Monday, January 18, 2010

On the Occasion of Emily Evans Eerdmans' Marriage

Dearest Emily,
Please accept the very best of wishes to you and your husband from those of us at Darlington House. 


The Trousseau of Princesse Mathilde of Bavaria, 1826
Schlossmuseum, Darmstadt

A question: When will you have the official viewing of your trousseau?

It's Robert Burns!

My posting yesterday of "Boy Scores A Picture" prompted the suggestion from fellow blogger the Columnist that it reminded him of Robert Burns, the beloved Scottish Bard (1759-1797).   After doing some research, I believe the Columnist is absolutely correct, and that we are, in fact, the surprised and pleased owners of a portrait in little of the famed proto-Romantic poet.

Here's how it unfolded: I read the Columnist's comment to Boy, who ran upstairs and retrieved a small glass paperweight that he bought more than 20 years ago, showing the Robert Burns Monument in Edinburgh.  As he was doing that I did a search on the Internet of various sites.

Our portrait and a period engraving; note same hair in all three likenesses

Detail of 1787 Nasmyth portrait; Scottish National Portrait Gallery

The face in our small likeness was done after the famous portrait of Robert Burns painted by Alexander Nasmyth (Naysmith) in 1787 from life when the poet was 28 years old.  The painting hangs today in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and has been the subject of countless copies and engravings.  It is more likely that our portrait was based on an engraving of the Nasmyth painting.  The crossed-arms pose in our picture is possibly based on another portrait of Burns, also by Nasmyth, that was painted in 1828, a full 32 years after the poet's death.

1828 Nasmyth portrait; Scottish National Portrait Gallery

In the background of our painting stands the Robert Burns Monument on the Calton Hill in Edinburgh, designed by Thomas Hamilton, and built in 1831-32.  The erection of the monument was highly publicized, and its dedication was widely reported in the media at the time.  It was, and remains to this day, a popular tourist destination.

Boy's paperweight; photo by Boy Fenwick

1840 engraving by W. Mossman

The monument today; photo courtesy South Ayrshire News

Given when the monument was built, and that the supplier of the board on which our picture was painted moved to its premises at 51 Rathbone Lane in London in 1832, Boy and I are convinced that our little painting was without doubt done in the 1830s, most likely dashed off as a souvenir for a visitor to the Burns Monument or to Edinburgh.


I cannot thank the Columnist enough for pointing me in the right direction, and I am indebted to him for helping me discover that our little painting is most definitely a likeness of Robert Burns.  His most enlightening blog, the Corinthian Column, can be found at http://corcol.blogspot.com/.


Sunday, January 17, 2010

Boy Scores a Picture

Yesterday afternoon Boy decided to go into the nearby town and visit the antiques and other shops it is generally known for, as we have a number of social obligations in the next week that require us to arrive bearing gifts. I stayed at Darlington to tend to the more mundane projects that frequently occupy one’s time on a Saturday afternoon.

The antiques stores in our nearby town range from ones selling the basest of junk to those that cater to high-end decorators and collectors from Manhattan and beyond, along with everything in between. Lots of new objects cycle through the shops every week, so you never know what you are going to find. Regular visits can, at times, yield unexpected treasures.

I happened to be standing near a window when Boy drove up, and saw that he had apparently either bought something in town or had it with him on approval. At first it appeared to me that Boy was carrying a wood box, but I soon realized that he was carrying a painting in a frame, and that I was seeing its backside.


“Look what I have!” Boy said when I met him downstairs, and turned the picture around so that I could see it. What met my gaze was a charming, early-19th century portrait in little (10" by 12") of a young Englishman wearing Regency clothing, standing in a pastoral landscape with a classical rotunda in the background. Boy found it in a shop in town owned by a family of “pickers” whose quirky selection of well-priced, often early-19th century objects generally yields up one or two purchases for us each time we visit. The painting Boy had in his hands had only just arrived in the shop that day, and he immediately bought it as it was not only charming, but very well-priced. Unfortunately the frame it was offered in, while probably original, was too busted up to be worth restoring so Boy left it with the dealers. He then headed up the street to another shop that specializes in selling antique picture frames and mirrors--coincidentally owned by another member of the same family--and found a period one (also very well-priced) that was not only perfect for the painting, but fits it as well. While the frame needs restoration (it is missing bits and has an unfortunate coat of gold paint), all the portrait needs is a cleaning and re-varnishing.


The back of the painting bears a period label for G. Rowney & Co., an artists' supplier located at 51 Rathbone Place in London.  Basic Internet research revealed that George Rowney & Co. was formed in 1832, which confirmed our view that the painting was likely done in the 1830s. The company survives today as Daler-Rowney, Ltd., which it was renamed in the 1980s when G. Rowney & Co. merged with the Daler Board Company.

We have temporarily hung the little portrait in our dining room at Darlington where it looks marvelous hanging among the room’s other early-19th century paintings and mahogany furniture. When restored I am sure that our young Englishman will be worth many multiples of what Boy paid for him. However, we are in no hurry to send the painting and its frame out for restoration just yet, as we are enjoying its present somewhat crusty condition.

Have you found any “scores” lately?

Photos by Boy Fenwick

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The Urns of Darlington: Winter

A well-appointed property includes garden furnishings that help establish and augment the natural beauty and architecture of its grounds. At Darlington we have accumulated a collection of such furnishings that we place around the property with pleasing effect. This includes metal and wooden chairs and benches, sundials, and birdbaths. It also includes a number of large metal urns that we plant with a rotating display of seasonal flora.

The urns on our terrace planted for the winter

We bought our urns from dealers that specialize in selling interesting, large-scale outdoor furnishings and containers. Ours are not old, but rather are recent reproductions from China (or was it India?), made from scrap metal. They look convincing but require additional maintenance and care because they are prone to rusting quickly. That means regular painting.

A number of years ago we decided to paint all of the metal furnishings on our property in the same color paint, and selected Farrow & Ball’s "Off-Black” No. 57. The results are very satisfying but it was quite the task indeed as it included stripping, priming, and painting the seating, birdbath, and four urns and their stands.  It took Boy and me more than a month of weekends devoted to this project to complete it.


We change the contents of our urns every season to display plants that embody the season. In the spring we fill them with masses of violas; in summers we plant blowsy grasses, large succulents, or coleus; in the autumn we usually fill them with chrysanthemums, and one year we crowned the largest ones with enormous pumpkins; in the winter we plant them with evergreens. Every season is different, and we rarely repeat the same planting or color combinations from year to year.

Boy takes charge of selecting what the urns will feature each season, and does the actual planting. This year we bought the winter’s contents from a nursery that we like and that was having a 50%-off end-of-season sale of shrubs, perennials, and trees.

We planted the two large urns on our property with junipers, and the two urns leading up to the door with conical firs. Not exactly heirloom varieties, but handsome nonetheless. Boy was able to plant them ahead of the first of the winter's snow, and they look marvelous when crowned with white caps. 

Here is Reggie’s advice for successful planting of urns:
  • Wait until the end-of-season sale at your local nursery to buy shrubs to plant in your urns for the winter, and be sure to plant them before the soil in the urns freezes for the duration; otherwise you'll find yourself chopping out frozen dirt to make way for the shrubs;
  • When planting annuals in the spring or summer buy more than you think you’ll need and stuff them in. They’re only going to be in there for the season, so make the most of it;
  • Regardless of season, limit the varieties you plant in each urn; plant no more than one or two types of plants in a limited color palette; keep it simple;
And that's how we do it at Darlington. 

What did you plant in your urns this winter?

Photos by Reggie Darling

Friday, January 15, 2010

I've Gone Shopping for Shoelaces

After my mother died I and my siblings went through one of life’s most invested rituals, of going through her possessions and dividing them up amongst ourselves.  One of the things that I came across at the time was a small cardboard box containing several items that were identified as having at one time belonged to me as a boy.  Among the toys and childish ephemera was a pair of small brown leather shoes that had originally been worn by my older brother Frecky, and then handed down to me.

I grew up in such a time, world, and family that “hand-me-downs” were expected to form the nucleus of my wardrobe as the youngest of four children.  It wasn’t until I went away to boarding school in my mid-teens that the majority of my clothes were actually bought for me new from a store.  Up until then almost everything I wore--except for socks, underwear, and shoes--was either handed down to me from my older brother, acquired at the Junior League “Nearly New Shoppe” where my mother used to volunteer, or bought at the annual jumble sale at the country day school that I and my brother attended.  Why buy a new pair of Brooks Brothers khakis for Reggie when perfectly good, sturdy ones that Frecky (or others) had outgrown were sitting on a shelf, unused?

I recently came across the little shoes again when rifling through a drawer in the secretary-bookcase in our Snuggery at Darlington, and pulled them out to examine them.  Unlike the crude children’s shoes made today with plastic soles and Velcro-closings, the shoes I had worn as a child are a marvel of construction, beautifully made and sewn with tiny stitches, miniature versions of expensive, bench-made grown-up shoes.  I wish more of the shoes I own today were as well made!  However, my little shoes were a bit forlorn-looking, having lost their laces long ago.

