Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Unresolved Glass Queries => Topic started by: Glassyone on August 07, 2005, 08:28:07 AM
-
I decided that this was probably so after reading George Manley's book some time ago. Now I have discovered all the experts here it would be good to see if I was right or not!
I have a blue jug very similar to the green too and a large heavy green vase.
http://tinypic.com/a3fvj4.jpg
http://tinypic.com/a3ggg2.jpg
Ruth.
:?:
-
Hi Ruth
They do have quite similar characteristics to Nazeing, which if you hadn't said Clutha then Nazeing is what I would have said they are........ although I'm not the one to ask about that. Nigel Benson I believe is the guy you need.
Any chance of photographs of the bases please
Regards
Gareth
-
In my limited experience, the colors do not look like Steuben Cluthra if that is the style to which you refer.
Edited to add: :oops: Now I am up tp speed. It is soooooooo confusing to have American and Scottish glass which is somewhat simliar in technique and name.
Frank has a good example of Clutha, Nazeing and Cluthra here -
http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/NotYsart.htm
-
'Clutha' is Scottish glass, made by James Couper and sons'
In Cyril Manley's book, example 240 looks to me very similar in every way to this small blue jug.
http://tinypic.com/a4lx0o.jpg
[which I do not like as much as mine because of shape and handle]
and the blue looks [ sort of ] similar glass to the small green ones.
I believed that for reasons now forgotten that this type of glass was named 'Clutha' after the river and the bubbles and pattern are supposed to be evocative of water but whatever, Cyril Manley says " I believe that there are only two reasons that it is bought at all" ---because Queen Victoria admired it when she visited the factory and and because the firm employed two first class glass designers---Christopher Dresser and George Walton.
And
"signed pieces are almost impossible to find"
Now he descibes the jug 240 as ' unusual' but sold to him as blue '' Clutha, long before any interest was shown in this type of glass ware".
Here are the pics of the bases--
blue
http://tinypic.com/a4moow.jpg
Green
http://tinypic.com/a4ms82.jpg
I have a large heavy green similar glass vase which is similar in some ways but not quite and the base is different.
That would complicate things too much.
On a more personal note---
I spent 25 years buying glass from car boot sales and fairs because glass appealed to me.
Stuff it, lets be honest, it spoke to me. Glass is just wonderful and very affordable but can be enigmatic and hard to identify.
It is more difficult, if you are/have collected/[ing] because you see something there that you find a connection with, without discrimination, in terms of provenance, rather than collecting xy or z.
This forum is just quite, well, perfect. There is a great balance between those of us fairly ignorant and experts and such generosity and tact that
well, how do you celebrate this ??
Ruth, not synchophantic,[ no wish to have people vomit!]
-
Hi Ruth,
Just back from the Perth Conference - which was great!
The clue to the origin of No.240 in the Manley book is in your qoute "I was sold this as .......", which of course does not make it a piece of Clutha - only a wish/thought by the original seller.
Indeed it is a mis-attribution and is NOT Clutha.
As an aside I was lucky enough to handle this actual blue piece, on the stand of the person re-selling it after the Cyril Manley sale, back in 1986. Nothing about it supported the supposition that it was Clutha, and nobody who understood anything about Clutha at the time agreed with the attribution.
From memory, neither did it necessarily support the idea of Nazeing being the company of origin. I have discussed my views about pieces like this elsewhere on these postings on a number of occasions.
Not very satisfactory for you, Ruth, I'm afraid, sorry.
Kind regards, Nigel
-
Good evening Nigel
The jug that Ruth has on her first posting and the Manley one are in some respects quite different.
The colour in particular of her 3 pieces, and I have not seen any blue Nazeing, is sufficient in itself to maybe consider these are possibly Nazeing whereas the blue one I understand regarding your reservations to attribution.
Do you have an opinion with regards to a "leaning towards" for Ruths 3 items or is that something you consider too speculative and therefore prefer not to comment on. Perhaps that was the conclusion in your final comment and I have simply not taken it on board.
