When DIY goes bad

HeyBub wrote:
>
> Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.
>
> Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.
>
> The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million dollars.
>
> It's a nice looking lamp, though.
>
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_id=34

DIY didn't "go bad", it went "stupid". The actual DIY project sounds
like it was entirely successful.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:23:13 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.
>
>Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.
>
>The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million dollars.
>
>It's a nice looking lamp, though.
>
>http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_id=34
>

Still a bigger screwup than I think I've made so far-- but down near
the end of the article, after leading with "Hole drilled in vase costs
owner £250K" and giving the current value as £20,000. . .

the article says; "it would have been worth £250,000 without the hole
and if it had been accompanied by its matching pair. "

My math & general knowledge of antiques says a single vase was
probably 'only' worth £110,000 or so- less the £20,000 that she got it
appraised for and we're left with £90,000. Google converts that to
$178,551 USD today. Not exactly chump-change, but not 1/2 million,
either.

Jim

"Jim Elbrecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lrhh741b3mlrpn6irfjkjpab0gnvf0ff32@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:23:13 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.
>>
>>Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.
>>
>>The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million dollars.
>>
>>It's a nice looking lamp, though.
>>
>>http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_id=34
>>
>
> Still a bigger screwup than I think I've made so far-- but down near
> the end of the article, after leading with "Hole drilled in vase costs
> owner Ł250K" and giving the current value as Ł20,000. . .
>
> the article says; "it would have been worth Ł250,000 without the hole
> and if it had been accompanied by its matching pair. "
>
> My math & general knowledge of antiques says a single vase was
> probably 'only' worth Ł110,000 or so- less the Ł20,000 that she got it
> appraised for and we're left with Ł90,000. Google converts that to
> $178,551 USD today. Not exactly chump-change, but not 1/2 million,
> either.
>
> Jim

Yeah. The math troubled me too. I wonder if she has the other vase?

"Jim Elbrecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> the article says; "it would have been worth Ł250,000 without the hole
> and if it had been accompanied by its matching pair. "

The other half of the pair is probably being used as a catch for when
changing oil in the car

> Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.
> Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.
> The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million dollars.
> It's a nice looking lamp, though.
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_i
> d=34

First, the article states it would only be worth Ł250,000 if it had been
accompanied by it's matching pair. We can't just assume a single vase would
be worth half as much.

In any case, I always have to laugh when I hear things like "this will be
worth something someday". That priceless object you hang onto isn't worth
a penny until you sell it. Until then, it's just a piece of junk taking up
space. "Potential" value won't pay the bills.

What's the old saying, "one man's junk is another man's treasure"? If the
vase worked better as a lamp for the woman, I say she found her treasure.
Otherwise it was just an ugly vase passed down through the family.

Anthony

That really totally hurts. Ouch!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:WIqdnVKlburZLeXVnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.

Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.

The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million dollars.

It's a nice looking lamp, though.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_id=34

HeyBub wrote:
> Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.
>
> Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.
>
> The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million dollars.
>
> It's a nice looking lamp, though.
>
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_id=34
>
>
Shrug. And if everyone had saved their copy of 'Action Comics Superman
#1', they'd be worth about 10 bucks, probably. You glossed over where it
said a matched set would be worth 250k pounds.

The value of collectibles is only meaningful if you have a rich buyer
that wants it, as many people with dollar signs in their eyes have
learned the hard way. Remember beanie babies?

As to the vase- well, if you're into that stuff, I guess it is pretty,
but I'd never pay Art Collector prices for something like that, even if
I was rich. Whoever buys it will probably just keep that side turned to
the wall, or something, and nobody will ever notice.

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Woman drills hole in vase to make it into a lamp.
>>
>> Vase was ancient Chinese porcelain.
>>
>> The hole reduced the value of the lamp by, oh, half a million
>> dollars. It's a nice looking lamp, though.
>>
>> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=213998&in_page_id=34
>>
>>
> Shrug. And if everyone had saved their copy of 'Action Comics Superman
> #1', they'd be worth about 10 bucks, probably. You glossed over where
> it said a matched set would be worth 250k pounds.

>
> The value of collectibles is only meaningful if you have a rich buyer
> that wants it, as many people with dollar signs in their eyes have
> learned the hard way. Remember beanie babies?
>
> As to the vase- well, if you're into that stuff, I guess it is pretty,
> but I'd never pay Art Collector prices for something like that, even
> if I was rich. Whoever buys it will probably just keep that side
> turned to the wall, or something, and nobody will ever notice.

The amount of money isn't the important thing (other than it was a lot).
It's the notion of taking something lovely (to somebody) and ruining it for
the connoisseur while turning it in to some horrid, utilitarian bit of crap.

My ex-wife PAINTED a walnut bookcase with some hideous, oil-based, exterior
concoction. I wasn't about to wait until she turned my lucky bowling ball
into a pair of bookends to match.

HeyBub wrote:
...
> It's the notion of taking something lovely (to somebody) and ruining it for
> the connoisseur while turning it in to some horrid, utilitarian bit of crap.
...

But it may have been nothing more than a chamber pot originally, anyway,
and it's only the pretentious that have turned it into something other
than a bit of utilitarian earthenware...

--