apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time


Where Do You Spare No Expense?
California Home & Design

102709highvslow2.jpg

One of these rooms is filled with original, antique and handcrafted pieces. The other was styled using replicas and mass produced accessories. Can you tell the difference? And even if your discerning eye could differentiate between the 1970s writing table from Conor Fennessy Antiques & Design versus Brocade Home's silhouette table, is the distinction worth the extra $7,000?

 
 

California Home & Design recently ran an interesting article that compared two versions of a room and an office, one using original items and the other using replicas. The images below are from high and low(er) priced offices.


102709highoffice.jpg

The spare no expense $44,626 office features a hand-knotted Turkish Oushak rug, an original Fabricius and Kastholm Tulip chair, an unsigned 17th-century Italian oil painting and an oversized tripod lamp made from a 1940s French telescope vase.


102709lowoffice.jpg

The more cost effective $7,485 office is comprised of a Williams-Sonoma Home Sun-Softened rug, Ikea's Jerrik swivel chair, an open wood floor lamp from West Elm and a 20th-century copy of a Titian painting.


For most of us price obviously plays a large part in what we buy, but if money was a non issue, would you spend the extra $37,000 to have the "original" room? When it comes to decorating your own home, where do you choose to skimp and where do choose to you splurge?


(Image credits: Garry McLeod / California Home and Design)

Tags

inspiration, interior design, office, budget

Related Links

Share

Comments (60)

i can tell a knock-off dog anywhere...

posted by twelveindustries on October 27th 2009 at 7:47pm
view twelveindustries's profile

damn, i have expensive taste!

posted by ggsix on October 27th 2009 at 7:51pm
view ggsix's profile

Splurge on things that will last. I buy real wood, vintage furniture on the cheap versus big box latest design that won't last more than a few years. i bought a sofa from a brand name store that only lasted me 3 years and cost me $600. I just recently bought a sofa that is 100 years old for $50 that just needs new fabric.

posted by RachelOM on October 27th 2009 at 7:54pm
view RachelOM's profile

Oh.....is it me or does the dog in the expensive room look REALLY uncomfortable?

posted by RachelOM on October 27th 2009 at 7:55pm
view RachelOM's profile

The ikea chair gave it away for me. One note. At a distance it all looks cool but sometimes the details make a diff in person, although, you could practically buy a BMW with the difference in price.

posted by cas1 on October 27th 2009 at 7:59pm
view cas1's profile

I would rather have a kids piece of oringal work of art on my wall than a copy.....Copies are just that...so fake

posted by latinwaterpolo on October 27th 2009 at 7:59pm
view latinwaterpolo's profile

I would go with the cheaper room but with the expensive chair...and I agree with the above I would choose a cheaper original piece of artwork.

posted by Jess2nola on October 27th 2009 at 8:06pm
view Jess2nola's profile

okay, there is absolutely no comparison here!!!

you just can't fake luxury.

posted by baryl5555 on October 27th 2009 at 8:08pm
view baryl5555's profile

RachelOM,

No, it's not just you. He looks miserable. You can tell he was promised a REALLY good treat to "stay" for the shot.

In my opinion the chair and the oil painting are the only items worth the splurge in the top shot.

posted by sally305 on October 27th 2009 at 8:10pm
view sally305's profile

RachelOM,

You seriously just cracked me up!! LOL! I thought the same thing! For that very reason I thought that room was the knock off! I'm like, "come on that looks like a cheap doggy bed!" And look! I was wrong! LOL!

posted by Bohemian Vintage on October 27th 2009 at 8:23pm
view Bohemian Vintage's profile

Im broke but bummed out by the second room's tacky rug, bad lines on the table and horrid chair...

posted by mskk on October 27th 2009 at 8:29pm
view mskk's profile

The dog looks more comfortable in the cheaper room.

posted by wild-er on October 27th 2009 at 8:49pm
view wild-er's profile

The chair shows a lot, the table shows a little (look at the very bottom of the legs), fake art is just gross, everything else, who cares? especially as the WS rug is probably still very good quality.

posted by ARC on October 27th 2009 at 8:59pm
view ARC's profile

RachelOM... too funny. I was thinking the same. The room may be beautiful but the rich dog is sleeping on a throw pillow.

posted by solop on October 27th 2009 at 9:02pm
view solop's profile

hmm. I have no taste. I like the lamp in the cheap room better for some reason. I know that's wrong, but the other one looks like an alien space ship. The chair looks way better in the expensive room. I hate the rug and artwork regardless.

