Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > Glass Book Reviews

The New Mdina Glass Book

(1/4) > >>

Vitreo94:
I suspect most of you have either ordered, recieved and (like me) scoured each page of this book throughly by now and I would like some opinion on it.

There is some very welcome information contained within it and some new to me.

One of my main concerns, or perhaps not dependant on what you good people tell me, about some inaccuracies within the book. Namely the attribution of certain dates to pieces. Within the book I've encountered, not many, but enough attributions to warrent slight concern. Mostly around pieces being attributed later than they ought to be and some earlier! Harris era being made out to be later, usually with the attribution 'mid to late 70's' or words to that effect and a piece being given a date of 1969 which is ludicrously early for it. Just a side note I'm not talking about Harris era designs that have been carried on after his departure but actual pieces pictured within the book.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that it has a few errors that will sadly misinform readers and not represent the years as accurately as they deserve.

Any comments would be well recieved as I also would like to know what people think of it overall also.

Cheers.

Patrick:
Hi,

I have the book and find the hitherto unpublished information fascinating to read......
The printing and quality of the book is superb.
It would be helpful to know what images you refer to regarding the dating issues, such as page number etc.

Cheers,

Patrick.

Vitreo94:
I find the printing excellent and the plethora of new information a very good read.

The dates bother me however even if the images are superbly done.

Page 74 the textured bark vase also described as Ming?! Is in the Dobson years and dated to the mid 70ís as post Harris when I own one with his Mdina script on the base and seen plenty of others. Clearly dated incorrectly.

Page 44 referring to brown mound blown base, Iíve seen plenty with later Mdina labels identical
to this but is given a 1969 date. Equally on the same page the side stripe lollipop doesnít seem to fit a 1971 date attributed to it.

Page 78 the stoppered bottle shown I have 2 in blue and one in amethyst all with polished pontils and small buttoney tops. Certainly not late 70ís as itís labelled.

Page 96 the fish vase to the left is in no way circa 1973 itís much later than that. The one to the right is much more accurately dated. I canít seem to find the page where a similarly shaped fish vase in amethyst to the one on the right is described as a 90ís piece, totally wrong.

Page 106 the vase described as marble fish vase indroduced supposedly late 80ís when Iíve had examples dated 1979 and early 80ís.

To name the most obvious offenders that I can flick through and recall. Itís a good read for background info, the pieces donít appear to be properly researched in some cases.

 The labels page misses out the most early labels of all; the Small Blue rounded edge labels found on very early pieces and doesnít accurately describe its successor of the same size and shape but far cheaper black and white equivalent. Both Harris era and early.

I do like the book donít get me wrong, itís been 12 years since the last and only other. As a Harris era collector and Mdina dealer of 12 years it disappoints me that the Said era seems flawless and the eras before that rushed and not researched enough as they deserve to be.

Just my opinion but the dates are way off in some cases and itís saddening when a book costs about £70 including shipping to be wrong and not polished enough as Markís.

chopin-liszt:
Marble wasn't around in '79. Marble is the later execution of Tiger, which was a Dobson design. I suspect it came about as a reworking of the strapped colours used first in ice-cut lollipops, then in the unflattened version of the cubes, but to my knowledge Tiger (and so obviously marble) is post Harris.
I've not seen the book yet. Copies arrived but are having to be sent back as they were very badly damaged.

Vitreo94:
Itís the exact same vase shown that Iíve had dated 1979, but itís claimed it wasnít around until the late 80ís. Perhaps better to address when youíve got a better copy of the book to see it!

Tiger is described in the book as what I would have once called Rosenthal. This is Harris era and perhaps a year after according to some catalogue photos within the book. What I would have once called Tiger is described as Marble and is post Harris. Though apparently was in experimental stages/ production during the Harris era supposedly, still doesnít sound right to me.

Iíve heard many complaints about damaged books, ours were packed okay, but we bought 3 so had extra padding. It seems if only one or two were bought they were given a single layer of cardboard. Again not good for £70 per book.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version