Repurposing vintage items, where to draw the line

[Argee]

This is a spin-off of the thread in the WWII forum about cutting up leather jackets and holsters to make watch bands.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?54297-This-sort-of-thing-makes-me-furious...

I think we can all agree that's not a good thing. But the discussion began evolving towards when is it OK to modify vintage items. I brought up my toaster lamp that I took great pains to make no irreversible changes to (in addition to it being broken when I got it).

So, opinions on the subject? Does it depend on the condition of the item? The rarity? The amount of modification? What have you modified?

 

[Shangas]

Condition and rarity.

And the old adage: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Just because you CAN turn an antique Steinway piano into a desk...doesn't mean you should (and yes, I know people who have done this).

Just because you CAN rip apart a Hamilton pocket-watch and scrap the case for $500 doesn't mean you should.

Just because you CAN cut up flying-jacket to make a wallet doesn't mean you should.

Repurposing something for something else should, I think, only be done if the item in its current state is useless for its original purpose and couldn't reasonably be restored for its designed use.

For example, I'm currently repurposing an old cutlery-chest into a pen-display box for my fountain pen collection. But the box as we found it was completely gutted anyway. No lining, no grooves, no nothing at all. In fact if we didn't buy it, someone would probably hack it up for firewood. I've known people who have repurposed old knife-cases to store their pen-collections in as well.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Discussion moved over from original thread...

I'd say the current owner decides what useless is, and the criteria is whether or not the item is useful to the current owner. How can it be otherwise? I can't imagine a society where an owner's property rights are infringed by people who think that what they would do with said property is better than what the owner would.

Well, again, I cite the example of the wartime generation -- which recognized that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A wartime American did not have the unquestionable cultural right to cut up a perfectly-usable rubber hot water bottle, let's say, and turn it into a novelty wallet. The idea of doing so would *never have occurred* to that person, because he or she understood that resources were limited and that no social good could be accomplished by wasting a usable, functional item for the sake of individual vanity. That was the culture of the time -- the modern-day fetishization of the individual as king was entirely foreign to that generation. I don't recall that attitude being prevalent really until the 70s and 80s, to be honest, and I don't think the social consequences of that attitude have been especially favorable. So not only can I imagine a culture prior to that time and that attitude, I was raised by one.

Is it wrong to put a perfectly usable item on display, never to be used again? The end is the same as if it were upcycled. Let's say there's a vintage WWII jacket on the market and three people want it. One person wants to wear it. One person collects WWII memorabilia and would rack it. One person makes trinkets and whatnot out of things like this WWII leather jacket. Which two should do the right thing and back down from purchasing the jacket? Wearing it will destroy it. Storing it will prevent it from being used as it was meant to be. Turning it into trinkets is both.

You're making a questionable assumption. Using an item as it was intended to be used doesn't destroy it unless it's an actual *consumable* like fuel or food. As an example, I wear vintage stockings -- and when they develop a hole or a run, I mend them. And I keep mending them as often as is necessary. I don't wear them once or twice and throw them away. Same thing with other clothing. Same thing with the vintage appliances I use. Same thing with practically everything in my house. *Use,* proper use in this manner, does not constitute destruction -- unless one buys into the modern cult of disposability, which I don't.

Wearing that vintage leather jacket wouldn't destroy it -- it might wear in places, it might pop a stitch here and there or lose a button. But a user with the wartime ethos would mend the tear, sew the button back on, and keep using it. He'd lubricate the leather occasionally, and see that it was stored properly when he wasn't wearing it. Cared for in this way, it might outlive him -- and would certainly be of greater use to him than some forgettable novelty watch strap.

As far as repurposing goes, *real* repurposing, I do quite a bit of it. My kitchen wastebasket used to contain Texaco 90-weight gear oil. I keep pencils and small tools in the same old Havoline can my grandfather used to use. I keep my spools of thread in an A&P egg carton and a Quaker Oats box. I keep needles and small notions in a White Owl cigar box and buttons in a Christmas fruitcake tin. I keep fabric for sewing projects in a Narragansett Ale crate. I cover my washing machine rollers, when not in use, with an old Pullman towel. And none of these items have been destroyed or compromised in any way, even though they're being used for purposes other than they were intended for. That, to me, is repurposing, not destruction.

 

[JimWagner]

Consider this. More vintage items today are being scrapped and recycled than cut up and used for another purpose. They are worth more as recycled raw materials than as whatever they were manufactured as. How do you feel about that?

