Auction flap, pro and con

Re “Post-Auction, an Uproar in the Craftsman Clan” [March 10]: The bungalow, with its sheltering eaves, shingled walls and window benches, was written in my DNA. My great-grandfather worked on many Greene & Greenes and built his own home of their ideas and a few of their details. That house was a wonder to me as a child, and when the freeway took it 10 years before she died, it was the second-greatest loss of my great-grandmother’s life. The bungalow to her was not just real estate, it was an idea and a cause.

Saving and restoring Greene & Greenes became my cause as a young adult. I stood on the shoulders of a giant who had gone before me -- Randell Makinson. He had saved the Gamble House and made Greene & Greene, once forgotten on the dust heap of history, famous and respected again through his research, lectures and books.

Although I was hired to “restore” Greene & Greenes, some owners had peculiar ideas of what that meant. I often fought with clients as I tried to prevent them from destroying the historic elements of their homes. With dumpsters filled with these Craftsman castoffs, some would sneak back at night and, thankfully, rescue them. On one painful occasion, a client who caught me pulling significant wall brackets from his dumpster confiscated them and burned them with great glee in his fireplace. Another time I asked a client for an original Port Orford cedar door that had been tossed. He thought I was nuts -- it was only a mere old, worn softwood door -- and said yes.

When Pasadena had hearings on its Greene & Greene preservation ordinance after the rape of the Blacker House, many Greene & Greene owners showed up not to defend their right to remove and sell parts of the homes but for their right to remove and destroy those elements. As recently as the 1980s, many people had this attitude, even those who claimed to treasure Greene & Greene homes.

Before that, many Greene & Greenes were destroyed to make way for freeways, apartments or strip malls. This was the environment Randell Makinson found in the 1950s when he began to attempt to save Craftsman homes.

Recently, some lanterns and furniture that had long been in Mr. Makinson’s care were sold at auction for record prices that still do not reflect their true value. Stories are circulating that Mr. Makinson somehow came into unjust possession of these items. Some of those stories are whispered in the darkness by jealous competing collectors, some by former owners.

Even after he had made Greene & Greene famous again, many people who owned the items held them in little artistic or monetary esteem. Certainly in the 1950s and 1960s, the perception of value must have been lower. It is entirely possible that some former owners, realizing they foolishly gave away something of value, now claim to have been deceived.

What is very clear is that without the passion and lifelong commitment of Randell Makinson, there would be nothing here to argue about.

Steve Lamb

Altadena

*

It just amazes me how a person can try to justify his actions and forget about ethics and one’s reputation and then agree to profile his total lack of character in the Los Angeles Times. The only thing that Randell Makinson was honest about is that he wanted the money.

Mark B. Brandt

Pomona

*

AT first glance, it appears that Randell Makinson was greedy in selling Craftsman items in a recent Sotheby’s auction. Greene & Greene lovers roundly criticized him for selling these cherished items of a bygone era, noting that such art pieces should be donated to a museum.

How quickly I was convinced of the correctness of Mr. Makinson’s sale when he explained (quite far into the article) that he had to sell these items to pay for healthcare costs so his grandnieces and grandnephews wouldn’t be burdened with his debt.

Would his critics still value these material possessions over the man’s concern for his family’s welfare?

Kris Sullivan

Los Angeles

*

WHILE Randell Makinson did considerable good in preservation of the Gamble House and other historic homes and artifacts, he joins the masters of the Enron and WorldCom scandals in lacking a basic ethical framework. On the jacket of his latest book, he is called a “professor emeritus” when the title has a specific meaning and can only be conferred by an academic institution. In the story, USC says he has never been one. This is only the tip of the iceberg, but telling.

But to use his position to amass a collection of items that netted almost $3 million at auction is unconscionable. Whether the items would have been “thrown out” by their owners is a moot point. At the very least, Makinson owes the Gamble House and USC a check in the amount of the proceeds from the items he was given because of his position.

David Schaffner

Arroyo Grande

Schaffner is a professor emeritus at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.