Topic: New Poster Here with Lalique Question

[ascot]

Thank you--any help would be wonderful.

The possibility of a box without its lid has crossed my mind.  There's hardly any wear on the rim indicating a lid, but of course the lid could have been lost or broken early on, so there wouldn't be marks from use.  Under very strong magnification, I see evidence of hand tooling along the outline of the floral pattern--seems like a lot of work for a container.

[Frank]

On the other hand it could just be that the toolmarks on the mould indicate low cost production with reduced finishing. Much Lalique was mass produced.

[Pip]

This type of glass isn't my current area of interest but I did, in the not too distant past, collect art deco items and had a few pieces of Lalique (now sold).  I'm not sure about the 'R Lalique' mark on the base of your item - it just doesn't look 'right' to me - it seems rather naively executed - the only signed 'R Lalique' piece I owned had a much more uniform and more competent signature somehow.  As we all know, pieces that are signed with the 'R' mean they're earlier production so I wonder if the signature could have been added at a later date to deceive?  Just an idea to consider ...

[Bernard C]

Pip ā€” Jackson gives the mark on ascot's bowl as perfectly legitimate, and dates it mid '20sā€“1939.   My only concern with this is whether 1939 actually means the year 1939 or when Lalique stopped producing fancy goods because of the war, which may well not have been 1939.   1939 and 1945 dates always worry me!   I wish authorities would say what they mean (and not treat us like idiots).

Bernard C. 

[Pip]

OK Bernard no problem, as I said the signature looks rather naiive to me when compared to the only signed 'R Lalique' piece I've had in the past - I wasn't questioning your judgement just pointing it out.

[Frank]

The mark is moulded, hard to fake! Hartmann safely gives it as 1925, so it is possible that the 1939 date is assumption. Particularly as we are talking about pressed glass and I never heard that the Lalique moulds got destroyed in the war

[Bernard C]

Pip ā€” I wasn't criticising your opinion, just giving an alternative view.   Lesley Jackson's works are not infallible, although rather more reliable than some others.

Frank ā€” Nice to see that someone else has reservations about dates like 1939.   Thanks.

Bernard C.  

[Pip]

Moulded - are you sure Frank?  Isn't that an etched mark?  I know there were moulded marks (and etched) but that doesn't look like a moulded one to me - the reason I was 'concerned' about it was because my signature was a script, like handwriting.

[josordoni]

On the other hand it could just be that the toolmarks on the mould indicate low cost production with reduced finishing. Much Lalique was mass produced.

Which doesn't mean it is lower priced of course!   

[Frank]

Mark looks moulded to me, although very vague, and Hartmann states it is a Pressed Glass mark. Lalique had a LOT of marks in their 120+ year history. They also have a LOT of collectors so high prices are sustained for lots of the trash they produced as well as the good stuff. They also produced a LOT of containers as well as their better known decorative ware and some of that sells for peanuts, mostly because it is not in the picture books used by the 'LOT' of collectors