No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author Topic: S&W Keith Murray ?  (Read 3098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nigel benson

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 1128
  • Gender: Male
  • British glass 1870-1980
    • British glass 1870-1980
S&W Keith Murray?
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2005, 10:25:53 PM »
Firstly, this is now becoming a new thread.

Whilst I certainly don't claim to be aware of everything dubious to do with remarking/marking glass I do try to keep abreast of these things. I have never heard of this particular mark being reproduced before now.

When you received the offer Frank, did you see a finished version of the Rembrandt Guild mark - or was it just an unlikely boast made by the person who made the offer?

There have been a number of trademarks that I have seen over the years that have claimed to be fulproof, but of course they were quite detectable in the cold light of day. These include Venini and Keith Murray.

I have a strong suspicision that the Rembrandt mark would have been singularly unsuccessful had you taken this person up on their offer. It is after all, both complex and small. I doubt very much whether it would have been undetectable, particularly with the technology available in those days.

A simple, and usually successful (but not of course fulproof), guide to whether or not you are buying an item with a fake mark is its cost. If an item from the twentieth century is cheap for what it is, then IN ALL PROBABILITY it is unlikely to have a fake mark - after all you even allude to the fact that you could have charged a larger amount for your piece. It would not be viable to have it marked and then sell it cheap.

The majority of the pieces that I have seen with the mark have been eminently buyable. The ones that have not been cheap, I was aware of their 'pronenance'.

Since you did not take up the offer and IF you didn't see another piece that had this particular fake mark placed on it's base, then I feel it is a little rash of you to suggest that many Rembrandt pieces could bear fake makes.


Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via

Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9419
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Europe
    • Gateway
S&W Keith Murray ?
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2005, 11:54:20 PM »
The offer was made by someone that could probably have done it. I saw two or three others without the mark, but never handled one with the mark.

If such a mark is detectable or not I dont know, but you need a certain example for comparison and hey are not exactly common pieces. To do it in the first place you would need an original to copy too.

I have seen a piece of glass that was used to practice various etched signings on and illustrate a piece of Monart which I suspect was used in this way. Of course with Monart it is a little pointless as very little was marked. But on this example they look to sloppy. But how can one tell!

It is the last of the Monart marks here

Then look at some of the discussions on GMB about signatures that have been held in suspicion yet turn out to be perfectly OK.

I consier it a minefield and as has been said so often on these boards, a signature is no guarantee of identification. A good fake is never uncovered.

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Look for glass on
Visit the Glass Encyclopedia
link to glass encyclopedia
Look for glass on (us)
Visit the Online Glass Museum
link to glass museum

This website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand