Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: ascot on September 11, 2007, 12:34:04 AM
-
I am new to this board--looks like a great place, and I have a lot to learn!
I purchased a vase last week in a small second hand shop. When I got home and held it to the light, I can see "R. Lalique" very faintly on the bottom. The oval shape is not quite uniform, one side being slightly less rounded than the other. Under a magnifying glass, it looks like there are tiny tool marks where the satin glass was cut away to make the floral design. The glass is a rich green that fades to clear. The bottom is extemely smooth but has a good bit of shelf wear around the perimeter. My photos aren't great--the vase is uncleaned and it was hard to capture the pattern.
So far, my internet searches for Lalique haven't turned up anything that looks like this.
I was referred here for help and am so hoping someone will know what this is.
-
ascot — Welcome to the GMB. I can't help you with Lalique, but I have several suggestions for making things easier for those who do know.
Please would you include your country in your profile, as knowing where glass was likely to have been originally sold often helps.
Also I can't tell whether I am looking at a powder bowl, a biscuit barrel, or a bucket! So let us know its height and diameter, in centimetres preferably as it's by a French manufacturer. You could also include the weight. Some will also include an internationally well-known and neutral object, such as an eating apple, in one of the photographs to give an idea of scale, worth remembering for future queries.
And, although less important for pressed glass, a view of the base is often helpful.
Well done — nice find.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Thank you, Bernard, for your very helpful comments and suggestions!
I purchased the vase in Washington, DC, in a consignment shop in Georgetown.
The measurements are 5 3/8" x 3 3/4" x 3 7/8" high, or 13.8cm x 9.5cm x 10cm high.
It is very hard to photograph, but here are a few more. If you look very closely at the 3rd photo, you can see the R Lalique mark and some of the wear on the edge.
-
I've played around with the levels to try and improve readability, if this helps.
-
ascot — You caught me out! I should have said "biscuit barrel/cookie jar" but forgot!
Otherwise:-
1. I nearly said to not use a Coke can, as it can get a hostile reaction from some. It's manufacturers do have rather a good record for fostering third world debt and obesity! I thought that "neutral" would be a sufficient hint.
2. Never, ever, reveal your favourite charity shops. I won't even tell my wife where mine are!
Bernard C. 8)
-
Its manufacturers do have rather a good record for fostering [...] obesity!
Well, it is Diet Coke, at least... ;D
-
Oh, dear, Bernard--my apologies for use of the can. I started to use an apple but decided against it as they can vary so much in size. I don't live in or even near Washington--was just passing through the area.
-
Is it green flashed or stained? Staining was popular with Lalique.
-
I have much to learn, but I'll try to answer your question. I THINK the glass is stained. The color is definitely in the glass--not the stuff that you can scrape off with a knife point or fingernail. I think you can see on the top rim that the glass is all green, not a hint of white/clear or any casing. Please pardon my ignorance, but the closest thing I can use for an analogy would be putting drops of food coloring into a thick substance like white cake icing, and the icing turns green where the drops are mixed but remains white in other areas.
-
A vast amount of Lalique's early to mid C20 production was for perfume and cosmetic manufacturers such as Coty, but still to the best of my knowledge impressed with R Lalique (I'll try to check this tonight)
I would hazard a guess that this piece has parted company from its lid, and was a container produced for a cosmetics company.
I can't recall seeing one like this before, which doesn't mean it is rare. In fact there were probably thousands produced. But often containers are discarded, so they become "rare". In this context rare does not always mean valuable. But although I don't know what you paid for it, I would imagine that it is probably worth a bit more than it cost!
-
Thank you--any help would be wonderful.
The possibility of a box without its lid has crossed my mind. There's hardly any wear on the rim indicating a lid, but of course the lid could have been lost or broken early on, so there wouldn't be marks from use. Under very strong magnification, I see evidence of hand tooling along the outline of the floral pattern--seems like a lot of work for a container.
-
On the other hand it could just be that the toolmarks on the mould indicate low cost production with reduced finishing. Much Lalique was mass produced.
