Picasso's "Nu au Plateau de Sculpteur (Nude, Green Leaves and Bust)" sold for 106.5 million last May, the most ever paid for a Picasso.

The concept of a trophy wife is an ancient one. Bathsheba and Cleopatra are examples. A 1950 issue of The Economist magazine called attention to the practice of victorious warriors marrying beautiful women captured in battle. Monarchs often married wives where the trophy rested more in political alliances and land acquisition than physical beauty. Charles (who needs all the help he can muster) and Diana offer a contemporary example.

By the 1990s, trophy wife was a term used to describe the marriage of a financially successful man to a woman whose beauty and desirability enhanced his status among male competitors. The trophy wife was equivalent to a Lamborghini, Patek Philip or New York Park Avenue penthouse. Billionaire J. Howard Marshall’s marriage to Playboy Playmate’s Anna Nicole Smith added a pejorative connotation to the phrase.

Reading the media hype preceding Christie’s International, Phillips de Pury & Co. and Sotheby’s June 2010 London sales of impressionist and modern art, I found several references to the top lots being offered for sale as potential trophies. Applying this trophy concept to fine arts, antiques and collectibles is new. If it becomes acceptable trade speak, it will solidify the idea that desirability at the high-end of any collecting category rests on financial as much or more than aesthetic beauty. Unlike the trophy wife, whose beauty fades over time, the implied assumption is that trophy art’s financial beauty will not. This is a dangerous and possibly false assumption.

Who or what decides if a piece of art is a trophy? At the moment, the answer is money. Which is the trophy—the $106.5-million Picasso painting sold on May 2010 in New York or the $51.2-million Picasso “Portrait d’Angel Fernándezo de Soto” from the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation sold in London on June 23, 2010, by Christie’s International? If they are both trophies, how is the $55 million dollar difference explained?

Picasso's “Portrait d’Angel Fernándezo de Soto” from the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation sold in London on June 23, 2010, sold for $51.2 million.

In the midst of the Great Recession (do not try telling me and millions of others that it is over), staggering prices are being paid for high-end pieces, many of which set auction or private treaty sale records. Individuals are cashing out of their intangible investments such as bonds and stocks and buying tangibles. Fine art, antiques and collectibles as tangibles are one area into which this available capital is flowing.

Coins, comic books, non-sport and sport trading cards (a.k.a., bubble gum cards) and stamps have developed a grading and encapsulated system; the goal is to create a universal standard through which these commodities can be traded worldwide. Attempts to do this for other fine art, antiques and collectibles have failed or met with limited success.

The determination of trophy status is and always will be subjective. The amount paid is driven by the opinion of someone—a person whose expertise and motive needs to be constantly scrutinized in the present and future. There is no one who is above suspicion, even the buyer. If the buyer’s goal is to buy status in buying a piece of trophy art, antique or collectible, his judgment is clouded from the onset. Advice from experts within the field, investment pundits or auction house personnel is tainted, too, if for no other reason than they profit from the acceptance of their advice.

I was extremely pleased with the balance shown by the media reports of the June 2010 London art sales. In addition to reporting the lots that sold, they called attention to the large number of lots that did not sell. Prior to the actual auction, many of these unsold lots were hyped by the auction houses as trophy pieces. Given the high percentage of lots that did not sell, I am more pleased by those who did not bid and saved their money to buy another day than I am by those who bought into the hype.

When I describe the top five to 10 pieces within a collecting category, I refer to them as masterpiece or ultimate units. A top-notch collection contains at least half of them. Collectors define their importance in terms of desirability and not money, although a connection can be made.

A pair of the ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in “The Wizard of Oz.”

Because of collectors’ declining importance in determining the significance of what is and is not being sold in the antiques and collectibles marketplace, it is time to accept two truths, no matter how painful: (1) the concept of trophy antiques and collectibles has been around far longer than most are willing to admit; and (2) those who buy these items are not collectors in the true sense. Although a reputed pair of the ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in “The Wizard of Oz” were sold in an MGM auction in 1950, the concept that a pair was a trophy was established on May 24, 2000, when Christie’s East sold a pair for $660,000 to David Elkouby and his partners, who owned several Hollywood memorabilia stores. They have not surfaced since.

Is trophy the best word to describe these slippers? My first thought is yes. They are trophies. The slippers are one of the movies’ greatest props. While researching the slippers, I found a reference to them as “Genre: Fantasy.” It is hard to dispute the fantasy attribution. There is a sense of unreality to them. Since I have no desire to create two new collecting concepts of trophy and fantasy, trophy is fine for now.

Once again, the question becomes how do you define a trophy antique or collectible? Like the Picasso paintings, the object can be assigned to a specific collecting category or sub-category. A trophy piece should stand alone.

In the past, I have railed against those who tout the one-of-a-kind over a mass produced object. Painters, even Picasso, had their bad days. I have seen more than my fair share of handmade junk; crap that belongs in the landfill rather than a museum or collection. Each piece stands and falls on its own merit in my eyes.

Perhaps this is why I am having so much trouble dealing with the possibility that the only way to define a trophy antique or collectible is its uniqueness. Ideally, it is a one-of-a-kind item. But, the ruby slippers were not one-of-a-kind, they were five-or-six-or-more of a kind—a pair or pairs for dancing, a pair or pairs for close-ups, or a pair or pairs of identical slippers worn by one of the witches. Is size alone enough to differentiate which is which? Trophy clearly requires limitability.

Michael Jackson’s Swarovski crystal-studded glove worn during his 1984 Victory tour sold for $190,000 to Wanda Kelley of Los Angeles.

I briefly considered equating trophy with icon status. In June 2010, Michael Jackson’s Swarovski crystal-studded glove worn during his 1984 Victory tour sold for $190,000 to Wanda Kelley of Los Angeles. Who is Wanda Kelley? Her claim to fame is her statement: “Let’s just say I wasn’t walking out of here without that glove.” Is this glove a trophy icon? For $190,000, one would hope so. Fate decrees otherwise. In November 2009, Michael Jackson’s white glove worn when he first performed his moonwalk for the 1983 Motown 25 television special sold for $350,000. Apparently lead crystals do not a trophy icon make. Further, the auction company touted the white glove as the Holy Grail of Michael Jackson collectibles. Trophy, icon, Holy Grail—what is next?

The last week of June 2010 witnessed a number of hard-to-understand-the-price-paid sales. Julien’s Auctions sold a set of three Marilyn Monroe X-rays revealing a lovely set of ribs (not what you thought I was going to comment upon, was it?) from a 1953 Cedars of Lebanon Hospital visit for $45,000, an Elvis Presley shirt worn during a 1956 appearance on “the Milton Berle Show” for $61,200, and a pair of Michael Jackson’s stage-worn loafers for $90,000, hopefully fumigated and polished before being sold. None of these items are trophies. In fact, they make you wonder if the buyers who acquired them were in the right mind.

It is far easier to agree upon which objects are not trophies as opposed to deciding which are. When I hear trophy, I immediately think of the shelves and boxes full of sports trophies I encounter doing home appraisals. What were once valuable are now junk. The moment of glory and memories associated with them vanished. This my greatest concern with assigning trophy status to fine art, antique and collectible objects. The concept is not permanent. There is no guarantee the next owner, let alone future generations will assign it the same value.

Let’s stay with the tried and true. These so-called trophies are nothing more than the high-end used goods sold in the antiques and collectibles marketplace. We are first, foremost and always will be nothing more than recyclers of other people’s stuff.

—————————————

Rinker Enterprises and Harry L. Rinker are on the Internet. Check out his Web site.

You can listen and participate in Harry’s antiques-and-collectibles radio call-in show “Whatcha Got?” on Sunday mornings between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. Eastern Time. It streams live on the Genesis Communications Network.

“Sell, Keep Or Toss? How To Downsize A Home, Settle An Estate, And Appraise Personal Property” (House of Collectibles, an imprint of the Random House Information Group), Harry’s latest book, is available at your favorite bookstore and via Harry’s Web site: http://www.harryrinker.com.