 

[Pompidou]

To me, it's just supply and demand at work. Once the items in question get rare enough, they'll gain value as collectors' items. Everyone has a different line for what's acceptable in this area, and my line is drawn based on rarity, which is often tied to value if the item was at one point mundane. It's hard to put a finger on, but I'd condemn the destruction of, say, Eisenhower's toaster. A run of the mill toaster that just happens to be equally old is fair game to me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Depends on the situation. I've been helping a friend clean out her house over the past few months, and there was lot of stuff in the cellar that had been destroyed by floods -- furniture that had completely de-laminated and couldn't be repaired, a 19th century sewing machine that had been fused into a solid mass of metal to the point where I had to break it up with a wrecking bar just to unroot it from the floor, a beautiful late-40s wardrobe that had been eaten up by termites to the point where it collapsed when I tried to move it. That stuff isn't of much use for anything but salvage, and I personally tossed it out for the junkman. On the other hand, there was a late-30s G-E refrigerator down there that was covered in surface rust, but which runs fine. She insisted we hold onto that, with an eye toward repair and restoration and renewed use.

Throw away stuff that really *is* useless. But my definition of "useless" is likely very different from that of the typewriter-key-cutting, jacket-slashing crowd.

I have no interest whatever in "dollar value as collector's items." Others might, but I don't.

 

[rue]

Condition and rarity.

And the old adage: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Just because you CAN turn an antique Steinway piano into a desk...doesn't mean you should (and yes, I know people who have done this).

Just because you CAN rip apart a Hamilton pocket-watch and scrap the case for $500 doesn't mean you should.

Just because you CAN cut up flying-jacket to make a wallet doesn't mean you should.

Repurposing something for something else should, I think, only be done if the item in its current state is useless for its original purpose and couldn't reasonably be restored for its designed use.

For example, I'm currently repurposing an old cutlery-chest into a pen-display box for my fountain pen collection. But the box as we found it was completely gutted anyway. No lining, no grooves, no nothing at all. In fact if we didn't buy it, someone would probably hack it up for firewood. I've known people who have repurposed old knife-cases to store their pen-collections in as well.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[rue]

This subject gets me riled every time, so I'm trying very hard to stay calm.
Although I can't tell people what to do with the items they buy, it makes me angry when they take something in great working (or fixable) condition and turns it into "art".
For instance, I'm looking for a washing machine like Lizzie has and every time I think I've found one, it's been gutted and turned into a planter for flowers.
I also cringe when someone paints all the beautiful wood work in their house or they paint an antique because "it's just too dark". I say, buy something that needs to be painted or meant to be painted.
Like a few have said... just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Pompidou]

I'm looking for a washing machine like Lizzie has and every time I think I've found one, it's been gutted and turned into a planter for flowers.

That would irritate me too. I've had my days of slogging through page after page of search results on eBay or the like only to find each one is worthless in some way.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

The only repurposing I do is just as Lizzie said. I have tons of glass jars, cigar boxes, old flat-top beer cans, etc, etc. that I use as containers. I kind of have a depression-era mentality. I never throw things away because I may have some use for it, if not now, down the road.

I hate so much of this 'art' that you see now. My pet peeve, as a phone collector, is those beautiful old candlestick phones turned into lamps. I understand slight modernizing, as I put modular cords on phones, or replace frequency ringers with straight-line ringers so that these phones can be used in a modern home. I also have, on occasion replaced speakers in an old radio (only because an original replacement was not available) with modern speakers.
Antique and vintage items still have a use if you're willing to put some elbow grease into them and/or maintain them. I listen to music on radios that were built 50 or more years ago, sit on furniture that's 50 years old, sleep on a bed from 1956. Just take care of your belongings and they will take care of you. Not everything has to be thrown out to the jackals or turned into lamps, wallets, fish tanks, planters, etc.

 

[Argee]

My pet peeve, as a phone collector, is those beautiful old candlestick phones turned into lamps.

That bothers me too. If you have to have one find one of the Korean replicas from the '70s to convert.

 

[sheeplady]

This subject gets me riled every time, so I'm trying very hard to stay calm.
Although I can't tell people what to do with the items they buy, it makes me angry when they take something in great working (or fixable) condition and turns it into "art".
For instance, I'm looking for a washing machine like Lizzie has and every time I think I've found one, it's been gutted and turned into a planter for flowers.
I also cringe when someone paints all the beautiful wood work in their house or they paint an antique because "it's just too dark". I say, buy something that needs to be painted or meant to be painted.
Like a few have said... just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I have come to the conclusion that wood is not meant to be painted. If you paint the outside of your house, fine, but don't paint wood on the inside. Don't paint furniture. Don't paint cabinets. These things are not meant to be painted. Give that nice dark furniture to me!