Regards
Gareth
Morgan48
-
Hello again,
Fair comment Gareth. I've re-read my entry and my comments that were meant to include both the blue piece in Manley and Ruth's green pieces is ambiguous. Sorry :oops:
Elsewhere I have discussed the fact that I personally am suspicious of the attributution of pieces like the green ones as Nazeing. As yet there is no positive archival evidence and the shapes are generally not consistant with known Nazeing, nor is the finishing. Furthermore doubt was thrown on such pieces by the only remaining glass blower of Nazeing's from the art glass era, prior to the exhibition. Therefore I would rather be circumspect regarding the attribution, however I quite understand why many people are using the name for pieces such as this.
I hope that this corrects my error in the earlier posting, Nigel :)
-
Well, it is not Clutha , that is a good start and helpful.
Connie, I looked at Frank's lovely site and it helped affirm my attribution of some other vases, which are cellophane and chrysoprase but in terms of Nazeing the problem is I don't know anything about Nazeing shapes etc and just looking at pictures of the glass itself, it looks similar, for example to cloudy glass.
With respect to the aformentioned types, the glass itself is so distinctive that other strategies for identification such as shape, base etc seem redundant.
In other word the glass 'reveals itself' easily.
Here is a picture of the larger vase, which is 20 cm or so in height and a purple one.
If we can find something I have which is Nazeing, then I can eyeball it, feel it and compare with the others.
http://tinypic.com/ac3jf9.jpg
http://tinypic.com/ac3pjc.jpg
http://tinypic.com/ac4aye.jpg
http://tinypic.com/ac4dpt.jpg
-
Hello Ruth,
The green vase is post-war Nazeing. It should be about 8 1/2 inches high and is pattern No. 52/4. Since the colouring is not the same as the pre-war green(s) the pre-war name for the colour does not apply.
The mauve/purple vase is a pre-war "Tumbler Vase" (Nazeing's name) and was made in various sizes, 6", 7", 8", 10", 12" and 14" and the colour is known as 'Mulberry'.
You can see that although the colour is laid in the same way in both, the weights of the two pieces should differ pro rata to size. That is to say the post-war piece should have a greater weight to size ratio, since it has a thicker casing.
Each has a different finish to the pontil, which is synonimous with their respective periods - pre and post war. The post-war piece can also have a ground rim i.e. there are two versions of the same vase.
Both the green ad Mulberry vases are totally attributable as being from the Nazeing factory, whereas the green pieces that you have shown earlier in this thread are neither documentable through the known catalogues, nor the pieces that I have been able to attribute unequivicably during my collecting over the last 25 years. Many of these pieces were on show at the exhibition in 2003, but I have unearthed a number since then - as is the way of things.
One has to be very careful about giving an attribution on stylistic grounds alone, since it is known that other factories made glass in a similar way. For instance why not attribute it to Gray-Stan , which has identical construction and finish to pre-war Nazeing and is often not marked with the Gray-Stan inscription? There are other, more obscure producers from that period and later as well. Hence my retiscence to give these type of pieces a Nazeing attribution.
Kind regards, Nigel
-
A VERY big thankyou Nigel, that is a tutorial and a half and has given me a good start with Nazeing.
There isn't an emoticon for big hug so :D
Ruth.
-
I am surprised at Nigel's reply to Ruth,
Elsewhere I have discussed the fact that I personally am suspicious of the attributution of pieces like the green ones as Nazeing. As yet there is no positive archival evidence and the shapes are generally not consistant with known Nazeing, nor is the finishing.
.
I have checked the photos taken at our exhibition in Hoddesdon and as I thought, we displayed two jugs, one virtually (as far as hand made objects can be) the same as Ruth's green one and the other was similar in shape but had more straighter contours to the body. Both of these were NOT from my collection and they were attributed without any doubt as Nazeing.
So Nigel, have you come across any new information since then that makes you change your mind?
I note that you refer to
Furthermore doubt was thrown on such pieces by the only remaining glass blower of Nazeing's from the art glass era, prior to the exhibition
.