Harry L. Rinker welcomes questions from readers about collectibles, those mass-produced items from the 20th century. Selected queries will be answered on this site. Harry cannot provide personal answers. You can e-mail your questions to harrylrinker [at] aol [dot] com. Only e-mails containing a full name and mailing address will be considered. Please indicate that these are questions for WorthPoint.

Copyright © Rinker Enterprises, Inc. 2010

WorthPoint—Discover Your Hidden Wealth

Join WorthPoint on Twitter and Facebook.

Many old books do not include publication dates. Copyright dates, which are often incorrectly used to determine a book’s age, are usually much earlier than actual publication dates, because most classic books were eventually produced by a variety of publishers and sometimes with a variety of different illustrators. L. Frank Baum’s many Wizard of Oz books were produced in various editions, often with no publication dates.

The following guidelines, sorted by titles, can aid in identifying the age of the different editions.

- The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – The first edition of the first book in Baum’s series was published in 1900 (with a copyright date of 1899). It was illustrated by W. W. Denslow and published by George M. Hill Company.

- The New Wizard of Oz – Bobbs-Merrill published this title in1903 from the original George M. Hill plates (with minor changes) and published further editions between 1920 and 1925, although the copyright date still read “1903”. (The only way to tell the true age of the Bobbs-Merrill editions is via fine textual points, illustration coloring, endpaper styles and cover styles.) Bobbs-Merrill also printed a Photoplay version in 1925 (in conjunction with the silent film The Wizard of Oz featuring Dorothy Dwan) and an MGM studio version in 1939. In 1944, the publisher again re-issued the book, but this time with new illustrations by Evelyn Copelman.

- Reprint publisher M. A. Donahue produced an edition with this title in 1913 from leased Bobbs-Merrill printing plates.

- The Wizard of Oz Waddle Book – Blue Ribbon Books used the original Bobbs-Merrill plates to create a version in 1934 with 6 die-cut “waddle” toys (which, when assembled, would waddle down a sloping yellow brick road).

- The Wizard of Oz Picture Book – Whitman Publishing Company produced a small book stitched with saddle wire on textured stock with illustrations signed by “Leason” in 1939.

- The Story of the Wizard of Oz – Whitman published this title in 1939, illustrated by Henry E. Vallely.

- The Wizard of Oz – Reprint publisher Grosset and Dunlap produced a version in 1939 illustrated by Oskar Lebeck.
The Saalfield Publishing Company printed their version of this title in 1944 illustrated by Julian Wehr.
Reilly & Lee Company published this title in 1956 illustrated by Dale Ulrey.

From 1926 to 1947, London publisher Hutchinson & Company produced several versions with this title. They used a scattering of Denslow’s illustrations, movie stills and other various adaptations. A version in 1947 also included color plates by H. M. Brock.

After the success of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum produced many additional titles in the series. But he and illustrator W.W. Denslow parted ways due to creative differences and ownership issues. John R. Neill, a much more talented artist, became the illustrator for the remainder of the books. These titles were produced in chronological order as follows:

- The Marvelous Land of Oz (1904) later changed to The Land of Oz

- Ozma of Oz (1907)

- Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz (1908)

- The Road to Oz (1909)

- The Emerald City of Oz (1910)

- The Patchwork Girl of Oz (1913)

- Tik-Tok of Oz (1914)

- The Scarecrow of Oz (1915)

- Rinkitink in Oz (1916)

- The Lost Princess of Oz (1917)

- The Tin Woodman of Oz (1918)

- The Magic of Oz (1919)

- Glinda of Oz (1920)

Most of the early versions of these books contain the original copyright dates but no publication dates. However, dating these books, for the most part, is relatively easy by following a few simple points:

1) Reilly & Britton published all the first editions between 1904 and 1918 (the last title they produced was The Tin Woodman of Oz). In some cases, Reilly & Britton published more than one edition. The true first edition of The Road to Oz has tinted internal pages in pastel colors. The true first edition of The Emerald City of Oz has a front cover of several characters in a coach traveling through the city, with distinctive metallic green highlights.

