How Many Canes is Too Many?

Lately my thoughts on design have been filled with more questions than answers:  Should i go with 2 small or one large coffee table?  Box-up, display, or hock the knickknacks I've been carting around for years?  And, most importantly, when to say when with a teddy bear colletion:

Psst, I'm pretty sure the answer is one.  Or a million.  Shit I don't even know.  I kinda sorta like how 80 gazillion raggedy bears create a textural, bizarre landscape in this otherwise simple space.  But then again, they're teddy bears.  And then we must consider that they are in the same home as these displays:

Someone likes collections.  On one hand I appreciate the restraint with which all these groupings are displayed.  Despite the fact that Mr. Homeowner also owns 452 canes and 347 magazines (my figures) the place is still pretty spiffy and looks nothing like the vintage shops most collector's homes resemble.  But, then again, these are canes and bears we're talking about here.

And glasses, let's not forget that we need 18 thousand glasses.  I saw a wide shot of this room and that cupboard is like 90 feet high, this is only a third of the glassware.  That bird is like head level to me if that helps put it into perspective.  Why not 4,000 birds you ask?  Fear not

For there are at least 782 quail on the premises.  And, if my design logic is correct these puppies are smack-dab behind teddy bear alley.

But, then again there is this Jesus on the Cross right below a fossilized fish, so there's that.

What do you say?  Are 433 canes appropriate?  Should I keep all those stupid knickknacks of mine?  And what about the double / single coffee table dilemma?  Sorry, you get no visual on that.  Go with your gut.

Antiquarian is the New Black

Did anyone see this article on the New York Times site?  Not one to be slowed down by reading, I cruised the slideshow first and was pretty delighted by what I found.  Then, well, then I read the story.  It was gross beyond gross.  While I maintain full respect for the occupants of the homes profiled, I kinda want to barf all over the "reporter."

We start with an introduction of the Hovey sisters, who can be found on their blog here.  The reporter drools all over them and single-handedly credits them with starting the Ulysses S. Grant fashion trend in, wait for it, Williamsburg.  Am I to believe that I am watching the initial match spark that will ultimately lead to the full blaze that is the tipping point?  Oh to be so lucky.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm digging their taste - remember, I swooned when I first saw the pictures - I just can't stand by an article that notes that the type of collecting the sisters and the others profiled "requires a lot more engagement than a similar passion for midcentury furniture"


I am insane about interiors.  I have spent nights fighting sleep since I was four laying in bed imagining my dream home.  Every spare penny I have goes into my house, I don't even try to justify the expense, it's as necessary as food.  Can someone honestly try to tell me that this taste and commitment to collections requires more engagement than my own?  Or yours?  Come on readers, you've taken the time to find my measly design blog.  You probably have at least 20 more in your RSS feed.  We live for interiors.  New York Times:  give me a fucking break.

Ok, I'm over it, let's just spend the rest of our time together looking at the nice pictures that sparked my interest in the first place.  Above is a couple that also collects things.  That's all I'm saying about that.

I think this room is awesome.  Again, all I'm saying.

Their collection of arcane liquors, which I don't even pretend to understand and I certainly don't think is pretentious at all, oh no.  

Ryan Matthews, his house is a 24-hour taxidermy party.

I can't get behind that stuffed dog, but the rest is fine, although it seems a bit dusty.

So, there you go, now you've gotten the lovely slideshow in it's entirety and you didn't even have to read the stupid article.