Style trends come and go, but good taste is evergreen. Harmonious colors, balanced scale, good use of patterns, quality materials keep their good looks whether in fashion or out. That's why we go to museums and marvel at the period rooms...and all the other old things there.

Pal, it would have been fun to have had your mother be part of the forum. How interesting it would have been to have had her decorating perspective. I'll bet she would have enjoyed it too.

IMO,
Your father's house does look dated; however, it also looks rather quaint, old fashioned, and clean. Your friend's father's house is also dated, but it looks sterile, cold, and sad--a house I would not feel had "good vibes".

An interesting study, pal. The differences in the two houses is readily apparent even to me and I'm not terribly discerning when it comes to decorating.

I don't think there is any question that my father's house is dated. Oddly enough, some of the original 1969 choices would seem more current if they were still in place. My parents were both around 60 the last time any substantial *changes* were made (and in their 40s the last time they bought any furniture for the most part)

But the painter came almost every year and touched up something. Even though things stayed the same color, painting was done as needed, wallpaper seams were reglued. They even found matching paper to redo a wall that developed a small leak. People came in and cleaned the carpets and the drapes were cleaned regularly when my parents were in their 80s. I will probably wash all the sheers once more even though he's moving.

But I don't think that some people look past how Old everything is before they make assumptions about what that "means" and about the overall condition of the house.

"Dated" doesn't always mean that there is a lack of interest or a lack of maintenance or neglect. Sometimes it just means one is satisfied with the way things are.

To note the obvious: you were raised in a house on the left. She was raised in the house on the right. Of course she never learned how to tell the difference.

In the city where I was born, time capsules are not uncommon. If they are in a middle-class house, they are so well-kept they look almost new. Where I live now -- a much older city, ironically -- people do not maintain their houses nearly as well. And when they move, they want to gut everything old. I don't think it's a coincidence that in my hometown, the real estate market is flat. Here, we seem to be in a perpetual boom. I think when people stop thinking of their houses as homes, and start thinking of them as get rich quick schemes, all they care about is the marketing.

>"Dated" doesn't always mean that there is a lack of interest or a lack of maintenance or neglect. Sometimes it just means one is satisfied with the way things are.

Yes, and I would think, in your parents' case, that the quality of newer things were not of the same quality as their older things. Seems to me that they'd be very aware that new furniture wasn't made as well as old furniture.

Your father's house looks old-fashioned, but cozy and well-put together. To me, the wallpaper definitely adds to the charm.

On the contrary, your coworker's place looks old, sad and nondescript. That's what makes the difference.

It also appears that your parents bought quality furnishings. It's the kind of things that become desirable antiques decades later.

Cheap junk will always be junk, no matter the age. A cheap laminate bookshelf from Walmart or Target will never become a true antique.

For some reason, I resent the term "dated". I'd like to think of such places as "vintage", "old-fashioned", "antique" or "retro".

Would anyone call the Versailles or Hearst Castle "dated"?

>For some reason, I resent the term "dated". I'd like to think of such places as "vintage", "old-fashioned", "antique" or "retro".

Would anyone call the Versailles or Hearst Castle "dated"?

Well, there's good dated and bad dated. Like you said, LanaR., cheap junk will always be junk. Beautiful things remain beautiful, even if not in style anymore. My son's buying a 60s raised ranch. It's dated in the bad way because the original owner (or builder?) didn't install attractive tile, vanities, kitchen cabinets, switch plates, or hanging lamps. But in the previous owner's defense, there wasn't much choice back then: if you needed a ceiling light, you bought whatever the local hardware store had. Or you went to Sears where you may have had a choice of 5 ugly ceiling lights. It certainly wasn't like today where people are far more style conscious and have choices galore.

I wonder how our choices will age over the years? Will future generations roll their eyes at yet another white subway tile backsplash and white Shaker cabinets?

I think details and differences (especially in upkeep) tend to wash out in photos; but even then, the quality of fit and finishes in your parents home is generally higher. These would be likely even more obvious in person to a potential buyer -- the contrast in detail is most apparent in that living room, where your friend's home is pretty much a square box.

In my parents' case, part of the "good" dated is that the interior style of the house is colonial revival in a manner that was somewhat dated when they built (more 40s-50s than 1970) and their taste in furniture was pretty much purely "antique" style--meaning roots in the 18th century. The dated aspects are mostly color combinations and fabric.

Even the obviously 1960s bathrooms and kitchen were pure white, anachronistic to the period. The original floor and wallpaper in the kitchen were white. The floor was only replaced because of a leaky icemaker, and she couldn't find White in the 1990s.

But in general while my mother was a clothes horse as well, her outlook was definitely Not on the "with it" wavelength. She had two distinct hairstyles my entire life. One of them varied slightly from 1961 or so until 1979 and she returned to that one by 1990. She was probably considered "dull" in some ways, but while you can tell when pictures were taken, there is not a single picture of her with a bad or unflattering hairstyle, or in an outfit we would now find laughable or embarrassing.

Some people probably think that's a pretty boring way to go through life, maybe so.

There's a difference between quality/cheap at the time and maintenance/neglect over time, with different possible combinations.