posted by delg23 on October 27th 2009 at 9:08pm
view delg23's profile

that chair is hideous.
replica art- tacky! you can find local artists work for less than 100 dollars or art students work.
but even the original room i find hard to look at-- the styling of the room could be much better, the knock off room is even worse.

posted by kmorar on October 27th 2009 at 9:11pm
view kmorar's profile

oh god, a 45K home office? sorry, but that makes me ill.

posted by the polish chick on October 27th 2009 at 9:13pm
view the polish chick's profile

A 1970s "antique"? O_o

posted by Elizabeth B on October 27th 2009 at 9:18pm
view Elizabeth B's profile

Hilarious...I too couldn't help but notice miserable rich dog, and then frugal dog..who wanted to know when he could resume his nap....

posted by ModFruGal on October 27th 2009 at 9:20pm
view ModFruGal's profile

The more expensive room was obvious to me. Not that the replica is bad. I probably would not spend the $45K, but I do like that rug.

posted by LBhirise on October 27th 2009 at 9:20pm
view LBhirise's profile

I understand patronizing local artists, buying original and so forth. But sometimes you just really fall in love with an already famous painting! (I confess to having an enormous print of Leighton's Flaming June in my bedroom..::swoon:: it makes me feel peaceful and happy)

But that being said, I do like the original room better overall. It's mostly the chair and the lamp that make the difference to me, but certainly I wouldn't spend that much money!

posted by Sunfall77 on October 27th 2009 at 9:20pm
view Sunfall77's profile

I don't think I'd notice the difference between cheap and original if they'd cared enough to match the color AND proportions better... They just got lazy, and I think that's what it all comes down to... a nicer shade for 50 bucks, an exact replica of the same painting with the same size frame... etc. Luxury isn't in the price tag, it's in the details.

posted by Djluckyonline on October 27th 2009 at 9:57pm
view Djluckyonline's profile

Candian Style At Home magazine does this I believe, or some magazine similar, a feature called "High/Low" that shows two rooms and often times they are IDENTICAL, not like in the above photo but like if you were to look at it you'd think it was just the same picture repeated, and the difference can be often several thousand dollars

posted by Futurovox on October 27th 2009 at 10:00pm
view Futurovox's profile

As per 'copy' art- I own a few- each is a print purchased and attached to very fond memories and sentiment. I have no problem with it. I'm a painter- my home is filled with TONS of originals- but a 'fake' print of my favorite painting- it makes me smile.

I think if you applied the 'originals only and always rule' to aspects other than art, you'd be in for quite a surprise. Almost everything is a copy or in some way derivative of something else. It'd be like saying that if anything wasn't entirely hand-made and unique you couldn't ever own it...

posted by CozyLittleCave on October 27th 2009 at 10:26pm
view CozyLittleCave's profile

okay, i think art should be enjoyed because if i have to love and look at it everyday, i'll spend $5 or $50000 depending on what i love, not what's in style.

The vintage chair is just gorgeous, and i say that is one good thing to invest in an office.

The rest i think you can do on the cheap.

posted by zachary on October 27th 2009 at 10:29pm
view zachary's profile

One look at the legs on the desk chair in the $45k room and it was a clear giveaway which was high and which was low. The legs of desk chairs just aren't made like that anymore. And the low, at $7k, still isn't worth it in my book. What did they spend the $7k on? The chair, replica painting, and the rug? It doesn't do it for me. I'm sure any frugalista designer could have come way closer without spending as much. And I totally agree with Djluckyonline, they could have done better with the details. Proportions do matter when trying to produce a low end copy, especially when the room dimensions are the same.

posted by Neely the Naughty on October 27th 2009 at 10:32pm
view Neely the Naughty's profile

If spending $44,000 why not spend a few hundred on a nice big doggie bed big enough to hold that adorable pooch. He looks like he's teetering on a saucer sled.

posted by yepella on October 27th 2009 at 10:46pm
view yepella's profile

The lamp and chair gave it away for me.

I'm not that status conscious. If I really loved something and could afford it (and needed it), then I'd buy it. But I'd never try to consciously ape a certain style or look with cheaper versions of the items used. That seems kind of sad to me. Just get what you like and ignore what the label says.

posted by slowdown on October 27th 2009 at 10:56pm
view slowdown's profile

I'd happily spend $45k on a room, but not if it looked like that.

posted by elvedon on October 27th 2009 at 11:23pm
view elvedon's profile

You give me 44 000 $, and I get a nice house. You give me 7 485 $ and I get all the stuff that goes in it, and beautiful, to boot!