There are four groups of people whom I have a severe dislike for, I'd even say hate: People who put junk into the land (burying trash, particularly plastic bags and matresses), people who paint woodwork (or other things that shouldn't be painted; the worst offenders are people who paint stuff with the crackle paint), people who remodel (muck up) houses, and people who do "fake repairs" or destroy things on purpose causing headaches to others (just to get something looking better).

I am of the mind that my life here is temporary, after I am gone, many physical things will outlive me: the land I live in, the house I live in, and most of my stuff will out survive me. My duty is to keep these things in as best condition as possible AND not make things worst for the next person. I believe that if I take care of things, I make it easier for the next person to take care of them, rather than throwing them out or gutting them.

I, however, will not live in a museum. There is a difference between use and abuse. I use my stuff. This means I have broken stuff and worn stuff out. I see nothing wrong with repurposing clothing that is too worn out to be of it's original use or repurposing broken things, and I'd actually encourage that rather than the landfill. My perspective on houses is that people have always made changes and updates to fit their lifestyles. That doesn't mean that you gut the place, that means that you make the changes you need to make it liveable for your family and your lifestyle.

 

[Land-O-LakesGal]

We have a little christian thrift store near our house. When we first moved in I asked if they had any old patterns, the woman working said they used old patterns they got as tissue paper to wrap the fragile stuff cause no one was really interested in them.

I have also seen craft books show how to melt old vinyl and make it into a groovy bowl.

These both seem wasteful to me

On the other hand I have taken old sheets to use as muslins for dress making.
And as far as painting wood well my house was built in the 50's and the previous own prior to us bought it to flip it. He a lot of junk jobs around our house such as redoing our kitchen. He put in new cabinets. They are wood but not a wood we would have chosen our desire. We will probably paint them to suit our taste. Now a future owner may take issue with this later but it is our house and we have to live in it now.

 

[Pompidou]

Sometimes, reworking the inside of a house can be beneficial - depends on taste. Turning 70s shag into hardwood floor might be considered an improvement, for example.

 

[Tomasso]

I have no qualms about repurposing if it keeps stuff out of the landfill.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I hate when people paint original woodwork. We spent a lot of time undoing this atrocity in our old farm house. It's so much work though. We ended up just repainting the stuff on the second floor. There was at least 6 layers of paint on it.

 

[Shangas]

One thing that annoys me to no end about people who repurpose things are the following excuses...

1. "It's old. Who cares?"
2. "But nobody's going to want it..."
3. "But nobody uses these things anymore!"
4. "I like it better like this".

I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a flea-market or a junk-shop to look for something specific...Only to find it and realise it's been jerry-rigged or repurposed to be something else. I've wanted a nice, antique writing box for years. But I've never managed to buy one because people destroy them by ripping them apart and turn the boxes into something else. I even saw one that had been cut open in the lid so that it could be a money-box.

I finally managed to get one that I liked when I was on holiday in Europe. I had to fly halfway around the world to get it. That's how hard these things are to find in original condition. And people still butcher them.

 

[Pompidou]

One thing that annoys me to no end about people who repurpose things are the following excuses...

1. "It's old. Who cares?"
2. "But nobody's going to want it..."
3. "But nobody uses these things anymore!"
4. "I like it better like this".

I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a flea-market or a junk-shop to look for something specific...Only to find it and realise it's been jerry-rigged or repurposed to be something else. I've wanted a nice, antique writing box for years. But I've never managed to buy one because people destroy them by ripping them apart and turn the boxes into something else. I even saw one that had been cut open in the lid so that it could be a money-box.

I finally managed to get one that I liked when I was on holiday in Europe. I had to fly halfway around the world to get it. That's how hard these things are to find in original condition. And people still butcher them.

Only excuse number four would hold any water with me, because the first three aren't even true statements.

 

[rue]

Remuddling (To remodel a building or room in a way that obscures or destroys key aspects of the original design. Term coined by Old House Journal)

Our house we live in now was remuddled. One of the most bizarre things we had to undo: The original wood floors, in good condition, were covered with new carpet and "new" wood.
Don't get me started on what they painted, which is everything except the floors.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think there's a palpable cultural arrogance that comes into play with a lot of this type of destruction, like the ancient soldiers who carved their initials across the Sphinx. It's cultural vandalism disguised as self-expression.

I came across a guy on some website or other whose specialty was taking 78rpm records and cutting designs thru their surfaces with a dremel tool to make "art." Someone challenged him on this, and his response was along the lines of "yeah, but it's really lame music -- who would ever listen to this stuff?" The defaced record shown on the site was a dance band record from the mid-twenties, and I can assure you that there are a great many people who listen to "this stuff." But Mr. Artiste believes that his tastes trump theirs, because, you know, he's all cool and stuff.