As I said in the other thread, a lot of people do a very simple computation in their heads: Does it match the Pottery Barn 2014 catalog? If yes then good else Error. Very little cpu usage required.

Pal, that first pic top left (your parents LR) makes me swoon!! I would be extremely happy with a room like that.

I guess what other people find "dated" or "old-fashioned", I tend to think of as classic.

Pal's mother reminds me of my sister-in-law: classic tastes, done right from the get-go, no compromises, no radical changes but refined over the years, everything spit and polish. That's not dull, that's the art of living beautifully.

There is an interesting exhibit at the Litchfield Historical Society Museum on Colonial Revival in America. The exhibit explained that Colonial Revival began in the late 19th century as a kind of backlash against the sooty, noisy industrial boom & the wave of immigrants arriving to work in the factories. By the early 20th century, it was considered the epitome of WASP-y good taste (think Wallace Nutting, the Rockefellers' Colonial Williamsburg, the du Ponts' Winterthur). It was a style that had long tentacles, not only because it was considered "good taste," but because it was inherently beautiful too, IMO. Even in the mid-80s when I was a new home owner, Williamsburg knock offs were still going strong as fine decor. Friends of mine are now inheriting their parents' Colonial Revival pieces, and to my eye, the "granny style" furnishings add a beautiful formal touch to their rooms.

Here is a link that might be useful: Litchfield exhibit on Colonial Revival in America

I think when you said "sometimes people are satisfied with the way things are" is the best description of your parents home. They were pleased with what they created and that is the only thing that matters. If the new owners take down the wallpaper and redo the kitchen, it won't be because it's ugly. It will be because it is not their taste. The other house needs someone who can rip it apart because it is ugly, has zero charm, and the carpets look gross. I hope your dad is happy for a long time in his new place.

In defense of the other house, I see it as a blank palette. It's very much like the house my son is buying (even the same bath vanity and sink). But for a young couple just starting out, the simple boxiness works well with their HGTV design sense (hey, they're in their 20s). Scrub it up, rip out the carpets, paint it greige, add some statement lamps, a fun rug, & a nice mirror, and voila -- it works perfectly with their Target starter furniture. If they save their pennies and put in an Ikea kitchen & bathroom in a few years, then they'll have a pleasant, snappy, stylish young person's home.

As far as dull goes, that is an individual thing. Dull is classic to some and staid to another. I am in the "live life to it's fullest" camp, in whatever way that applies to each individual.
Sadly, many people never do so because of some kind of fear or pride, not a true understanding of who they are.

To me, this is not a case of "old is old" or "old is dated"; rather it's a case of decor vs none, form vs function, style vs substance.

Your parents obviously had a sense of their tastes (and not everyone does) and purchased furniture and decor to match. Your friend's parents were satisfied with function/substance and didn't give a fig for decor. It doesn't matter that the furniture is old/dated; it's how it's used that makes the most of the matter. That and the fact that there's no color to speak of in any room. It's flat and boring, whereas your parents' house has color and interest.

Living room: Your parents' LR is full, well-spaced with lots of wall interest; her parents' is sparse with virtually no decorative pieces and no color. That rattan 'couch' and chair is worth a pretty penny; it would have been better used in an east coast sunroom or a FL lanai. (And would have looked a world better with different upholstery.)

The kitchen: I'd say this one is a draw. Her parents' kitchen appears to have been somewhat updated, but neither have much color. Those chairs in 'her' kitchen are beautiful; it's a shame we can't see the table.

Bathrooms: Both appear dated. Both are functional, both suffer from lack of color ('hers' the most), but I doubt buyers would be put off by either.

People who think anything that is old is dated are missing many points. Crappy furniture has been manufactured for decades, centuries even. Tastes have changed, moved on and often reverted to previous eras. (Personally, I hope "early American" never comes back.) One can have fabulous furniture and no taste - or one may have exquisite taste and cheap furniture. I've known both.

I don't want to focus on the décor Too much. That's all leaving in both houses, except for a little furniture in my parents, including *my bedroom furniture* surprise, surprise.

The buyers who are in their 20s, loved the modularity of it. At first they thought it was built in, it fits so well.

What I want to consider *mostly* here, is condition. While you can't tell from pictures for sure, my thinking is that regardless of taste there is a correlation between the "time-capsule" datedness of the house on the right, vs. the run-down sort of datedness of the house on the left and the Amount of Maintenance performed.

My theory, based on experiences I've had is that time capsules tend to be very well maintained in terms of Overall maintenance, where as dated houses on the left are Not.

The new owners have made it clear that they are remodeling the bathrooms first, and then the kitchen. This all makes sense. But the essential house is in very good condition. The bathroom valves are wearing out and should be replaced with anti-scald valves. They kitchen cabinets are starting to fail hardware-wise.

In comparison, almost everyone who has walked into the other house has said they don't want a "fixer upper". One potential buyer said they felt it would have to be essentially gutted to address the things that need to be done. Having seen it in person, I don't think this is much of an exaggeration.

While I think this can be intuited from the pictures, real life would verify it. But to some people they would just see an old house in both cases.

