damage at the bottom where i imagine it’s been dragged across floors.


Thanks for the help

 

@Clunt91 I did think you're in U.K., hence the cm measurements.

Here we never ask WITW questions because what's it worth to one person is different from the next person.

If you paid for it, it's what it was worth to you. If you run an auction on it the highest bidder will pay what it's worth to him/her.

We antiquers research online, in auction results, on websites, general Search with keywords, for what similar items have sold for in the past. This research is up to you. We'll be helpful with ID as far as we know but we're not appraisers, nor do we want to be Good luck!

 

My understanding is that these have little value in The UK. Some of the members from there can probably confirm.

 

There is a valuable lesson in sometimes NOT knowing what a socalled value should be.

It varies not only with the item but with its provenance, history. People will pay sky-is-limit prices for items of insignificant intrinsic worth because they were once owned by a famous person if there is provenance, proof, that they are genuine.

Examples of baseball cards with small faded print pictures of long-dead players on dog-eared cheap cardboard can sell for extremely hight prices because a) the picture is of a very famous player, and b) he also signed it. Without the picture and signature, the card is just a piece of old paper.

If you can find the history behind this small wardrobe, even if it's seen its share of hard wear being moved around in the past, and the provenance bears out that it once belonged to a famous person, you'll have struck finder's gold.

Sometimes just a photograph with, say, Princess Diana, in front of the wardrobe, could authenticate it. Perhaps it wasn't hers, but her maid's? Such a genuine photograph would lend credence to a noble past and you could profit.

If it's just anyone's old armoire, well, then your research online and locally where you live will reveal what you might expect for it.

 

Ok brilliant thanks so much for the useful information, I know what to not ask in future haha.

I am new and wishing to learn more on furniture.

Thanks for the help once again.

 

I agree with the above dating.

Clunt, if you are interested in this info, you would have to check if it was the same for the UK. It was never like that here in The Netherlands.

I can't imagine the fact that something belonged to Princess Diana's maid would add to the value. And in order for a photo to have any influence on the value, you would need a photo of the famous person with the item in a way that shows it was actually that person's property.
None of this applies to your nice but humble wardrobe.

 

@Any Jewelry and @Clunt91
Clunt you expressed a desire to wish to learn about antiques, about value for your wardrobe. I gave one example of what drives perceived "value". Of course, it did not apply to the nice and humble wardrobe as it was not to be taken literally that an item in a picture with Pr. Diana would make it extremely valuable.

A picture only goes so far. Solid documentation as to who is in the picture, to whom the item [wardrobe] actually belonged, when, where etc. would be needed and that documentation would have to be validated as genuine as well before anyone can claim anything.

 

Yes I understand, I was more interested in what this type of wardrobe was used for and makes sense considering the size. Very interesting, it might not have any value but still a nice wardrobe and now I have an age and a little background knowledge. I appreciate the comments thank you guys!.

 

What was this used for in Netherlands ?

 

I was quoting what Liz said about the property tax, and advising you to ask if the same was true for the UK. Only if you're interested in the info, of course.

In the Netherlands this kind of wardrobe would be called 'meidenkast', a maid's wardrobe. Here they are quite popular for kid's bedrooms, but only if they are really cheap. I think this is a nice example.

 

These never ever travelled from house to house here. Not heard of it anywhere in Europe.

Nor would a servant have taken a wardrobe with them. Trunks, yes, and often those ended up being used for storage, especially as they were lockable. Staff shared rooms.

And we certainly never had property tax based on the number of cupboards. There was window tax, but that was abolished well before this saw the light of day. Our local council rates - not strictly a tax - were based on a nominal rental value for a dwelling, which was then multiplied by a charging factor to arrive at the amount to be paid. Modern council tax is based on a purported value of a dwelling, but they're massively out of date. No rebanding in decades.

This is a 1930s gentleman's wardrobe, British - the front to back rail is typical. The worth isn't much here, sadly. £30 to £50 on a good day, but in that condition, £20 at most. The one slightly unusual thing are those quarter circle shelves. Glass fronted or open front drawers are more common, often with fake ivory/ivorine printed labels as to purpose.

 

Mea culpa: I am guilty of having spread a myth about property taxes on closets in the U.S. In my defense, this was told to us--my husband and me--when buying our first home in the U.S., in an older suburb near Philadelphia.

The house was a solid three-story Colonial, stone up to the second floor, wood the rest, with a slate roof. It was built in 1927, had been lived in by the same family since. We purchased the 5 BR with attic and cellar home from an estate in 1971. Oil-heated our first tank of oil cost US$65.00 to fill up in November 1971. In February 1972 it cost US$224.00 to fill. The OPEC oil crisis happened between the two fillups.

The realtor who sold us the house explained why the house had so few closets. He maintained that the dreaded "closet tax" had prevented builders of even larger homes like this one from including larger closets. F ex, one small BR had a 12" deep closet, 24" wide, with 3 iron hooks on the wall. The Master BR had one closet that would have been too small for even a child's wardrobe today. The 3rd BR on the second floor also had a 24" wide closet, a little deeper. We used the two third-floor BRs as closet and storage space for stuff we didn't want to look at every day. There was also a roomy attic used for storage.

There is info here and elsewhere about the closet tax myth:
Revisited Myth #1: Houses didn’t have closets in the colonial era because people wanted to avoid paying the closet tax.

 

Not here either. When they traveled from one job to another, bags in hand, they could hardly carry a wardrobe around on their backs, could they. The employers had to make sure their employees had the furniture they needed, it was part of the contract, along with other specifications.
In 19th century Amsterdam one such a contractual specification was that the servants wouldn't have to eat salmon every day.

Thanks for your mea culpa, Liz. This only goes to show that it is good to ascertain whether the story told by someone with little historic knowledge is actually correct. Or even those with a lot of historic knowledge.
Research is a good thing, especially on Antiquers. And we always have other forum members to help us.

 

Here in the US in the 18th century, lobster was considered unfit for most consumption. Indentured servants revolted against eating it and it was agreed not to feed it to them more than 3 x per week.

https://www.capeporpoiselobster.com/a-brief-history-of-lobsters-and-how-they-became-seafood-royalty/#:~:text=Lobsters were considered the “poor,than three times a week.

 

I wonder if Russian servants revolted against eating caviar.

 

Where I got that servants brought their own closets: I watched an old movie where the story went from late Victorian times until the 1930s. It showed how a young woman, a governess actually, moved from home to home of employment and always brought her own little armoire. First on top of a horsedrawn carriage, later on top of a Model T Ford. I don't recall the name of the movie.

On the subject of being forcefed fish, lumberjacks in the American Northwest had their employment contracts stipulate that they not be fed salmon more than 4 times a week.

Re The Netherlands and salmon: The population of the Netherlands is known to be taller than people in most other European countries with the possible exception of Scandinavia, Norway in particular. One reason given for why the Dutch people tend to be tall is the high fish content in their diet. Any truth to that, AJ?

 

Proteins are certainly a factor in growth. But the usual reasons given here are genetics, a high standard of living and, compared to most other nations, greater social equality.
The Dutch are now the tallest nation on earth, and there is no telling where it will end.

Disclaimer:
I have nothing to do with the Dutch being tall. In fact I am one of the people who have been doing their best to lower the statistics. I am small by Dutch standards, but feel right at home in Spain or Portugal, due to both height (or lack thereof) and looks.