As you know I have also met this guy and have had talks with him, unfortunately I found that his memory did not serve as well as other members of Nazeing's staff from the same period. Your man has even dismissed items that were shown in the catalogue from the 1930's - because we need to remember that he started work at Nazeing as a young boy just after WWII i.e. about 1947. Being on the factory floor He probably did not see any of the pre-war stock of art glass held by Nazeing which the war conditions prevented any sales of coloured glass, but would have seen the art glass production that was eventually started in the late 1940's and 1950's. So unlike you I tend to view his utterings with caution.
The shape of Ruth's green jug is virually the same as jug pattern 1000/10 from the "Water Lilly" suite but it is not from that suite as the colouring and finish are wrong. However as Nazeing were making that shape and from what is known about the trading habits of Nazeing's major Art Glass dealer, H. Elwell, it is possible that he ordrerd art glass jugs in that shape, and Nazeing would have been happy to oblige.
I look forward to reading about any new attributive evidence you may have about Nazeing and their products
Geoff Timberlake,
Nazeing researcher and author of "75 years of diverse Glass-making to the World" - the book about Nazeing glass
-
Hmm, let me see, what has Geoff said?
Apparently, he is in disagreement with my opinion about Ruth's jug. That is perfectly OK. After all, I have been at pains to make it clear that it is only my opinion. Yet there are also a number of claims about Nazeing glass, and about the ex-glass blower from Nazeing.
For those who might be interested, below I discuss Geoff’s posting. I should get yourself a favourite drink and a comfy seat before you start :shock: :)
When I approached the glass blower who Geoff mentions I knew full well that he had only been employed by Nazeing after the war, since I had been told that by both Geoff and Stephen Pollock-Hill.
Therefore, I took no known and attributable 1930’s Nazeing glass with me. I repeat no known 1930’s Nazeing glass. After all, why bother, since he was only young when he began employment at Nazeing and was therefore extremely unlikely to have any knowledge of the pre-war production.
What I did do was take approximately sixteen pieces of the glass that had a question mark about them, in my opinion. Within these I randomly placed three known and attributable pieces of post-war production – as now illustrated in Geoff’s book. The ex-blower not only identified each piece of known Nazeing immediately when they appeared, he also gave reasons why each of the suspect pieces were, in his opinion, NOT Nazeing. These reasons ranged from a number of technical ones, including a discussion about the enamels used, through to the construction of various pieces and the colour of the metals used in the various pieces. He also stated categorically that the pieces with broken pontils were NOT Nazeing.
On return from this meeting I discussed what was said with Geoff. We both agreed that a blower might not necessarily know how a piece would leave the factory. We should therefore discount the broken pontil ‘theory’ – especially since Geoff had been told that Elwell’s had accepted unfinished pieces by other sources. Indeed they made a virtue of them, because it made the pieces look older than they actually were. It is quite possible that the ex-blower was making assumptions that all pieces had their broken pontil polished over.
I found the gentlemen both lucid and helpful; maybe you discounted his opinion because you took the wrong things with you Geoff? Maybe it was purely a matter of rapour? Who knows? I can report, from notes I made at the time, your surprise at the success of my visit and that you had discounted this gentleman somewhat earlier in your research.
All I can do is report my findings, which left enough room for doubt about a complete range of items that to this date have no documentary evidence that they are actually by the Nazeing company. That is to say there were and are no known illustrations or line drawings, either in the factory’s records, or in contemporary publications, that have come to light confirming the authenticity of the pieces in question. Nor has there been an arguement to convince me of their definate connection to the company. Similarity is not enough.
I generally find that if there are three or more characteristics that say that something might not be what you hope/imagine/claim, then it is not that thing. On the the other hand if you find three or more characteristics that say that an item is (in this case Nazeing) then in all probability it is. I formulated this rule of thumb from experience and, when applied objectively, it has stood me in good stead.
Personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution before arriving at a conclusion, however, you the reader, are entitled to your own opinion, which I have said repeatedly when this subject has been aired on these boards (see another thread, “Nazeing basket?” dated 12 April 2005 – sorry I don’t know how to do the link thing. Perhaps someone else would be kind enough?).
