Spring Break
Column: Columnist ponders overpriced, historic cake
Joshua Aromin
Issue date: 4/17/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion
04/17/09 - While yesterday was the deadline for filing taxes, some of us, including myself, have already gotten our refunds back. And as college kids, that money could definitely be put to good use on common necessities like tuition, books, rent and of course boxes of Ramen or Easy Mac.
But what about a 138-year-old piece of cake? I can't imagine the demand for such an old dessert is very big, but yesterday, at the Antiques for Everyone fair of Birmingham, England, a slice of cake from the 1871 wedding of Princess Louise was put on sale for $215.
As a kid, I used to watch the PBS TV program "Antiques Roadshow" and the usual items featured fine China, armoires and weird types of animal figurines. But never did anything that was once edible show up on the show.
And sure, I'm always a sucker for a slice of moist sugary goodness, but spending that kind of money for a stale piece of royal history is absurd.
What's the point?
Is there some kind of high praise that comes with owning something moldy and inedible or is buying the cake just a way to flaunt money? I'd understand if buyers sought out the original cake tray or forks from the wedding, but wanting to buy the cake is just weird.
I can respect the prestige and history that surrounds other antiques ranging anywhere from Elvis' first guitar to anything in the former Rhode Island Gov. Amasa Sprague's mansion.
I'm no history buff, but when I see something hundreds of years old, I do think about the people that made the antique and also the people that used the antique, but I just don't get the purpose of an old piece of stale cake.
The chefs that baked that cake definitely crossed my mind but food was meant to be eaten. And really the biggest mystery in this tale of antique hoopla should be the question of who the party pooper was that didn't eat their slice of cake? Also, whose idea was it to initially try and preserve that cake?
In an interview with the Associated Press, the antiques dealer selling the cake said, "This was obviously treasured by the Royal Family, and I believe things should be treasured and looked after." But if the cake was so treasured, why did no one eat the lone remaining slice?
I doubt there was much concern about dieting and caloric intake in the 19th century, so there's no reason why that piece of cake wasn't consumed. Though buying a delicious fresh cake with my tax refund is always a possibility, I can't really say what I'll spend it on yet. Maybe a stereo, a new coffee machine, or even a hotdog toaster, but definitely not a piece of cake I can't even eat anymore.
But what about a 138-year-old piece of cake? I can't imagine the demand for such an old dessert is very big, but yesterday, at the Antiques for Everyone fair of Birmingham, England, a slice of cake from the 1871 wedding of Princess Louise was put on sale for $215.
As a kid, I used to watch the PBS TV program "Antiques Roadshow" and the usual items featured fine China, armoires and weird types of animal figurines. But never did anything that was once edible show up on the show.
And sure, I'm always a sucker for a slice of moist sugary goodness, but spending that kind of money for a stale piece of royal history is absurd.
What's the point?
Is there some kind of high praise that comes with owning something moldy and inedible or is buying the cake just a way to flaunt money? I'd understand if buyers sought out the original cake tray or forks from the wedding, but wanting to buy the cake is just weird.
I can respect the prestige and history that surrounds other antiques ranging anywhere from Elvis' first guitar to anything in the former Rhode Island Gov. Amasa Sprague's mansion.
I'm no history buff, but when I see something hundreds of years old, I do think about the people that made the antique and also the people that used the antique, but I just don't get the purpose of an old piece of stale cake.
The chefs that baked that cake definitely crossed my mind but food was meant to be eaten. And really the biggest mystery in this tale of antique hoopla should be the question of who the party pooper was that didn't eat their slice of cake? Also, whose idea was it to initially try and preserve that cake?
In an interview with the Associated Press, the antiques dealer selling the cake said, "This was obviously treasured by the Royal Family, and I believe things should be treasured and looked after." But if the cake was so treasured, why did no one eat the lone remaining slice?
I doubt there was much concern about dieting and caloric intake in the 19th century, so there's no reason why that piece of cake wasn't consumed. Though buying a delicious fresh cake with my tax refund is always a possibility, I can't really say what I'll spend it on yet. Maybe a stereo, a new coffee machine, or even a hotdog toaster, but definitely not a piece of cake I can't even eat anymore.
Be the first to comment on this story