GENERAL DESCRIPTION
It has not been possible to learn how much the Panic of 1893 affected the Stickley & Simonds Company, the chair manufacturing enterprise that Stickley and Elgin Simonds had opened in 1888, though the firm’s decision to shut its New York City sales office in 1895 may have been a cost-cutting move. What can more assuredly be said is that Stickley & Simonds made an unluckily timed decision, opening its large new factory in Eastwood, New York, in early 1893, just as the decade’s financial panic began. The partners delayed paying for the factory until the building contractor successfully sue them for nonpayment late the following year, and this lawsuit suggests that Stickley & Simonds was experiencing cash-flow problems during the economic downturn.
Stickley & Simonds developed several strategies to cope with the difficult business environment. It broadened its product line to include low-, medium-, and high-priced goods in a wide array of styles, and it placed special emphasis on good design. And, although it made some elaborate, costly chairs, its trade advertising emphasized affordability, an important point when financially stressed consumers were reluctant to buy furniture. As one ad said: “Don’t forget that we are still making goods for the masses, and at astonishing values.”
In May 1898, with business conditions improving, Gustav Stickley and Elgin Simonds differed over management issues, and Stickley bought Simonds out. Over the next two years the Gustave Stickley Company continued the Stickley & Simonds business model—variety, value, and “artistic” design—and in the recovering economic climate met with growing success. As The Upholsterer noted in March 1899, “The firm are [sic] doing a big business but the productive capacity is large and they are capable of a big output.” And that November a bullish Stickley was quoted by a trade journal as saying, “One pleasing feature of the season’s business is the demand for better grade goods. . . . we are receiving inquiries almost daily for more expensive chairs.” Though prosperous, Stickley is unlikely to have been satisfied with his status in the industry. An 1899 trade journal article, “The Most Prominent Furniture Manufacturers of New York State,” failed to mention him. As late as February 1900, another trade journal ranked his firm not in the top tier, but only “a good second.”
In 1899, Stickley joined an attempt to form a corporation combining nearly all the country’s chair manufacturers—a trust to be called the American Chair Company. Though this seems a puzzling move for the soon-to-be Arts and Crafts furniture maker, it makes sense given industry conditions at the decade’s end: investment capital was available, furniture sales were strong, profits were under pressure because of the increased costs of raw materials and labor, and in 1895 a ruling of the Supreme Court had created a favorable legal climate for large-scale mergers. Many huge corporations were formed in the late 1890s and early 1900s, and in 1899 a trade journal noted the “startling” fact that no fewer than ninety-eight American trusts had been organized during the preceding year. The author of this article was fiercely critical of such mergers, arguing that the frequently cited rationales of cost savings and “preventing cut-throat competition” were rarely realized and that the true motivation behind the formation of trusts was “short-sighted greed . . . the desire to acquire wealth quickly.” None of this deterred Stickley and his chairmaking colleagues, and through the summer of 1899 they held private meetings and made plans. In September 1899 he told a Syracuse newspaper that the “Chair trust is assured.” Stickley as still pursuing this chimera as late as March 1900, a fact that underscores not only his ambitions but also, perhaps, calls his business judgment into question and foreshadows the wishful thinking and ill-conceived new ventures that fifteen years later would force his Craftsman company into bankruptcy. For unknown reasons the merger plans fell apart by April 1900, and the populist-leaning editor of Furniture Journal greeted the news with a withering comment: “There was a large degree of folly in the undertaking.”
Stickley’s efforts to establish this trust are understandable in terms of his ambitions and within the context of turn-of-the-twentieth-century merger mania. His actions paralleled those of many other manufacturers in these years and reveal him as a businessman in tune with his times. Nevertheless, it is surprising that he was doing it at the same time that he and his designers were creating the furniture his firm would unveil at Grand Rapids two months later. Yet the factors that prompted his trust misadventure seem relevant to his New Furniture launch in 1900. Because of the improved economic climate, this was a good time to take a chance on creating something new and different, and, moreover, it was a good time for Arts and Crafts designers and artisans. This country’s handicraft revival coincided closely with the late 1890s economic boom: the revived American economy ignited demand among affluent buyers for distinctive and relatively expensive handcrafted wares. Stickley’s growing awareness of the Arts and Crafts movement, coupled with his evident recognition that it offered a potentially profitable new market for his firm, were most likely important inducements that led to the New Furniture. In light of his later work it is also clear that this furniture reflected his own taste, his growing disdain for mass-produced revival styles, and his robust new devotion to the craft of furniture making. In 1900, his views on two issues that, for the movement, were contentious—production processes and attitudes toward commerce—began to align with coalescing American Arts and Crafts thought.
Excerpt from
- David Cathers, "'The Moment'—Gustav Stickley from 1898 to 1990," in Gustav Stickley and the American Arts & Crafts Movement, ed. Kevin Tucker (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Museum of Art; New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2010), 20-22.
