Topic: Caithness Salomé Fruit Bowl

[Wuff]

The Salomé Art Glass range was designed by Phil Chaplain and first issued in 1998: see attached catalogue page for the different items.

Right now there is a large Fruit Bowl on ebay - pictures enclosed with seller's permission. The catalogue image looks much more "mottled greenish" - could this just be the lighting (e.g. type and amount of backlighting) during photography ... or is this tolerance during production ?

What do Caithness Art Glass experts (which I'm not) and photography experts think about it?

[Lustrousstone]

Sue has a Salome vase. It looks right to me

[glassobsessed]

It looks like this one, I think I have seen one other similar too. Perhaps the catalogue images turned out to be a little 'aspirational'.

John

[flying free]

Are the catalogue images not photographs?
If I was the buyer and thought I was getting what was in the catalogue image and then didn't get that level of detail i.e in the pulls for example, I would not be happy.  It may not be, but it looks like a different design spec to me.

m

[chopin-liszt]

The catalogue images are all wrong - the colours are all washed out, there is that level of mottling, but it doesn't show because the vase is dark.
The pulls on my vase aren't nearly as high as the ones in the catalogue pics, Christine and I saw one of the big egg-shaped top ones on Wednesday - and the pulls were not nearly so high either, they hardly reached the body proper.
I've not seen one in reality that has such high pulls as the catalogue.

They must have used idealised examples with high pulls and too much flash.

The colours shown on real examples are correct, as are (sadly) the low pulls.

[Wuff]

Are the catalogue images not photographs?

Of course, they are - but lighting plays an important role in photography: different lighting can make the same item (especially with a translucent material like glass) look completely different.
Secondly - these items are hand made - which necessarily will result in variations between individual items: there is a limit to what's accepted - if outside that range, an item will be sold as second - if too badly out, destroyed.

This was exactly my question: is the difference we see between these images dominated by lighting or just a tolerated variation? Most likely a combination - whilst I cannot exclude a different design, I would not consider that a likely explanation.

[chopin-liszt]

I've never seen a pale turquoise one - I would have noticed it if I had. It would have called sweetly to me from across a crowded room.
I bought my Salome, not having a clue what it was; no mark, no label, no idea - just that it was a superb, gorgeous, complex, well-made and beautiful bit of glass.

The height of the pulls must be individual variation, I imagine it would have been harder to get them very tall.

[flying free]

I think the body colour in reality is much more beautiful than the catalogue picture
But the pulls look as though they should be more complex and much higher up the body.
Sorry Wuff, it was a personal comment rather than a constructive comment from me.

Something is niggling at me...I think one of these appeared on ebay a good while ago with higher pulls?  maybe sold as Art Nouveau?
I'll have a search around - it's possible it's been on the board and I've misremembered and the pulls were low as well.
m

[glassobsessed]

Aspirational in terms of what was originally intended but not what actually made in practice. Perhaps the design turned out to be too time consuming, technically demanding and/or expensive to produce to the ideal.

[flying free]

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,41185.msg228306.html#msg228306
John I understood what you meant, but the pulls on Sue's on the link above look taller and more 'showy' - I'm sure it's the same range and perhaps it is just the photographs but Sue's looks more defined   
m