Maybe I misread, but i would never guess your parents house was built in the 70s. I would guess the 40s or 50s based on the molding, cabinets, and windows, which all looking much nicer (and older) that the house on the right.

"My theory, based on experiences I've had is that time capsules tend to be very well maintained in terms of Overall maintenance...."

My very recent - and painful - experience with the reno house runs 180 degrees counter to that observation. The owners of that house bought furniture, put up drapes, and, with the exception of carpeting the original vinyl tile floors, never did another thing, maintenance included. It really was a "time capsule" right down to the 60's era BW TV and the piano that had never been moved.

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but a ghost town is a time capsule although it's falling down. In your case study, both homes appear to be time capsules, i.e., homes that were furnished once and left that way. The big difference IS the decor. We can't see - as you correctly point out - what maintenance has been done - or not done - and what condition the structure itself is in. Without an inspection, I would not assume that either house was *not* a "fixer-upper". Appearances, as they say, can be deceiving.

Your father's house looks old-fashioned, but cozy and well-put together.

It's the "well put together" part that really stands out.
You can tell that thought was put into the purchase and placement of the furniture, accessories, etc. In the other house they just put some furniture in the rooms. And the care that was taken in choosing furnishings can translate in the buyer's mind that the actual structure of the house is superior and well cared for.

Of course, but the likelihood that the house on the right which is dated is pretty clearly painted within the last ten years at least, clean and not battered.

I don't have pictures of my parents garage or basement, but if I did, I would have posted them. They had the garage floor mopped weekly, the furnace, water heater, and A/C while not brand-new are maintained with maintenance schedules attached and the roof is brand new. The pictures of the house on the left show a dirty basement, worn out utilities and a garage that was drywalled and never ever painted in 40 years.

You can see in a number of the above pictures of the house on the right (especially if they were bigger--but it's clear in the bathroom photo). That the bathroom ceiling on the left was probably painted when the house was built and Never since.

It Hasn't been my experience that Appearances are *that* deceiving that the house on the left would be pristine on all the surfaces and falling apart infrastructure-wise, and the house on the right would be worn out and dirty on the surface and the model of careful maintenance of the infrastructure. Sometimes you can be fooled, but I think that's even more likely where the surfaces were all updated and heavily staged, to make it more appealing for quick sale with quick coats of paint and "flash".

So while I understand what you are saying, I don't really agree that it is Usually the case that appearances are *that deceiving.

To be clear, I didn't say that appearances are "usually" deceiving, just that they *can* be. What we don't see in the photos are the things you describe, e.g., unpainted ceiling, unpainted garage drywall, a dirty basement, etc.. Those are the things that would make me think "fix-up", not the furniture, the lack of decor or the very apparent lack of any color in the house.

What you describe as your parents' ritual of maintenance is what gives comfort to buyers of anything, be it cars, houses, or motorhomes. People want assurance that what they are buying has been well taken care of. It's often a mistake to take that gamble based on appearances.

Right, it's unfair to expect you to base something solely on pictures.

I don't want it to get completely lost in the discussion though that the observations of "Sameness" were made by someone who spent a fair amount of time in the house on the left as well as her own.

Of course, we are all blinded by the sentiment attached to things we grew up with.

I'm with Gooster--your father's house is simply a better-built house with better everything, from (I suspect, just looking at pictures) basic construction, moldings, ceiling heights, doors, windows!!, quantity of tile used in the bathrooms, all those details--and it looks like a 50's or 60's house. The other house looks like a typical tract house from 70's on.
So, to get back to your original point, it is hard to believe that your friend doesn't see the difference. I'd love to live in your old house, and you couldn't pay me to live in the other one.

As a buyer, my BIL loved finding the "time capsules" versus the ruin down old houses.

There's a difference.

UPDATE:

The house under discussion just sold after being on the market since May.

It sold for 72.5% of original asking price to a contractor who is going to gut it. My friend, who is quite relieved at this outcome did not tell her siblings it was sold to someone who is going to gut it.

My father's house was never officially on the market and sold for 97.8% of original asking price in a local market where it is not uncommon for houses to be on the market for a few years, and not unheard of that houses will be on the market for longer than five years, or languish until they are demolished.

The most apparent difference is the thought and love put into the house. When you care about your house, you take care of your house. You see this in people who buy the best furniture they can afford, and care for it lovingly. When people buy junk furniture, it is always thought of as junk (even by them), and treated accordingly.

Familiarity breeds, well.... familiarity. My thought about the (old) people who owned the reno house was that they were familiar to the point of blindness to the sad condition of the house. They came, they went and saw it for what it was *to them*: OK. If the doors closed, the water ran and the toilets flushed, it worked. Substance over style; function over form.

"....she remarked at the time that my parents' house and her fathers house were a lot alike because you could tell that both of them were lived in by older people who hadn't updated anything in years."

And she was right on that point! (At least about the furnishings; I doubt she ever gave a thought to maintenance.) If she had said - or intimated - that the houses were on equal footing visually and actually, she would have been terribly wrong.

Oops, double post.

This post was edited by tomatofreak on Sun, Nov 16, 14 at 22:00