MovieChat Forums > American Pickers (2010) Discussion > Horrible taste ("distressed" everything)...

Horrible taste ("distressed" everything); horrible show


A common theme here is that it's cool for things to be rusted, torn, and damaged. One flagrant example is the "rustoration" of that old roadster; Mike gushes over how great the "character" is and how cool the piece looks. For another example, Mike is designing the interior of a new shop building and tells the help to "distress" the metal shelves and make them look as old and worn as his merchandise! I remember another instance in which he buys a record player and goes on to talk up vinyl, saying that only vinyl will "rock through you" or somesuch. The superiority of vinyl audio reproduction is a myth perpetuated by nostalgics, hipsters, and an industry upset to have lost the obscene profits of the 1990s, when people were re-purchasing their albums en masse in a format (compact disc) that was cheaper to produce than any before it, and threatened by the Internet's cheapening of digital content. Mike is clearly pandering to a hipster clientele with many of his purchases.

No character on this show is a real treat, but Mike Wolfe in particular makes himself out to be a bit of a tool throughout. (And I only notice this show because my déclassé parents would watch it religiously whenever I was home from university.)

reply

A common theme here is that it's cool for things to be rusted, torn, and damaged.

It's the same theme on "Antiques Roadshow."

I appreciate antiques, but I guess I don't understand them. A refinished piece of furniture (or even bronze) is only worth a fraction of what it would be worth in its unfinished blackened state.

Why can't it be a matter of taste? In the case of furniture, rather than have it so old that it appears to be painted black, what's wrong with refinishing it, so one can see the grain of the wood?

I wouldn't do this if I knew it would "hurt" the "value." But, why is old and weathered better -- when it really doesn't look that good?

reply

An Antiques Roadshow producer responded to the perception that AR appraisers generally advise against refinishing antique furniture. The article discusses instances where if refinishing was appropriate in some cases and not in others.

http://njfurniturerefinishing.com/Restoration_Facts.html

So where does that leave us? Let the record show that Antiques Roadshow generally agrees with this notion: Well-conceived and well-executed refinishing and restoration usually enhances the value of just about any piece of old furniture. Exceptions are those rare (often museum-quality) pieces that have somehow survived in great `original' condition. If we say or imply the contrary, we should be called on it.

I thank Professional Refinishing for the chance to address the issue here, and I hope many professionals in the refinishing business will let us know from time to time what they think. ~ Peter B. Cook, executive producer of Antiques Roadshow


Note how Mr. Cook mentions, “original” condition for rare pieces. That suggests that even a museum-quality piece with an original finish that has turned black with age would be a candidate for professional restoration.

As for the distressed décor look that appears to be the latest fad; the distressed look isn’t anything new, it was popular in some areas in the 60’s and 70’s too.

I guess it boils down to personal aesthetics. As we know, personal aesthetics can range from subtle touches of “distressed” pieces which are pleasing to the eye to some folks opting for a décor that looks like a full-blown period piece movie set that is woefully out of place and excessive.

reply

I read the article, Cydnee, and the Antiques Roadshow definitely has always STRONGLY IMPLIED that refinishing anything is a disaster.

That article seems to be trying to back away from that position.

Maybe they've all been a bunch of Drama Queens on the subject -- especially those Keno Brothers.  

reply

I agree that AR has always argued against refinishing. It seems the catalyst was a couple who brought in Stickley furniture that had been refinished. The value according to the appraiser was significantly reduced.

Trouble is, when AR shows are repeated, the cumulative effect is appraisers dissing refinishing instead of saying the owner should always have the item appraised first and then ask whether it should be refinished.

