If elements can be restored, then I think it is personal preference and/or a budgetary decision whether they should be restored or replaced. I'm not a purist when it comes to architecture and decor. It is a shame to lose original features and character when they could be restored and enjoyed, but I believe each owner should do what works for them. These houses aren't museums.

What I hate to see is the damage done by house flippers who never intend to live in a house and yet strip it of all charm because it is cheaper and easier to replace rather than restore.

I think it depends on the quality of the original to begin with. Materials, design, finishes.

For some things, the in-between stage between early wear and patina doesn't look so good in the present but might look great another 100 years of wear into the future. To some of us today, anyway. We might be a dying breed. Certainly seems that way sometimes, anyway.

Can't really see the patina of the house features in the photographs. But I think you are referring to the house itself rather than furnishings. I think a modern style kitchen cabinetry or brick, stone, stucco work, wood moldings, for instance could have a softening to the surface finish and aged materials and still be appealing for a modern setting. This is a very traditional area but I do know one modern styled house and it has a lot of older patina and it is wonderful. Owned by an architect, 1960s. Would not like it at all with today's materials. Some things, like wall to wall carpet, is somewhat shot or quite dated looking. Bathroom counter and sink, tile, are nothing special, imo. The house is somewhat of a time capsule, not updated for decades I don't think, but it's so appealing overall it does not seem to matter. The furnishings are not new looking either, although the modern styled ones are in good condition, they are patina'd with warm soft finishes, undoubtedly wear and even fabric that is obviously not fresh and new off the press. It's a mix of old and modern, both the house and the furnishings. All is not clean and pristine. Obviously very good materials, nothing looks like it was ever cheap except maybe some laminate counters and standard builder grade sinks. It has been a very lived in house and nothing looks new. It's a beauty. Warm, inviting, aesthetically interesting and appealing.

This post was edited by snookums2 on Tue, Feb 19, 13 at 15:27

I think you make an excellent point when you question whether modern style takes patina as well as other styles. I think for the most part it does not. Maybe just my personal preference, but to me a 1850s farm table with dings and scratches is perfectly appropriate where a mid-century modern veneered table with scratches looks flawed.

Our 50's house is not totally modernist, per se, but definitely has some modernist leanings. It was definitely a mixture of "patina of age" and "worn out." Here are some of the listing photos.

Hallway area: Patina of age, I think. Original marble floors certainly have quite the patina, but even though I'm not a marble person, I'd never rip them out (though I immediately ripped out the fixture).

{{!gwi}}
LR: Patina of age. Fireplace wall is not pristine, but I see it as part of the character of the room.

{{!gwi}}
Kitchen and family rooms: Just worn out.

{{!gwi}}

{{!gwi}}

I think it's often a function of age but agree that certain styles lend themselves to patina more than others. When my 1936 baseboards get dinged or if the paint chips and perhaps cracks in areas, it just looks beat up, not patina ed. If I lived in a 150 year old farm house it could well be a different story - people pay good money for that type of wear but perception changes with the context.

Because modernist was a concept, a figment that gained little traction, and because it was meant to be something it never could live up to, pure purity, to remain organic, to stand still in time, the natural look, the lines and timely color. Yet nothing worthy stands still, especially nothing subject to use or dry rot (human beings and structures), It was never meant to age. The whole concept was idealism. The look was meant to be always fresh and new always.
'The fountain of youth," never existed.
Like a woman, it becomes tarnished, no longer virginal once it has been driven off the showroom floor. Whether by natural means or just aging, the lovely woman of 16 no longer appears the puritanical virgin at 75, though she may remain in good health and unscathed. Her skin has become a big gnarly along with the yellowing and shifting teeth, drooping eyelids, graying hair, a few puckers around the lips. At 75, she is has been raped by time and she will require a little cosmetic fix-up but the stitch lines and tugging/pulling marks will show in a most unnatural way.
The elements used were organic were meant to be used in such a way intended that age would be becoming and not distracting. It took a very special designer to figure that out a few centuries before modernism. They keep trying to reinvent the wheel.
As an architect friend once said, "everything has already been designed, we just keep trying to tweak it here and there."