I am also aware that one person’s word cannot be accurately used to document or confirm information from a bygone period. It is correct to use a minimum or two sources, three being preferable. It is for this reason that I do not categorically claim that these questionable pieces are not Nazeing and only flag it up as my thoughts on the subject. Hopefully any ensuing discussion might be relevant and indeed helpful – who knows someone out there may unknowingly hold the key and make entry!
I need to turn attention to the idea that the jug that started this thread bears direct resemblance to either the 1000/10 Water Lily vase that Geoff sights or the pre-war jugs that were included in the exhibition.
I am grateful to Geoff for pointing out the resemblance in form of both the exhibition jugs and the Water Lily jug, but I take issue with the idea that they are just different versions of the jug that started this thread. I seriously doubt whether Nazeing would claim that the shapes in question are one and the same.
Sadly, I do not have the means to take a photo, let alone put it onto the thread, so I’m afraid that the people who are reading and do not have a copy of Geoff’s book will have to put up with my descriptions.
Both the jugs in the exhibition and the Water Lily piece are basically of shaft and globe form, with adjustments. The bottom ‘half’ in each case is spherical, or globular. This runs up into a broadly cylindrical top ‘half’, with a handle attached. In each case it is looped up from the centre of the globular base curving up to the rim of the body where it is attached by flattening just below the rim.
In the case of the Water Lily piece the neck flows from the body in a continuous curvatious way, flaring outwards to the rim. The bottom of the handle is attached centrally to the bulbous body of the jug with a thickened end and is top attached just below the rim, taking a broad curving loop as its form.
Of the two jugs in the exhibition. One is May Green and has a typical pre-war pontil. Its handle, which is transparent blue, was attached to the body with a large ’pad’ which tapers until as a uniform thread it travels upward. It pushes slightly outward as it goes up, then curves over before being flattened where it attaches just below the rim. In other words a well executed, workmanlike piece of glass making. Although the shape is unrecorded, all the characteristics of the piece indicate it to be pre-war Nazeing, and, as Geoff has unwittingly indicated, it strongly resembles the Water Lily 1000/10 shape.
The second jug was white with a clear handle and could fairly be said to be the same shape as the May Green with transparent blue handle. Both pieces conform to a number of known characteristics of Nazeing – hence their inclusion in the exhibition, along with a large number of items with undocumented shapes and/or colours.
To my mind the resemblance between the shape of Ruth’s jug and the three I have described is only passing. Yes, agreed they are all jugs, and two are cloudy green. Of these two, one can be directly attributed as by Nazeing because of the number of characteristics that anchor it to the factory. Ruth’s piece, however is not finished in the same way, nor is the enamel used in the same way. Ruth’s jug is broadly speaking a cylinder with an elongated waist, having a clear handle placed on the side finishing well below the rim. The shape is unrecorded and does not resemble the Water Lily 1000/10, although there is a resemblance to Nazeing, since it conforms to the ‘cloudy’ technique. There is therefore reason to question its origin.
In my opinion you are not comparing like with like, Geoff. Indeed you are even making assumptions about the ability of the Nazeing glass blowers to produce the same shape time after time. I find this strange since the known and documented pieces that have been recorded to date are all consistent in their production and comply with the records that you have published. To suggest that Ruth’s piece is acceptable as the same shape because it is hand made and we should allow for inaccuracies by the blowers is a statement that I find astonishing.
It is strange how little (countable on one hand) known and fully attributable Nazeing turns up with a broken pontil – despite the assertion that Elwell took so much of it away. Of course it is always possible that much of what I have suspicion about could be the Elwell range that is discussed in the book, but as yet there is no critical proof, one way or the other. Oh, we’re back to where we started! You pay your money and you take your choice :) :)
Lastly, just as when Frank tried to tempt me to publish my research, in a previous thread, before I am ready, I shall decline your challenge – but wait a minute, I think you’ve made me say much more than I planned!
Phew, am I glad that’s done!! Sorry to have hijacked your thread Ruth :( . Where’s that large dram.