My poor little unloved shoes

I decided that I would rectify this and place them on top of the chest of drawers I use in our bedroom where I would enjoy seeing them.  But that was more easily plotted than executed.  I brought the shoes back to the City with me and one day during lunchtime went to find a pair of laces for them.  My first stop was a shoe repair shop near my office that had nothing so diminutive as to fit my little shoes, and I returned to my office with my mission unaccomplished.  My next stop several days later was a carriage trade children’s shoe shop on the Upper East Side, but they didn’t even stock extra laces, much to my surprise.  However, they referred me to a shoe repair shop in the neighborhood as a possible source, but cautioned me that it was unlikely that I would find laces for my shoes anywhere because “they don’t make them like that anymore.”  Fortunately the proprietors of the shoe repair shop had a shoebox of discontinued sets of laces under the counter, and I found a pair among them that fit my little shoes perfectly.  They thought it was a stitch that the shoes were mine.

So much better, thank you

Don’t you think my little shoes look quite spiffy in their new laces?

Photos by Boy Fenwick

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

"The Theatuh, the Theatuh, What's Happened to the Theatuh?"*

Or, an Open Letter to the Producers of “A Little Night Music” and the Management of the Jujamcyn Amusement Corporation

* With apologies to Mr. Irving Berlin

Last week Boy and I had the pleasure of attending a Broadway show for the first time in many months. I say “pleasure” because the recently-opened revival of A Little Night Music we saw was really quite good, with strong performances by most of its cast, most notably and somewhat to my surprise by Catherine Zeta-Jones. However, while the show was a pleasure, the experience of attending the theater was not.

I’ll tell you why . . .

Strike One: The Tickets Were Exorbitantly Expensive

Getting good seats these days to an early-stage run of a hit Broadway show is virtually impossible for mere mortals without going through a ticket broker, and the cost of procuring such seats can be astronomical. I pre-bought our tickets through American Express before the show opened and paid a whopping $277 per seat for our center orchestra seating, or $554 for the two of us. I was surprised to see, however, that this did not include a huge scalping fee as a full $267 of the per-seat cost actually went to the theater, with Amex and Telecharge between them taking only $10 in handling fees per ticket. On the rare occasions that Boy and I attend the theater we are usually willing to spring for seats in the orchestra, preferring to forego the experience altogether if it means being relegated to seats in a nose-bleed balcony or ones with obstructed views. While I recognize that one pays a premium price to sit in the center orchestra, I think having to fork over more than $500 to the house for two seats is exorbitant.

That's right, $277 a seat!

…Particularly when it is obvious that the producers have scrimped on the expenses of mounting the show, which was most definitely the case here.

But we didn’t know that when I ordered the tickets as a Christmas present to us, and–even though expensive–I was more than willing to pay such a price for us to see this show. That's because neither of us had seen it before in other revivals, we both enjoy listening to the original cast recording from time-to-time, and we thought it would be one of our last chances to see Angela Lansbury on stage.

Angela Lansbury as Madame Armfeldt, Catherine Zeta-Jones as her daughter Desiree,
and Keaton Whittaker as her grandaughter Frederika (photo: Joan Marcus)

So we decided to make an evening of it, starting with dinner at “21”. I am going to be posting shortly about having dinner there so I’m not going to say much about that part of our evening for now, except that we both enjoyed it.

Strike Two: The Theater Was Woefully Understaffed

A Little Night Music is playing at the Walter Kerr Theater, a confection of a hall built in 1921 and one of the most intimate theaters on Broadway, seating only 975 patrons. We arrived there approximately ten minutes before curtain to find a scene of utter mayhem outside with people jostling and pushing to get into the sole door that was being used to admit patrons. That was the first thing about the evening that struck me as “off.” In my view, there should have been someone there from the theater to direct the crowd, several more of the six available entry doors should have been opened to admit the crowd, and there should have been more than the two harried ticket takers on hand to process the nearly one thousand people entering the theater. But that would have meant paying wages to such staff, I suppose.

Photo: Playbill

Strike Three: There Were Almost No Ushers

After we made it through the door we then found ourselves in the midst of absolute chaos. There were virtually no ushers to direct ticketholders to their seats or hand out programs (I had to pick mine up from the floor where someone had dropped it), and the aisles were jammed with people bumbling about. There were plenty of theater employees on hand, though, but all of them were busy hawking souvenirs and tee shirts, or pushing their way through the crowd with trays filled with snacks and bottled water for sale. Given how aggressive they were I suspect they are paid on commission, now that I think of it.


Strike Four: No Coat Check!