Good grief!!!! patricia43 that was a brutal analogy!

When you can't afford to replace it, it has great patina! Otherwise, in most cases (not all), it is indeed worn out.

MCM is not really my era - even tho I lived through it it's never been a fav style.

I can't comment on the rooms you posted as the pics are too small to see the detail of any patina in the actual infrastructure. Certainly worn out upholstery is not IMO patina. I think fabrics that are not too worn and are clean are fine. Distressed through age leather upholstery is great. However I don't like rips and tears and stuffing falling out a la Restoration Hardware in anything.

Plastic, veneered finishes, and melamine don't patina well usually. If well cared for/lightly used they won't have much patina. Solid woods patina much better as does brick, marble, and tile (usually). Carpet can always be replaced. While I love objects with the patina of age I want them to look as if they've been cared for. So scratches are OK but need to have scratch remover used.

I don't like faux patina much altho do have a bit. When it's well-done it's not so bad but some of the distressed 'shabby-unchic' is awful. The last doesn't pertain to MCM, just my opinion.

Patricia43, aging in humans is not unnatural, it's only been made to seem that way by Hollywood, snake-oil salesmen of anti-aging products, and the media. While I probably have fewer wrinkles than many women my age I wear them proudly. They are a testament to my experience which 20-somethings with perfectly unwrinkled skin are still lacking.

I did not mean to imply it was unnatural for women to age, only that it is perceived that they must not age and be tucked and nipped in order to prevent it. Sorry, went back and read it...I see why it seems that way...

Well, for example, the floors, millwork and cabinetry in the first and second photo are in the original finish, un-refinished.

The floors in the third and fourth photos are prefinished. The fully refinished floors in the first two photos would never look like the floors in photos 3-4. They would still exhibit patina of some sort. I happen not to be a fan of prefinished floors, I don't think they ever quite look like "real wood". I do specify them for people who do not want the mess of onsite finishing. I don't think the prefinished floors age as gracefully as a site finished floor either. The hard finishes scratch more than they "age" while a softer onsite finish may age a bit more, but more gracefully as well.

As for aging process, I think all things were expected to age to some extent (except plastic?) and I don't agree that modernism is the only style that does not age well or that it was not meant to age at all.

Exuberant Victorians and Beaux Arts buildings in nearby neighborhoods have aged very poorly, some of them, because very little thought was given as to how to maintain the ornament and complex rooflines and cornices of such design. They are often left to decay until they need to be removed or fall off by themselves.

I did not mean to imply that modern is the only style that doesn't not patina well. Nor did I even mean to imply that modern things never patina well. Just as a general rule, it does not seem to, while some other styles do seem to. At least to me.

I also think there is a difference between interior and exterior. In general, I think most exteriors need to look well-maintained and only a few exterior materials look good with patina (weathered copper looks good, for example, but weathered paint generally does not).

sas95: That fixture is my favorite thing in the space! Please tell me you can sell it to me ;)

I agree that modern materials tend not to take on a good patina compared to "traditional" materials.

The Margaret Lynch Suckley house, Wilderstein (now restored) is a good example. This presents as a beautiful room, and then you see the silk wallhangings in shreds, the tapestry hanging off the sofa.

Compare this to my late forties Womb chairs with original foam (hard as a rock) and original (brown) and 40+ year old (orange) upholstery. Ugly and uncomfortable. (until restored)

To me patina means the passage of time gently leaving its mark. The worn floors in a much loved house. Edges a bit worn by many hands touching, using a piece over time. A finish on furniture that has mellowed and is no longer shiny.( scratches minimised with product) Even the alligatoring on a finish or painted trim, interior or exterior is patina. The hairline cracks in the original plaster walls in my 1923 house are patina.
To me, worn out is broken, shredded, stained, abused to the point of ugliness, and need of repair and refurbishing or replacement like the hardened cushions in the womb chair or the shredded tapestry or draperies in the P's pics.