Non mais.

posted by MissBalzac on October 27th 2009 at 11:24pm
view MissBalzac's profile

SPLURGE....

posted by handarubimoasmoro on October 27th 2009 at 11:55pm
view handarubimoasmoro's profile

there's a clear enclosure on the rich dog doggy bed, thats why he's so uncomfortable looking--he's all sqeezed in poor guy. personally, I think the overall design concept is boring. what would i spend money on? perhaps something i like enough to want it to last a lifetime, so long as its not too hard to move without damaging.

posted by rdameron on October 28th 2009 at 12:15am
view rdameron's profile

The only thing I'd prefer in the expensive room is the chair and the vase. And if I had the cash, the desk. Everything else, I'd rather have the cheaper version. Especially the dog bed!

posted by sparkle on October 28th 2009 at 12:19am
view sparkle's profile

The lamp was a giveaway. And yeah, poor dog, shoehorned into a Corbusier dog bed, lol.

I spend disproportionately on seating because your body doesn't give a crap about the quality of your rug, or table for that matter, provided it's at the right height. With a bigger budget though... ; )

posted by district5 on October 28th 2009 at 12:25am
view district5's profile

Oh yeah, lamps. I spend on floor lamps. But not ones that look like drafting compasses.

posted by district5 on October 28th 2009 at 12:26am
view district5's profile

They just needed a smaller dog for the pictures to make the expensive dog bed look more comfortable. I guess that goes along with all the "detail" comments.

posted by tliad on October 28th 2009 at 2:22am
view tliad's profile

Pretty obvious (just look at the table or the wood of the lamp)...

Poor dog though, squished into that "design statement"! Looks much more comfortable on the doggy bed in the other picture... which just goes to show that expensive design is useless if it is not comfortable or practical as well...

posted by mschatelaine on October 28th 2009 at 3:17am
view mschatelaine's profile

FYI, a table from the 1970s is not "antique." Jesus, AT.... I love you, but sometimes you embarrass me.

posted by rosenatti on October 28th 2009 at 4:31am
view rosenatti's profile

That new office chair looks bad, not knock-off just office chair in absolutely different style.

posted by handz on October 28th 2009 at 4:35am
view handz's profile

actually like the cheaper room better...but that could be a tad bit because i just feel so sorry for the dog squished in that little bitty bed.

posted by prunebrownies on October 28th 2009 at 5:26am
view prunebrownies's profile

With a difference in price that large, I'd go for the cheaper room. You could make in theory like almost six of the knock off rooms for the expensive on...which would allow money to do more than one room in your home. Trust me, I put almost $50,000 into a room and I'm going to place a glass door into the room and no one will enter - it will be like a museum.

Yes the dog looks MUCH more comfortable in the cheaper room - since the owners went for comfort over looks for their pet.

posted by ChrisGal on October 28th 2009 at 7:24am
view ChrisGal's profile

I do agree about art. I have prints, but nothing makes me happier than supporting an artist by buying their originals. Fixtures are a must splurge for me. When I did the kitchen in our current house, my husband convinced me that the home depot pull out faucet was just as good as the Franke and he could not have been more wrong (I secretly wish I had removed all of my fixtures from my old house and brought them with me!). The little hot/cold button popped out a few months ago and I hate it even more. I also went with cheap tile in the kitchen and now I obsess about the removal/replacement of it. I would not spend $37,000 on a room of furniture, but for fixtures throughout the house, I will never do that again.

posted by cliokitty on October 28th 2009 at 9:01am
view cliokitty's profile

Am I the only going, "man, $7,000 for a home office?" It's no $45k, but it's not a drop in the bucket either...

posted by LSUgrad03 on October 28th 2009 at 10:16am
view LSUgrad03's profile

Poor puppers, that posh bed is too small for him.

posted by Mlle Kate on October 28th 2009 at 10:19am
view Mlle Kate's profile

LSUgrad03 . . . yes, i'm with you. $7k for a room is a splurge for me; $45k is obscene. the two most expensive pieces of furniture in my home are my mattress (a necessity) and my piano (a gift). i don't think anything else in the house was over $100.

posted by doubledutch on October 28th 2009 at 10:42am
view doubledutch's profile

That poor dog is just crammed into that tuna can "bed"! He looks much more comfortable in the less expensive room.