After vainly searching for the coat check to leave my briefcase, overcoat, and hat before taking my seat I learned from an exasperated theater employee–annoyed because I had interrupted a transaction–that the Walter Kerr doesn’t have one. This struck me as particularly odd. Not only is it my understanding that having a coat check is a standard offering at most theaters, the absence of one is a decided inconvenience for the Walter Kerr’s patrons–particularly during the winter. I suppose that the bean counters at the Jujamcyn Amusement Corporation decided that dispensing with a coat check altogether would help them maximize the theater’s revenue-per-square-inch calculation, since it opened up valuable real estate for more concession opportunities. Furthermore, they no longer have to pay salaries to the benighted lackeys forced to work checking coats. With this running through my mind, and annoyed by the prospect of having to sit buried under a pile of outer garments for the duration of the show, I then started to make my way to my seat.

Boy and I were eventually able to push our way through the hordes of people clogging the aisles and found the row that our seats were in. I was pleased to see that our seats were as billed, right in the center facing the stage, four rows back. All other seats in the row were already occupied so we had to "excuse me" our way past the seated patrons, none of whom bothered to stand up to let us by (as I would have done) despite the fact that the space between rows at the Walter Kerr is extremely tight at best, and far narrower than the stadium-sized seating found in most of the movie cineplexes the audience was likely more accustomed to. Much to my dismay I found that when I arrived at my seat it was next to one occupied by a Jabba the Hutt whose overly ample frame not only engulfed the arm-rest between our seats but also extended into my space, where it remained for the duration of the evening. I was not happy that I had to squeeze my way down into the seat while balling up my overcoat and putting it on my lap with my hat sitting on top of it.

Strike Five: The Patrons Were Under-Dressed, Ill-Mannered Boors

Once I had collected myself somewhat from this unpleasant experience, though, I was further dismayed when I turned and looked around the theater, taking in the rest of the audience. With few apparent exceptions the vast majority were dressed like slobs, wearing clothes more appropriate for an afternoon spent cleaning out the garage than for attending an evening's performance on the Great White Way. I felt like a decided fish out of water in my suit and tie and a throw-back to a different (and in my view better) era. Does anyone make an effort anymore?

Photo courtesy of Google Images

Not surprisingly once the show started the peanut gallery of the audience commenced a steady stream of comments, coughing, and gurgles, at least that is when their mouths weren't occupied with swilling water from plastic bottles that annoyingly captured the stage lights every time they took a swig. In retrospect I'm surprised I didn't hear someone loudly speaking on a cellphone during the performance giving a blow-by-blow description of what was taking place on stage.

Strike Six: As Little As Possible Was Spent on the Production

Fortunately I was able to block most of this out and enjoy the show, and the first act was quite good. But despite solid, and at times quite wonderful performances, both Boy and I were struck at how stripped down the production was, a view shared by many reviewers. The New York Times noted that there were barely enough musicians hired to constitute a pit orchestra. In my view "orchestra" is a complete misnomer as in reality there were barely enough musicians to constitute a combo, and what few there were were relegated to a mezzanine level on stage left as the pit had long-ago been dispensed with to make room for more lucrative seating.

In addition to an understaffed group of musicians the stage was barely decorated with a virtually nonexistent set, and there was little in the way of scenery changes between acts. Finally, as far as I could tell there was only one full change of costumes for the cast during the entire show. Not even the leading lady got more than two gowns to wear that evening. In some of the articles that I've read the producers apparently claimed that they were aiming to create a concert-like, Chekhovian mood in this production, but I rather think that was merely an excuse for why they invested what appeared to me to be the absolute bare minimum in the show's production.  Forgive me for what I'm missing here, but what do Ingmar Bergman and Stephen Sondheim have to do with Anton Chekhov?

Photo: Charles Sykes/AP

After an intermission that saw the reemergence of the army of hawkers and hucksters shilling souvenirs and tee shirts at every turn we settled (well, in my case squeezed) back into our seats for the second act. It was quite enjoyable, and the highlight was when Ms. Zeta-Jones sang a nuanced "Send In the Clowns," a song that I have heard mutilated by so many bad performers over the years (including Boy's worst nightmare of Bonnie Franklin holding a sheaf of balloons) that I usually start to cringe at the first few notes of its intro. Ms. Zeta-Jones' performance actually brought tears to my eyes (contrary to what my readers may think I am a sentimental fool), and it was the only time during the evening that the audience really quieted down. In my view Angela Lansbury pretty much mailed in her performance that evening as Madame Armfeldt, but I don't begrudge her that since it isn't exactly a toothsome role to begin with, and as far as I'm concerned she has the right to rest on her laurels at this point in her remarkable career.  A letter from Ms. Lansbury is still a treat indeed.