Kind regards to all, Nigel
© Nigel Benson 12 September 2005
-
Hi
Here is a green piece which is Nazeing no doubt in my mind I have a few pieces - this shows off the same cloudy decoration as in the link - http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,612.0.html
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/blackcatgla/images/green%20posy%20copy.jpg - classic Nazeing
Also look how close it is to the original pictures http://tinypic.com/a3fvj4.jpg in colour and manufacture - these are Nazeing pieces - I live in Scotland and see Clutha all the time - the best stuff (money wise) is designed by Dr. C Dresser - I have books and catalogues on Clutha and it sparkles with tiny bubbles and aventurine
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/blackcatgla/images/clutha.jpg - classic Clutha
Prices are £100 for the full set of pieces in the first post to £1000s for the Clutha shown above
It seems an odd tangent to go off on for a simple question (no diss)
Adam D555 :twisted: :twisted:
-
You preempted my reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wanted to say that sparrows are more common than canaries and that sometimes perhaps one thing, the metal, might indicate glass coming from the same stable!
I have a green Gray-Stan plate it is very different and Gray-Stan only produced for a short period of time.
So the chances of one person having three pieces from boot sales that are Gray- Stan is very low.
On the other hand they match your 'classic Nazeing', exactly, in terms of the metal.
It seems unmistakable.
Now I must do some HOUSEWORK. Anne where are you???
-
Hello again,
Briefly, as yet there is no proof that these are indeed Nazeing. It is only circumstantial. The same applies to the three green pieces you show in your link. The jug is the same as Ruth's one that started this thread.
I will be the first to put my hands up and say that these pieces are Nazeing if, and only if, proof, other than circumstantial comes to light. Tony's Elwell label is only a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, but sadly does not prove the link - other than that the seller sold both types of item.
I think that one has to be totally objective and critical when trying to attribute items to any factory, designer, or blower. It is not good enough to have something that basically looks the same, but on closer inspection has different characteristics to the original that one wishes it to be.
As I repeatedly say, these pieces may indeed turn out to be by Nazeing, but I believe that they all support different characteristics to known and documented pieces by that company. It is possible that they might be another range (probably cheaper, and of poorer quality - hence, also the number of small items that would be more affordable) by Nazeing, OR, they might be by other companies. At this stage I personally prefer to be careful and go for the quality end of the Nazeing factory's production.
Kind regards to all, Nigel
-
Hi Ruth, Anne and Nigel
Nigel I take your point - I am mainly coming from the viewpoint that my little piece and the original pics are similar - you may well be right that they are not Nazeing - I think J Miller's Collectables good colour pics have led us to believe that they are - there are pictures with labels on and everything?
Ruth - look at pp335/336 of J Millers Collectables 2004 - there is a vase with exactly the same base, shape and decoration as the one in your first post
I think as well Nigel it is well to remember that Nazeing was more cheaply made compared to Gray-Stan, Monart/Vasart and Powell - that is reflected in the prices it goes for - I can buy a piece of labelled Nazeing (see glass fact file) for £30 (vase) try that with Monart or Gray-Stan
All best
Adam D555 :twisted: :twisted:
http://publish.hometown.aol.co.uk/blackcatgla/images/grey%20stan%20copy.jpg - One of my bits of Gray-Stan, Nazeing employed similar techniques but the results were not as fine and controlled
-
Adam,
Nazeing more cheaply made?
Are you confusing the cost of items now with their original shop price? Or, have you taken time to compare contemporary production costs? [This is not a loaded question, just a need to understand where your coming from :) ] The modern prices of items are dependant on a number of things, not least of all, whether or not something has become fashionable.
Since I have been involved with 20th century British glass for over 30 years as a collector and 20 years as a dealer, I am lucky enough to have the longevity only a few have. I remember when Monart was £20-£30 on average, but could be found for £2.00. A rare, labelled surface enamelled could set you back as much as £65 if the seller was very knowledgable. Powell was not even rated by the huge majority of people and consequently started at about 20p with high prices at £10.00. Gray-stan was so rarely seen as to be insignificant, but might be priced as high as £18 - purely as an unknown piece of art glass with a funny name on it.