2) Reilly & Lee published reprints and subsequent editions from 1919 until the mid-1930s, when the internal color plates were replaced with black and white illustrations. Therefore, if the books do not contain internal color plates, they are newer than 1935.

3) In the 1960s, the color covers with paste-on illustrations were replaced with white covers and stamped-on illustrations. These versions are very prolific and contain only the copyright dates, although they are actually 50 years newer.

4) Dover Publications issued paperback versions of the Oz series in the 1960s and 1980s.

5) William Morrow published editions in the 1980s.

6) Coles Publishing in Canada also produced some titles in the 1980s.

Modern editions usually contain new publication dates and are easier to recognize as new.

Multitudes of offshoots have also been produced in various sizes and titles, too many to mention here. These include editions by W.W. Denslow (with no mention of Frank Baum), versions written by other authors after Baum’s death, junior condensed versions, boxed sets, small-size stories in a 1913 Little Wizard Series and 1932 Jell-O booklets, among many others.

The best guide for dating and identifying all early editions of Oz books is Bibliographia Oziana by Douglas Greene and Peter Hanff, published by the International Wizard of Oz Club. It contains all of the textual, style, illustrative, advertising and thickness points which differentiate the various versions and explains the printing history of each book. It also includes photographs of the books’ covers.

Many generations have read the children’s book series “The Wizard of Oz” ever since L. Frank Baum published his first book in 1900. He wrote a total of 14 books for the series until his death in 1919 (his last book was published pothumously in 1920).

The movie version released in 1939 that we are all familiar, revolves around the young farm girl, Dorothy, who along with her dog Toto dreams that she visits a far off land of Munchkins known as Oz. Most of the people she meets in Oz are actually people and family she knows in Kansas who help or hinder her attempts to return home to Kansas. Finally, she succeeds with the help of Glinda, the Good Witch of the East, and a pair of ruby slippers. Once home, she vows to never look for happiness beyond her own back yard.

Everyone knows the story, but not everyone realizes that Oz actually had a flag, although there is some controversy in the flag community as to what that flag actually looked like.

Still, there are some representations that become a standard view of the national flag of Oz and there are enough references to a flag in Baum’s books to suggest that the design is not too far off.

For example, the national flag of Oz features four distinct quadrants of dark blue, purple, orange, and yellow each corresponding to a section of the country where everything is featured in that color. Dark blue is associated with Gillikan Country to the north, purple for the Munchkin Country to the east, orange belongs to Quadling Country to the south, and yellow represents Winkie Country to the west. The word Oz appears in the center in emerald green as the capitol of the country, also known as the Emerald City. These colors were identified by L. Frank Baum in Chapter 5, Paragraph Two of the book “The Magic of Oz” in 1919.

There is some controversy as to what “quadrants” mean in the actual description. Does it mean that the quadrants are horizontal and vertical or do they meet in the center like above. Another description is also mentioned in “The Magic of Oz” Chapter 5 as: the banner of the Munchkins is blue, that of the Winkies yellow; “…the Gillikin banner is purple, and the Quadling’s banner is red. The colors of the Emerald City are of course green.” So, which version is correct. Perhaps they both are or neither are. In any event, the one pictured is available commercially today.

There is also a reference to the royal flag of Ozma, the royal head of Oz. It is described this way in “Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz” in Chapter 17:

“The…Coronet Band…played the National air called “The Oz Spangled Banner,” and behind them were the standard bearers with the Royal flag. This flag was divided into four quarters, one being colored sky-blue, another pink, a third lavender and a fourth white. In the center was a large emerald-green star, and all over the four quarters were sewn spangles that glittered beautifully in the sunshine. The colors represented the four countries of Oz, and the green star the Emerald City.”

You can see both flags above. The images are courtesy of “Flags of the World” website at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fic_oz.html#oz with the designs of the national flag by Jim Ferrigan and the royal flag by T. Mike.