Cooper hit the nail on the head!

Pal, I think you have a great sense of the difference, particularly since you know so much about modernism in design - I always learn so much from you.

I agree that it depends on what the originals started with.

Do the components develop patina naturally? Does the design rely on perfect smoothness and straight sharp angles? Were the materials and finishes chosen for longevity or just for style?

I keep thinking about light fixtures that Frank Lloyd Wright imbedded behind glass in a brick column (I've forgotten which house). They looked great, until the bulb had to be changed. You had to break the glass to change it.

I could live with the shredded wallcovering in a house like Wilderstein. It's been restored, which is more good than bad, but I think the room was very interesting in decay.

There's also a 17th century sofa on 1st dibs, with c. 1625 Aubusson tapestry on it. It clearly looks old. but not almost 400 years old.

The Womb chairs on the other hand, with the rock-hard foam and loose cushions that feel like they have potatoes in them--useless.

However, I would be tempted to clean and stabilize--but not change this:

Clean and stabilize if in an historical house that has house tours. But to sleep there? I like the furniture and light fixture, but to sleep under the gaze of that artwork and shadow of a cross - no way! The windows look like they're probably beautiful without the fabric in front.

I belong to a car restoration society. Their holy grail are "survivor" examples. They may have some crazed paint and slightly cracked leather, but if they were garaged, a 1962 example will remain very close to original. And, when we try to restore a well used 1962 original, our goal is to take it back to how it rolled off the assembly line, NOT "improved" one iota. Assembly line production means that it may have orange peel in the paint, overspray from the undercoating on some of the undercarriage, and several other "imperfections" that people try to correct---and then lose points on because it's "over restored".

And that's why some of the modernist leaning homes can look "over restored" when choosing modern components to place within their walls. The overdone dark wood Shaker cabinets with white countertops doesn't look so good in most MCM homes because they originally had slab birch doors and formica tops. Whereas a medim wood slab door with an interesting solid color quartz, well that would look "right" without being "too 2013".

I think the thing that often looks off around here is the contemporary interiors placed in 100-150 year old houses. The renovation is often near-gut, so this is okay--often only the shell was salvageable, so it's a consistent interior.

However, the prefinished or engineered floor is often so
"slick" compared to the rest of the Workmanship, which is generally imperfect and sometimes borders on shoddy--that they just look strange.
-----

In my 50 year old house one of the dilemmas I am facing is how to keep it modernist-slightly brutalist but also not try to do 1963 bathrooms (in particular) and kitchen.

I don't particularly want formica in the kitchen--I want an undermount sink and it's small enough that I want the entire counter to be heat-resistant. What I really want to use again is soapstone. It's not that such a material absolutely would Not have appeared--I've seen some natural counters in older (highly "architectural") houses. And while this house is specifically architect designed, it was relatively purposefully filled with cheap materials because it was meant as an price-conscious alternative to the IM Pei houses a neighborhood to the east. Quartz would look the most like the originals --but I may be pushing the "organic modernism" aspects of the house a bit: there is a raw wood and sheathing ceiling at the top that is meant to reference the 18th and 19th century attic.

My little 1938 colonial is architected, in the sense that it had an architect. It's in a tiny enclave of some grand homes and some really wonderful 1940's stone ranches.
I know you will hate the faucet in my photo; try to ignore it.

I combined it with soapstone. I don't think the soapstone looks out of place --- kitchens are hardly ever original.

Sure is great to put a hot pot down wherever you please.

I am having a super-hard time finding a kitchen faucet (Except the super inexpensive ones) that look midcentury, and two bathroom faucets (out of thousands) that I think look "right". Everything is so curvy and arched. (and Oversized).