Prices of all of these items have gone through ups and downs, but the status of collecting them has grown over the years.
Conversely, Nazeing is in its collecting infancy, which means that there are diverse views about its pricing - as well as opportunities to buy well.
Although I glanced at the 2004 Millers guide when it came out, I must confess that I don't remember what was in it. I certainly do not wish to slate any source of glass within these volumes (not least because I contribute to them from time-to-time), but it has long been recognised within the antiques trade that pricing, at the very least, can be manipulated for whatever reason.
When I wrote my little book on the 50's and 60's I took advice from contributors of items regarding price. I erred on the side of caution, after these discussions, and priced the pieces realistically. Why? Because so many times over the years publishing prices has changed a market - or part of it. In the case of Whitefriars glass by Geofrey Baxter, back in the late 80's, the market was totally destroyed for a 2 1/2 year period as everyone thought that they should price things at the prices mentioned in the guide. The market became moribund.
Bear in mind also that the person who lends a piece to a price guide tells the publisher what price to put on it, so there is very little consistancy to the pricing.
If one takes the opportunity to overprice things in order to project the price upwards, then everyone, dealer, bootfairer, auctioneer and collector will value something identically. Now you may say this is no bad thing, but I answer with a question. How will the market work if everyone marks something with the same value?
Indeed is the market false if is kept on a flat plain, or is it false if allowed to find its own way?
Just a few thoughts :) Kind regards, Nigel
-
Over the last 20+ years I have also bought a lot of Monart-alikes and there are probably half a dozen that produced glass very similar to these 'Nazeingesque pieces' - sadly I got rid of them in the days before everything got photographed. If you look at the overall make up of each piece you will notice differences that are clearly from different hands and would not be consistent with a particular style from one period of one glassworks.
Interestingly, I see few such pieces in Holland and that would tend to indicate a likelihood that they are of UK production for the most part. Retailers like Elwell played a part as they were in touch with the market and would source from wherever they could. Similar glass also appears in Hill Ouston and there were a lot of small glass-works that appear to have started after the second war, but did not last very long or switched to importing.
We are familiar with only a handful of glass companies from the twentieth century and many more are going to be uncovered as time passes. From Nigel's remarks, he will be revealing some of this to the world in the not to, hopefully, distant future. But it takes time to uncover the history of the smaller glassworks - My article on Nazeing appeared in 1989 and it was many years before Geoff's seminal work appeared. I am still chipping away at Pirelli Glass and am currently working on a Moncrieff archive that contains a LOT of totally new information on their output from the 19th century and early twentieth. Ian Turner made some remarkable discoveries on the history of Monart only in the last year and so it goes on in just about every area of glass.
It is better to use terms like 'Style of' etc until firmer evidence is at hand. Even 'possibly' can be misleading! And yes, I was certainly guilty of hyping prices of Monart in Millers during the 80's when I was dealing in it.
-
Nigel wrote:
Bear in mind also that the person who lends a piece to a price guide tells the publisher what price to put on it, so there is very little consistancy to the pricing.
An interesting view, Nigel.
What confuses me is why, unlike second-hand books, (see Book Auction Records) most English language publishing houses offer, for the most part, desired price wish lists. The German publishers of Sammler und Trodler issue a price guide for glass, based solely on realised auction room prices, starting from as little as 50 €. Arguably this is a better system than asking lenders for their opinion of value, and certainly avoids auction house estimates being included, which at best can be accurate, at worst, mere speculation. eBay has brought some transparency, to the market, but it also is the clearest illustration of what happens when two folks want the same item. Sadly completed auction prices are not retained and available for any significant length of time.
In some cases, for example S&T mentioned above, the guide is very useful, not just for glass prices, but for the high quality images of a wide range of European glass, but one needs to be aware that any attribution may still be inaccurate.
Regards,
Marcus
-
Having read several books and these posts, my glass is not Cluthra. It is good to establish that much.