As for drama, Cook said it was a show about value and therefore drama is inherent. That said, AR is still light years ahead of the cheap imitators.

reply

Things can be original only once. You can easily restore old things and make then look like new again or even buy a reproduction - most of people can't tell the difference. But to have something that's lets say 100 years old in an original condition and still survived - that's priceless. I know a lot of survivor cars are becoming popular these days. Yeah, if you restore them to a show condition they will be worth more, but if you just "clean them up" they will depreciate in price.

reply

I get the appeal of a survivor car that's been in storage for decades and has its original paint and interior in fair condition. But that roadster was just ridiculous - and I believe they paid something like twenty thousand dollars to make it run (removing its status as an historical artifact). Now, if someone is willing to pay more than that for the "rustored" car, then that just demonstrates the poor taste of their customer base. It's flagrantly white trash, and for the cost of a new car at that.

I don't hate every antique or want them all polished shiny so that I can clap and guffaw; I just think that the more dilapidated items (which, by the way, the original owners didn't even see fit to keep out of the rain!) are overrated, overvalued, and belong in the dump.

reply

I'm not sure what roadster you're talking about, I don't think I saw that episode.

Is this the car that you're talking about?

http://autoculture.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AMPICK17.jpg

Well, this is a '32 Ford Roadster, which is the most desirable year and make for hot rods. That grille alone is worth few thousands and windshield is worth just as much. And these days rat-rods are just as popular as hot-rods. If somebody buys that body shell he can make a rat-rod out of it and with rat-rods its all about natural rust and to make it as uglier as possible. So that natural worn out body shell you can't replicate with a newer vehicle or vehicle in a better condition.

So '32 Ford Roadster w/ grille and windshield ... priceless. I'm not sure how much they paid (the web-site from where I got that picture stated $2,000), but that package alone is worth $15,000-$20,000 easily.

reply

It probably is, and I never doubted that someone might pay within that range for those items. I am still convinced that rat rods are déclassé and in poor taste. The way I look at it, to make vintage 1932 Ford Roadster pieces into a rat rod entails attaching them, by drilling and/or welding, to a custom chassis; and this means disfiguring those items.

Even if the disfigurement can be avoided or minimized, a rat rod is not itself a priceless historical object, but a custom piece of degenerate art (incorporating many new parts) whose statement is, "My owner is a proudly unsophisticated ruffian who values loudness, belligerence, churlishness, and everything wrong with American low white culture."

I am only on this message board complaining, essentially, about this show's low status because I see my family, which moved south years ago, becoming sucked in by the filthy Appalachian white trash Teabagger culture; and when I see them do things like watch History Channel or listen to Glenn Beck, I become very, very angry; and ranting on Internet message boards is an easily accessible outlet. (To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father called me "a queer" for wearing a polo shirt like my friends and classmates in the advanced classes.)

If you are someone who is turned on by rat rods, lifted pickups, Confederate flags, and such, that is your right; however, I ask you to understand why not all of us would share your tastes. For an analogy, look at some of the modern art which also sells for outrageous amounts of money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fluids_in_art) to help yourself partly understand how I feel.

reply

I mostly agree with you there, but that is not what American Pickers is about. Mike and Frank are nothing but salesman. They buy anything they can resell later on for a profit. And they're pretty successful at that considering that they have been doing it for many years (even before American Pickers started airing). They're not buying stuff for their own art studio that can be praised by experts so they don't really care whether something is an art or whether it has history - for them its all about reselling stuff and making money. So if there are people out there that wanna spend big bucks for a rusted out '32 Ford body shell - why wouldn't they buy it? Their personal feelings are set aside - this is a job for them, not a personal hobby.

reply

You might dial the condescension back just a bit, OP.

reply

IMDb does not exist to provide an echo-chamber fan page for every piece of entertainment. The clash of fans and haters, and the availability of strongly worded opinions (gushing and venomous), is why this site has prospered for more than twenty-four years with very little change in format. What a bore it would be if we all just dialed the condescension back and obeyed the dictum, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

reply

[deleted]

Jbhutt has a valid point though; without moderation, the IMDB boards have become a cesspool of trolls, armchair debunker know-it-alls and overall negativity. He's not suggesting saying something nice, necessarily - if someone doesn't like a show they can certainly express it. The problem is that many trollish users will incessantly mock, ridicule and berate people who profess to like a show/actor/movie, etc, because of the ineffective to non-existent moderation in IMDB's boards. Many such people have demonstrated an inability to conduct intelligent dialogue.