-
This type of glass isn't my current area of interest but I did, in the not too distant past, collect art deco items and had a few pieces of Lalique (now sold). I'm not sure about the 'R Lalique' mark on the base of your item - it just doesn't look 'right' to me - it seems rather naively executed - the only signed 'R Lalique' piece I owned had a much more uniform and more competent signature somehow. As we all know, pieces that are signed with the 'R' mean they're earlier production so I wonder if the signature could have been added at a later date to deceive? Just an idea to consider ...
-
Pip — Jackson gives the mark on ascot's bowl as perfectly legitimate, and dates it mid '20s–1939. My only concern with this is whether 1939 actually means the year 1939 or when Lalique stopped producing fancy goods because of the war, which may well not have been 1939. 1939 and 1945 dates always worry me! I wish authorities would say what they mean (and not treat us like idiots).
Bernard C. 8)
-
OK Bernard no problem, as I said the signature looks rather naiive to me when compared to the only signed 'R Lalique' piece I've had in the past - I wasn't questioning your judgement just pointing it out.
-
The mark is moulded, hard to fake! Hartmann safely gives it as 1925, so it is possible that the 1939 date is assumption. Particularly as we are talking about pressed glass and I never heard that the Lalique moulds got destroyed in the war ;)
-
Pip — I wasn't criticising your opinion, just giving an alternative view. Lesley Jackson's works are not infallible, although rather more reliable than some others.
Frank — Nice to see that someone else has reservations about dates like 1939. Thanks.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Moulded - are you sure Frank? Isn't that an etched mark? I know there were moulded marks (and etched) but that doesn't look like a moulded one to me - the reason I was 'concerned' about it was because my signature was a script, like handwriting.
-
On the other hand it could just be that the toolmarks on the mould indicate low cost production with reduced finishing. Much Lalique was mass produced.
Which doesn't mean it is lower priced of course! :o
-
Mark looks moulded to me, although very vague, and Hartmann states it is a Pressed Glass mark. Lalique had a LOT of marks in their 120+ year history. They also have a LOT of collectors so high prices are sustained for lots of the trash they produced as well as the good stuff. They also produced a LOT of containers as well as their better known decorative ware and some of that sells for peanuts, mostly because it is not in the picture books used by the 'LOT' of collectors >:D
-
Hope I'm not duplicating info that's already on the GMB somewhere.
Anyway, I hope the following is helpful:
The R Lalique signatures could be any one of:
engraved script
wheel cut capital letters(straight lines)
sandblasted capitals using a stencil
stamped capitals using a die stamp
molded capitals in relief on the glass
intaglio capitals molded into the glass
thin diamond-point incised script (often added at the factory when molded mark unclear)
and within these categories there were variations
There was also a mask in a circle used for some powder boxes
and the initials VDA (Verrerie D'Alsace) with the D overlaying the V and A.
(reference Bayer & Waller "The Art of Rene Lalique" which illustrates all these types)
The Lalique workshop at Combs-la-Ville (near Fontainebleau) closed permanently in 1937. The Lalique glassworks at Wingen shut down in 1940 but was reopened in the late 1940s. Rene Lalique died in May 1945 at which time his glassworks had been closed and heavily damaged by the war. His son Marc re-constructed and re-opened the glassworks some years later, and as a mark of respect for Rene it is said that the R in front of Lalique was not used again. In addition the glass used in the new factory had a higher lead content than Lalique glass made before the war. It was full lead crystal with 24% lead compounds, about twice the amount of lead as pre-war Lalique.
I agree that Ascot's piece probably had a lid and Lalique did produce a large number of designs of this kind of box, which were called "Boites et Bonbonnieres" (candy containers?) and ranged in size from 70mm to 255mm (I think that's the diameter - doesn't say).
The pattern on ascot's item looks like a honeysuckle to me, and I couldn't find a honeysuckle pattern in any of my Lalique books nor in the 1932 catalogue.
-
Angela - the signature information is really helpful - thank you. :-)