It maybe Nazeing, perhaps. based on science and sparrows.
Ruth
-
Hi all
Nigel, I do take some of your points
There is much research yet to do on Nazeing
Book references aside -
I can only hold a piece of Monart with it's beautiful swirls so perfectly crafted by the glass maker with (yes we all know it was Xmas glitter) mica flakes glittering perfectly - I know not all had Mica flakes, but even those without have an evenness and balance of design
I can then hold a piece of signed Gray-Stan with it's delicate white inner surface and perfectly executed cloudy swirls going in this direction and that all again aesthetically balanced
I can say the same for Clutha, but I fear we are talking an earlier date here with the Dresser pieces I would hold up for comparison
I then hold up a piece of Nazeing with the label and see blotches instead of well defined and researched swirls or cased patterns, I see a crudely made piece which seems out of proportion, the glass thinner at some places than others and uneven (non ground rim)
This is what I see with my designer’s eyes and 15 years in the glass collecting researching business
More research may hype prices, but quality is a thing more lasting than what would be a cause for inflation
So with all the research that has been done on Monart/Vasart, Powell, WMF, Gray-Stan (I love the story about the search for the perfect formulae), why has no one researched Nazeing to the same extent
I look forward to your further research work and wait to be flabbergasted by some amazing piece of Nazeing that sets the world alight
By the way Frank, I don't agree you helped hype the prices of Monart and Vasart, you have never gone into deep research on WMF glass or Powell, yet a comparably rare piece will fetch the same amount as fine piece of Monart.
A note also on labels - Monart did no harm to the future prospects of their glass by labelling so well - those lovely round labels with hand written codes - I call that the personal touch of a true artisan - I mention this because a Monart label can increase the price by 4 times sometimes, it is collectors who are fascinated by this (like a 1st edition book - signed copy), I think yourself and others research into Monart labels has informed rather than hyped the market - after all each label can tell a story of it's own
Can the same be said of Nazeing?
For some reason it is almost impossible to find pieces with the double goat label left intact - most research seems to be done through retail labels
That has to say something
I expect many big guns will want to crucify me - but know this I have written only on what my own eyes and experience tell me
Nazeing are still going - this from the website (History section) In 1928 Charles Kempton's son Richard, with two brothers, purchased a farmhouse and four acres of land near Nazeing in the Lee Valley and the name Nazeing Glass Works was born. With a workforce of just seven employees in 1930, the company made decorative ware, vases, bowls and paperweights in soft pastel colours, that are rare collector’s items today. One of the employees was a fifteen year old boy - who later became Managing Director in the 1960's!
I thank you for your time - and add if the company thinks that pastel vases made by a 15 year old boy are rare collectables then who am I to criticise
Adam D555 :twisted: :twisted:
-
When I started selling Monart, long before the book, the average price in Scotland was in the range of 10 to 90 pounds, the high price for Mushroom lamps. My average selling price was about 300 pounds with surface decs from 1,000 upwards. Millers published my prices in the 80's. By the time the book came out the market had peaked and it was downhill from then on. They have hardly reached the levels of 1990 yet although there is a slow upward trend.
I agree that Nazeing and most of the look-alikes lacked the design qualities of Monart, WMF, Webb Corbett and Gray-Stan but it is still a collectable range. One reason for the lack of Nazeing material is a fire that destroyed many of the archives and of course not many researchers. For most of the unknown glassworks the problem is lack of research - there is plenty of material on lots of glassworks sitting untouched in archives everywhere. On top of that smaller archives are probably still in the hands of former workers and this will not get to the market until they head off to cloud land.
Prices are partly the result of research but also of the volume produced. Mass produced Lalique is available in huge quantities and can thus sustain a huge base of collectors resulting in a steady market. It is likely that the most common Monart was made in smaller quantities than rare Lalique pieces and yet fetches a tenth or less of the price - I would be surprised if there are more than a hundred active Monart collectors at any one time. Double the numbers of collectors and prices would more than double. Argy Rosseau retailed at lower prices than Monart and may have been made in similar quantities - look at the price difference now.