Strike Seven: The Huckstering Never Let Up

Even as we left the theater we were continued to be assaulted by vendors desperately trying to unload more souvenirs, snacks, and memorabilia. Management had even set up another stand outside with a barker urging everyone not to miss their last opportunity to sign up for a pre-sale of the as-yet-to-be-released cast recording. I couldn't wait to get away.

In our apartment Boy and I sat for an hour or so talking about the evening. Although we were both genuinely happy to have seen the show, and enjoyed it, we were both highly irritated by how unpleasant the experience of attending the Walter Kerr Theater had been. We laid most of the blame on the producers and the theater's management, who appeared to us to have done everything in their power to extract as much as possible from the audience while giving as little as possible in return. In the end I do not believe I got anywhere near my "money's worth" for the more than $500 I spent on our tickets--if I had to put a number on it I'd probably appraise the evening's true worth at no more than about half that.

Given our less-than-enjoyable experience in attending A Little Night Music, Boy and I agreed that we won’t be in any hurry to return to the theater to see a Broadway show, and particularly one with the misfortune to be staged at the Walter Kerr. As far as I'm concerned, I'd much rather stay at home and spend my money on something else that would give me lasting pleasure, such as the original cast recording of A Little Night Music--the one with Glynis Johns and Hermione Gingold.  And since I already own it I would have $554 more in my checking account than I do today.

Monday, January 11, 2010

We Interrupt Our Regularly Scheduled Programming...

...To report on our experience this evening of stopping in at Gino's Restaurant in Manhattan for a drink on our way home from work.  For those of you who may not be familiar with Gino's, it is an old-style red sauce and spaghetti Italian joint up the street from Bloomingdales on Lexington Avenue.  Located in the same spot "since 1945", Gino's is an institution in New York, and is one of the last remaining restaurants of its type on the Upper East Side, if not Manhattan.  Widely reported in the media as closing at the end of this month, Gino's is beloved among New Yorkers of "a certain age" as a dependable spot for stiff drinks and reasonably-priced, basic, old-school Southern Italian fare.  Justifiably famous for its interior decorated with cherry-red wallpaper covered with black and white zebras (and not much else), Gino's is a welcome throwback to a decidedly different era.

Postcard of Gino in 1991 (photo by Frederick Charles)

The first and only time I dined at Gino's was in my twenties, when I was taken there for dinner by a friend of my parents who lived nearby, and who had a charge account at the restaurant since they didn't take credit cards in those days.  My host was a single woman in her late 50s, a friend of my mother's from boarding school, and I recall she wore a black cocktail suit that evening with a diamond brooch and her hair in the classic "Vassar cut" that she had likely sported since the 1950s.  Very Mary McCarthy.  I don't recall all that much about the evening except that it was well-fueled with copious amounts of cocktails and wine, and dinner was basically a blur.  While I enjoyed myself I wasn’t in a hurry to return as I was quite a bit younger at the time than its more "mature” habitués.


So when I read recently that Gino's was set to close later this month, supposedly a victim of the recession, I decided that I would drop in to pay my respects before its doors shut for the last time.  Fortunately, a business meeting that I had in midtown this afternoon ended early enough that I could pick up Boy at his office a few minutes before 5 pm, and we headed over to Gino's to see what was what.


We arrived there to find a cluster of hard-drinking 10021 regulars at the bar.  Settling in to the remaining empty barstools we ordered a round of martinis and surveyed the joint.  Since it was only shortly after 5 pm it was not surprising that only a few of its many tables were occupied by diners. I was assured by the friendly barman that it would soon be full of regulars tucking in to Gino’s vast selection of easy-on-the-wallet, traditional Italian favorites.  The zebra wallpaper really is quite marvelous (and has, I believe, been recently re-issued by Scalamandre), but doesn't entirely mitigate the fact that the room is largely otherwise devoid of charm with a dropped ceiling of acoustical tile and fluorescent tube lighting.  Nonetheless Gino really is quite appealing in a retro way, what with its staff of late middle-aged waiters sporting short burgundy jackets and black bowties, and the room decorated with the remnants of a dime-store Christmas right out of a 1950s photograph.


Boy and I spent a pleasant half hour speaking with the other patrons at the bar and learned that reports of Gino's imminent death may be somewhat premature.  Apparently the place has been packed every night since it was published that it will be closing at the end of this month, and there may be a reprieve in its future.  I'm happy to learn that may be the case, as I think it would be a shame to send this old zebra to the glue factory any time soon.


Gino
780 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10021
(212) 758-4466
no website
Related Posts with Thumbnails