History channel has garnered a veritable scum pond of IMDB trolls that go from forum to forum attacking every aspect of every show while attempting to drown out users that post appreciative points. Some of these are the sockpuppets of a single IMDB poster who holds "conversations" with himself, but there are many others as well. The only thing that makes the IMDB boards tolerable is the existence of the ignore feature, an invaluable resource for maintaining one's sanity.

And if you feel Mike is a "tool", then you must really dislike the people who buy from him, as they have made him a rather rich "tool" ;)



IMDB's ignore user button = priceless :)

reply

The Queen of the Trolls has spoken!

Notice how she has nothing positive to add to the discussion -- but is only here to stir the shít.....💩 and to talk about other posters.

That's all she ever does.

reply

The Queen of the Trolls has spoken!

Notice how she has nothing positive to add to the discussion -- but is only here to stir the shít.....💩 and to talk about other posters.

That's all she ever does.



That and the "Queen of Deflection"... notice how everything she accuses others of.. she might as well be talking about herself... her whole purpose is to stir up trouble on these dead boards for these garbage shows.. and sit back with her fellow trolls and have a good laugh...

while attempting to drown out users that post appreciative points.



 APPRECIATIVE POINTS !!!!!!! are there any HISTORY CHANNEL show threads that discuss the "Appreciative Points" of their garbage programming ???? Are there any "Appreciative Points" in their cheaply produced, scripted, staged, faked, pos garbage "Reality" shows ???? 

If everybody was posting how great these shows are... she'd be on here posting they are garbage...




If you deflect the topic of the thread from the show to me, our discussion is over

reply

Have you watched American Restoration? Might be a bit more to your liking as they mostly taken historical items and return then to like new condition.

reply

I have. Unfortunately, it played like more of a white-trash soap opera than like anything else; this has been the trend in reality television from Pawn Stars to Deadliest Catch.

reply

You are one prissy little crybaby! Op, go stuff a manpon up your cruddy hole, pop a midol and bite your pillow till you feel better.

fat pink mast!

reply

You are one prissy little crybaby! Op, go stuff a manpon up your cruddy hole, pop a midol and bite your pillow till you feel better.

reply

This is either a troll, a leak from 4chan, or one of those sleeveless Middle American troglodyte morons to whom much of reality television is targeted.

reply

You really do need to dial the condescension back just a bit, dude.

reply

The superiority of vinyl audio reproduction is a myth perpetuated by nostalgics, hipsters, and an industry upset to have lost the obscene profits of the 1990s


So true. I have been an "audiophile" my whole life and, being in my 40s, of course, listened to LPs in my youth. While I understand the nostalgia for the physical format, the claims that people make about its audio quality baffle me. If I hear another person say that albums "just sound warmer", I'm gonna puke!

Part of the issue, imo, stemmed from the early days of CD. When the older sound recordings were transferred to the digital format, there was indeed a great deal of dynamic sound loss (I'm sure someone could explain all the technicalities of that), mainly because producers simply took the old masters or dubs of those masters and pressed them into a CD without any tweaks. It didn't all translate properly. This is why so many "remasters" appeared later on. The remastering process then sparked other debates, much in the way film restoration/preservation does, which is, how true to the original mixing is desirable or possible?

So, there was a period when some albums did indeed sound better than their CD counterparts. These days, however, unless something went terribly wrong on the engineering/production side of things, digital recordings are superior in every way. It was never a format issue. I don't care what anyone says.

reply

Well there's refinishing, refurbishing, repurposing, shabby sheeking, distressing, and none of them have to do with restoring. Restoring is a true, laborious venture that very few can do properly.

American Restoration does all those other things, but rarely actually restores something.

reply