NOTES
updated format, added tags, linked to CCs, and wrote rule, JBA - 8/15/17
September 15, 2016- This note is currently located in the CC-Catalogue Essays notebook and I am moving it to the New-Artists & Designers notebook to consolidate all D3C online content. Due to the incomplete format of this template and the possibility that this note needs to be revised or updated, I have added the Stickley tag, rules pending tag, and am adding my author tag to this note in order to prevent it from being lost in the cracks. (EAS)
ASSOCIATED CONTENT CHUNKS
AUDIO ASSETS
VIDEO ASSETS
IMAGE ASSETS
WEB RESOURCES
ARCHIVAL RESOURCES
FUN FACTS
TEACHING IDEAS
RULES
apply to objects where constituent_id equals 404
Category
rules_operator
AND
General Description
It has not been possible to learn how much the Panic of 1893 affected the Stickley & Simonds Company, the chair manufacturing enterprise that Stickley and Elgin Simonds had opened in 1888, though the firm’s decision to shut its New York City sales office in 1895 may have been a cost-cutting move. What can more assuredly be said is that Stickley & Simonds made an unluckily timed decision, opening its large new factory in Eastwood, New York, in early 1893, just as the decade’s financial panic began. The partners delayed paying for the factory until the building contractor successfully sue them for nonpayment late the following year, and this lawsuit suggests that Stickley & Simonds was experiencing cash-flow problems during the economic downturn.
Stickley & Simonds developed several strategies to cope with the difficult business environment. It broadened its product line to include low-, medium-, and high-priced goods in a wide array of styles, and it placed special emphasis on good design. And, although it made some elaborate, costly chairs, its trade advertising emphasized affordability, an important point when financially stressed consumers were reluctant to buy furniture. As one ad said: “Don’t forget that we are still making goods for the masses, and at astonishing values.”
In May 1898, with business conditions improving, Gustav Stickley and Elgin Simonds differed over management issues, and Stickley bought Simonds out. Over the next two years the Gustave Stickley Company continued the Stickley & Simonds business model—variety, value, and “artistic” design—and in the recovering economic climate met with growing success. As The Upholsterer noted in March 1899, “The firm are [sic] doing a big business but the productive capacity is large and they are capable of a big output.” And that November a bullish Stickley was quoted by a trade journal as saying, “One pleasing feature of the season’s business is the demand for better grade goods. . . . we are receiving inquiries almost daily for more expensive chairs.” Though prosperous, Stickley is unlikely to have been satisfied with his status in the industry. An 1899 trade journal article, “The Most Prominent Furniture Manufacturers of New York State,” failed to mention him. As late as February 1900, another trade journal ranked his firm not in the top tier, but only “a good second.”
In 1899, Stickley joined an attempt to form a corporation combining nearly all the country’s chair manufacturers—a trust to be called the American Chair Company. Though this seems a puzzling move for the soon-to-be Arts and Crafts furniture maker, it makes sense given industry conditions at the decade’s end: investment capital was available, furniture sales were strong, profits were under pressure because of the increased costs of raw materials and labor, and in 1895 a ruling of the Supreme Court had created a favorable legal climate for large-scale mergers. Many huge corporations were formed in the late 1890s and early 1900s, and in 1899 a trade journal noted the “startling” fact that no fewer than ninety-eight American trusts had been organized during the preceding year. The author of this article was fiercely critical of such mergers, arguing that the frequently cited rationales of cost savings and “preventing cut-throat competition” were rarely realized and that the true motivation behind the formation of trusts was “short-sighted greed . . . the desire to acquire wealth quickly.” None of this deterred Stickley and his chairmaking colleagues, and through the summer of 1899 they held private meetings and made plans. In September 1899 he told a Syracuse newspaper that the “Chair trust is assured.” Stickley as still pursuing this chimera as late as March 1900, a fact that underscores not only his ambitions but also, perhaps, calls his business judgment into question and foreshadows the wishful thinking and ill-conceived new ventures that fifteen years later would force his Craftsman company into bankruptcy. For unknown reasons the merger plans fell apart by April 1900, and the populist-leaning editor of Furniture Journal greeted the news with a withering comment: “There was a large degree of folly in the undertaking.”
Stickley’s efforts to establish this trust are understandable in terms of his ambitions and within the context of turn-of-the-twentieth-century merger mania. His actions paralleled those of many other manufacturers in these years and reveal him as a businessman in tune with his times. Nevertheless, it is surprising that he was doing it at the same time that he and his designers were creating the furniture his firm would unveil at Grand Rapids two months later. Yet the factors that prompted his trust misadventure seem relevant to his New Furniture launch in 1900. Because of the improved economic climate, this was a good time to take a chance on creating something new and different, and, moreover, it was a good time for Arts and Crafts designers and artisans. This country’s handicraft revival coincided closely with the late 1890s economic boom: the revived American economy ignited demand among affluent buyers for distinctive and relatively expensive handcrafted wares. Stickley’s growing awareness of the Arts and Crafts movement, coupled with his evident recognition that it offered a potentially profitable new market for his firm, were most likely important inducements that led to the New Furniture. In light of his later work it is also clear that this furniture reflected his own taste, his growing disdain for mass-produced revival styles, and his robust new devotion to the craft of furniture making. In 1900, his views on two issues that, for the movement, were contentious—production processes and attitudes toward commerce—began to align with coalescing American Arts and Crafts thought.
Excerpt from
- David Cathers, "'The Moment'—Gustav Stickley from 1898 to 1990," in Gustav Stickley and the American Arts & Crafts Movement, ed. Kevin Tucker (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Museum of Art; New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2010), 20-22.
Fun Facts
Archival Resources
Web Resources
Notes
updated format, added tags, linked to CCs, and wrote rule, JBA - 8/15/17
September 15, 2016- This note is currently located in the CC-Catalogue Essays notebook and I am moving it to the New-Artists & Designers notebook to consolidate all D3C online content. Due to the incomplete format of this template and the possibility that this note needs to be revised or updated, I have added the Stickley tag, rules pending tag, and am adding my author tag to this note in order to prevent it from being lost in the cracks. (EAS)
source file
artists_and_designers-0263.xml.nores