posted by vitamini on October 28th 2009 at 10:50am
view vitamini's profile

If it means having a dog bed that my dog will fit in to I'll take the "poor" room (AYKM!) to funny with the dog that makes my day! But seriously quality is quality. And for the earlier BMW comparision this might be more like comparing Rolls Royces; new vs. old.

posted by theskip on October 28th 2009 at 10:53am
view theskip's profile

The desk, chair and lamp were the things that convinced me. Especially the chair. And yes, poor puppy--that dog bed is for a pommeranian, not a lab!

posted by queenbee1230 on October 28th 2009 at 12:03pm
view queenbee1230's profile

both rooms look more or less the same in a photo. but i'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell the difference in person. while i think $45k for as little as they have in that room is obscene, i do think there are pieces you should invest in for the long term: art, rugs, beds, chairs, and paint [cheap paint isn't worth the savings]. everything else can be either luxe or not, depending on the budget.

posted by davidsl on October 28th 2009 at 12:10pm
view davidsl's profile

Grab some cool digs at a local thrift store and give the money to people who can't eat.

posted by earthanddust on October 28th 2009 at 12:33pm
view earthanddust's profile

The biggest flag for me is the proportions - I hate when someone tries to copy a designer room piece by piece, without thinking about how the items relate to each other.

posted by lemonadefish on October 28th 2009 at 2:39pm
view lemonadefish's profile

Any amount of money spent is waisted with such a sad looking dog.

posted by dearly on October 28th 2009 at 2:53pm
view dearly's profile

Seriously, how could they think that chair is an acceptable replacement?

posted by megnez on October 28th 2009 at 3:40pm
view megnez's profile

I was so aghast at both rooms that I didn't even notice the dogs. Having said that, the Ikea/fake room is multiple orders of magnitude more hideous and instantly id'ed.

posted by chakapakuni on October 28th 2009 at 6:12pm
view chakapakuni's profile

I havent splurged on a single thing. This probably has convined me to splurge on artwork...since i dont have any.

posted by asked you first on October 28th 2009 at 6:47pm
view asked you first's profile

We are going with original room too, it seems warmer in spirit. We don't hate the dog bed as much as others here. It just looks like the dog is too big for it.

posted by fairmountdogstories on October 29th 2009 at 12:08am
view fairmountdogstories's profile

Both rooms are great. I would purchase pieces at a higher price that are one of a kind or perhaps a substantial furniture piece. Im not sure I would spend money on an original piece of artwork. It doesnt seem logical to have a $50,000 painting in a $37,000 condo. I mean, who among your friends would recognize such? Who would even care?

I like both rooms. I was easy to identify the most expensive room...although $7000 is still a bit high for me.

posted by jayjay5 on October 29th 2009 at 7:34am
view jayjay5's profile

LSUgrad03 and doubledutch -- I agree with both. I can't think of anything in my apartment that cost over $200. I could redo the whole place with $7000. It's sad what people will spend excessive money on when they could help out society by donating to charities if they really must spend that money. I can't think of a single charity out there that wouldn't benefit greatly from a thousand dollar donation.

posted by ChrisGal on October 29th 2009 at 10:41am
view ChrisGal's profile

I splurge on the pieces I use the most and where quality makes a big difference (seating, sleep, overall health): sofa, bed, Egyptian linen bedsheets.

I cheap out on things I believe are transitional items for me personally: some mass market accessories that I'll retire because I find a newer shape I like, wine glasses (I always break them so luxe crystal was a complete waste of dollars!), lap blankets and bed quilt (have to replace them often with pets).

I wish I'd known all that when I was just starting out and furnishing my first home... I could have saved a fortune by buying antiques or solid wood, from the get go, and skipping the big box stores.

posted by Rucy on October 29th 2009 at 11:26am
view Rucy's profile

The lamp in the pricey room cracks me up - a couple of years ago, my husband surprised me with one that he had made out of an old surveyor's tripod he found at a salvage store. Probably cost less than $50, including the lamp kit and a thrift store drum shade. Looks almost identical!

Though neither are really my style, I definitely prefer the original room to the budget version (aside from the rug and the dog bed). Still, I cannot fathom spending that kind of money on an office.

posted by tmoore on October 29th 2009 at 12:16pm
view tmoore's profile

Feeds

RSS icon San Francisco

+ City Feeds