Topic: Signed Glass

[Bernard C]

Totally irrelevant, but had you noticed that the seller of the Northwood ice plate is also selling a Bagley Polkadot Jetique Equinox.    Lovely.   I once met the Bagley Polkadot lady, a wonderful experience, rather like meeting royalty.    They did it all by eye, never marking the pieces up.

Bernard C.  

Frank — bursting into song — "Deletable, That's what I am ..."

[Frank]

Who would have thought that vintage Pyrex would acquire dedicated collectors?

Probably all of the Kitchenalia dealers who were active already in collectible Pyrex heyday. Much is marked Pyrex of course as it is one type of glass that cannot be labelled permanently or etched/signed. It can and does get enamelled marks but mostly as part of the mould. Pyrex is also a good example of a glassware where the name was a major part of the marketing message and has since become a generic term for boro-silicate glass to the probable chagrin of Corning.

Interestingly it is also a glass area that in many cases the designers are big names in industrial design - Wagenfeld being the most obvious but on Jena brand 'pyrex'. Even the advertising for Pyrex is highly collectible as it is a good window into changing fashion and the maturation of industrial design in glassware. I suppose the unsung heroes of Pyrex will be the glassmakers who operated the machinery.

[Frank]

Bagley Polkadot lady

How about a thread giving the account of her for the archive. Unsung hero indeed! But two illustrations of missing credit from one seller :shock:

Certainly not off topic Bernard, we are looking at motivations as well and letting people know how many different people are brought to bear on a piece of glass is highly relevant.

[Paul ADK]

After five pages of comments I don't know that anything I have to say on this subject will be of any particular value, but I will go ahead and say it anyway.  

Sooner or later, unless destroyed or donated to a museum, all art objects eventually make their way onto or into the secondary market.  Even the most avid and knowledgeable collector does not live forever.

All things being equal, when that event occurs, the object with a verifiable signature/manufacturer's mark will in almost every case, demand a premium.  Look what happens at the great auction houses when two comparable works come up, one signed, with impeccable provenance, the other unsigned, but "in the manner of."  Spectographic analysis, X rays, radio carbon dating, brush-stroke analysis, along with every other test known to mankind, can only disprove or cast doubt. Is it from the hand of the master, or his student?  The potential buyer can never know with certainty, and the price he or she is willing to pay will reflect that nagging doubt.

In the field of glass, it is even worse.  I am certain that all of us including the experts on this board, have inadvertently mis-attributed items, not once or twice, but numerous times.  Small wonder the casual collector does not feel comfortable without a permanent imprint that announces to the entire the world "this is a genuine ..."

Can we demand that all artists and manufacturers sign their work?  No.
In years to come however, I firmly believe the unsigned product of such men's  labor will never develop the type of following and collector interest it might have otherwise.  They deserve better.

[Frank]

Of course your comments are of value and a nicely thought and balanced. I do hope people aren't deterred from airing their opinions by the amount that has been said so far. It is always useful to understand the thoughts and feelings of different people and this was intended to be a wide open debate. No one expects to change how people regard this issue, although David has altered his position slightly.

For myself, it has made me re-look at my glass and actually think about the markings or lack thereof in a way I had not done before. As the debate wound through some hoops to considerations that broaden the debate it has kept my interest level high.

Of course, in some senses I have been a little provocative too which has gotten people to explain their position in different ways and enriched the debate further. I am certain that there are perspectives not touched on yet.

The potential buyer can never know with certainty, and the price he or she is willing to pay will reflect that nagging doubt

Which of course also reflects on the experts and methods used. Perhaps the most notable glass example being the way Graydon-Stannus manipulated the market for fake glass by publishing a book to 'help people' recognise antique Irish Glass. Read more about that here: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1403.0.html

Some of David's ideas about coding or RFID chips are quite likely to come about with much commercial glass production. Although the purpose will most likely be for reducing manual intervention on automated machinery. A side benefit if the data behind the coding is preserved will be that the coding will be of immense use to future research. However, with more automation of archives this is the type of data that would most likely be deleted automatically in a 2-5 year timescale.

In 3 or 4 years of trying I have yet to identify one single bottle definitely produced by Moncrieff's Tay Bottle Works in Perth. The moulds are either lost or dispersed and there is no record of any markings that may have been used. From the late 1920's until closure they used machines to mould bottles - but again I draw a blank.

Only one picture of the bottles produced exists and while I will be replacing this with a much better copy (Shortly) it is really not much help as you can see http://www.ysartglass.com/Moncrieff/MoncrieffProduct.htm of the more distinctive shapes I have found near identical ones in Owens Illinois catalogues! One 'possible' hand-blown bottle is shown just below that one.

The target balls on the same page have a moulded N.B. Glassworks Perth in a central band. But until I posted that page nowhere else had they been identified as by John Moncrieff's St Catherines Road Glassworks which were called North British Glassworks. So even a fully marked piece can defy researchers.

[David Hier]

It is always useful to understand the thoughts and feelings of different people and this was intended to be a wide open debate. No one expects to change how people regard this issue, although David has altered his position slightly.

A very good reason to take part in an open and stimulating debate   .

I certainly wouldn't say that any of my views are set in stone. In fact I relish the opportunity to expand my knowledge and discover different perspectives on a subject.

More often than not any discussion will result in a modification of ones opinions, especially a debate that has so many complicated aspects to consider.

[Frank]

yes David. You have a very strong style and an obvious openness too. A good combination. Not to mention your impressive range of knowledge.

[Max]

yes David. You have a very strong style and an obvious openness too. A good combination. Not to mention your impressive range of knowledge.

Seconded.    

[David Hier]

Thanks for the kind comments    .

Of course debates like this wouldn't be worth the effort if most of the contributors didn't contribute fresh insights, valuable information and intelligent arguments.

[Glen]

Agreed. I learnt much from reading others' comments and insights. A fascinating discussion on many different levels. Thanks to all for allowing me to participate.

Glen