Topic: Likely faked signature Isle of Wight vase on ebay

[glassobsessed]

I say likely but I have no doubt that the signature on this vase has been added later, especially after comparing it to the ten examples of his hand I have here. There are so many things wrong with it, the 'handwriting' is not Michael Harris', the wording used is not correct and it looks as if the wrong type of engraver has been used too. Further more, this example which is a genuine seaward globe vase from 1973 would more than likely not have been signed - the execution is not 100% successful, as lovely as it is, the green and blue bands are not as dense as intended. Far from all the best examples were signed but I have yet to see a less successfully executed item signed. Here it is:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260695794746&ssPageName=ADME:X:AAQ:GB:1123

I have contacted the seller and suggested that they email Ron Wheeler at Artius Glass for a definitive opinion but from their response I suspect they will do nothing. Even if it were a genuine signature they are overvaluing the vase..... Hey ho.

There is also a very nice amethyst Mdina Fish vase at auction in Eastbourne at present with a very suspect Michael Harris signature.....

John

[chilternhills]

Hi John,

As you say, the vase is genuine Seaward with a coachbolt pontil mark made in late 1973. The top rim is unusual, but that is not surprising given the experimentation that went on at that time. To me the colour is quite good. I have a Seaward inside-out vase that is rather paler (http://iowstudioglass.wikidot.com/seaward).

I have to agree with you that the signature is suspect; actually more than suspect - it is wrong. I have an experimental bowl signed by Michael Harris (see the top item here: http://iowstudioglass.wikidot.com/exp) that was made at almost the same time (maybe the same week for all I know) as the Seaward globe vase. On my bowl the signature has a distinct slope to the right, the writing is much smaller, and the engraving tool used is much finer than on the globe vase. Furthermore, the dots above the i's are dots and not a short stroke as in the globe vase signature. Also, the globe vase is signed 'Isle of Wight Glass' whereas a genuine signature is signed 'Isle of Wight' only. The shape of the I in 'Isle' on the globe vase is the wrong shape, and Michael crossed his t's which is not evident in the word 'Wight' on the vase.

I also agree that the price asked for the globe vase is OTT. If I was the vendor I would start at £50 and hope to get £100-£150. In my opinion the fake signature devalues the vase a bit.

I hope this helps.

Anton

[glassobsessed]

It's always good to have informed opinion Anton, I would have to agree about the wonky signature devaluing it for many. On say a Mdina fish vase with a flat and polished base a dodgy signature could be polished off easily enough but here removal would be a pain and hardly worth the effort.

My poorly explained rambling about the colour could have been clearer, what I was attempting to say is that there is much more blue than green in this globe, so perhaps the balance not density of colour. Your inside out is lovely, I'm green and blue with Envy, with the odd bubble thrown in as well.

I did have two Mdina textured vases with fake signatures and considered starting a fake signature collection but that idea fell by the wayside.

There was a signed pink swirled vase (the sort with a flattened shape) for sale at the National, like your experimental bowl and the charger but my funds would not stretch that far. 

John

[chopin-liszt]

I'm afraid I don't agree!
I've checked signatures on all my Seaward bits, the wording varies, all the stroke instead of the dot.
I also have a very well constructed bit which isn't signed. (total of 5 bits of Seaward - 3 signed)
And while the lines of the writing are thin, there is a bit of "wiggle" to them.

And just a few years ago, small bits of Seaward were fetching this sort of price and more - I know I've paid that sort of price.

All prices are right down just now, it seems.

[chilternhills]

You may well be right Sue and the signature on the vase is OK. I am still wary of it though. It is very different from the signature on my bowl which was made at practically the same time as the vase. I can't see Michael's signature changing that much in such a short time in 1973. But the signature could have been added later by Michael, I guess.

You are right that Seaward prices have come down recently. I bought a big, beautiful, squat, stoppered Seaward bottle from Ron Wheeler in the last year and he only asked £85 for it. So I think £200 to £350 for the small vase is more than a bit steep. I won't be bidding at that price  :phew: .

[chopin-liszt]

My signature is different nearly every time. On these bits, He's using a tool rather than a pen, and he's writing on a very uneven surface.
   And I have a signed attenuated Seaward bottle, didn't pay too much for it, so I'm not complaining very loudly about the bits I did rather overpay for! I'm not buying it any more.

[glassobsessed]

My signature is different every time too. A signature will vary according to the tiredness of the signer as well as their level of stress (bound to be other variables too). I do not expect carbon copies.

I have just photographed signatures on a seaward bell vase and also one around the snapped pontil on a blue and white attenuated bottle for comparison. I have to admit that if it is a fake it is a very good attempt, it's possible that it is genuine I suppose. On the other hand it looks to me like it was made with a dremmel and that is not good.

Photos for comparison.

John

[glassobsessed]

After corresponding with Ron Wheeler about the signature in question it looks like it is genuine, Ron has a photograph of another M Harris signature which has the same characteristics, he is in no doubt.

So I owe the seller an apology (will email them in a moment) and it looks like I will join many of you who are reluctant to comment on live auction.

John

[chopin-liszt]

There can be a fair bit of variation in pawmarks, John, don't feel too bad about it - you've done the right thing in writing to the seller, we've sorted it out here that it's genuine, so it's on the record now.  :thup: :thup: :thup:

Most Seaward seems to be signed.

And there ARE folk out there putting fake pawmarks on things.

[ejean9]

After corresponding with Ron Wheeler about the signature in question it looks like it is genuine, Ron has a photograph of another M Harris signature which has the same characteristics, he is in no doubt.

So I owe the seller an apology (will email them in a moment) and it looks like I will join many of you who are reluctant to comment on live auction.

John

Please dont stop making comments ! If you had not then further styles ect of sig would not have came to light..its all a learning curve, especially for me ! :rah: