Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: wrightoutlook on May 12, 2006, 06:41:21 PM
-
I would greatly appreciate some help identifying this beautiful pedestal paperweight, which is a new purchase.
There is great heft to the weight and superb clarity of the glass. The paperweight weighs 2 pounds, 11.2 ounces. And the glass is crystal clear -no bubbles or striations. The glass coloring is pure - no yellow or greenish cast. Even exquisite Millville roses have some minor striation and bubbling. Not from China either, due to the quality of the glass and crafstmanship of the blue flower and green petal lampwork. The flower is flawless with lovely shades of blue and the petals are perfect.
On the underside, there is a signature. The word Schneider appears in stylized script form. Impossible to capture on camera. What fascinates me about the word Schneider is that it seems to be floating inside the glass base. Can't be felt. Not raised, etched, or embossed.
I know there was a famed glass art family named Schneider in France at either Galle or Daum - not sure which, but I thought they only made vases and bowls and lamps.
I have never seen any pedestal like this, so any help or insight is much coveted and you have my sincere thanks.
Mod: Photo's uploaded to GlassGallery:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5954
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5953
-
I'm not great on paperweights...but...
I thought initially this looked Chinese, but perhaps Wright is right. It does look exceptionally well formed. The pedestal is perfect, the globe is perfectly round. I think it's rather lovely. :)
Not knowing much about paperweights, I Googled 'Schneider paperweight'. I found an Eric Schneider and another that I couldn't get to load up (which looked the closest to Wrights paperweight, annoyingly! lol).
I'm not an expert in paperweights...this paperweight just looked rather well made to me. :?
-
Thanks for your comments. It's most assuredly not China-made. The glass doesn't have that soapy feel. As I stated above, the quality of the glass is premium - no cullets, bubbles, or striations. Whatever the perfect equivalent is in glass, the "crystal" is pure "white." None of that yellowy or greenish tint. And the lampwork flower is spotless and pristine. I've seen some of the large China-made weights, with the open lily pad flower with the hovering bee or the lily pad flower with the sitting frog and my weight has superior lampwork technique.
Here is the only link I could find on-line to an image of a Schneider paperweight. The image is from a past auction. Although the flower is different, the description (a different URL) and quality of the weight and the smooth clear glass, all point to my weight being from the same glassmaker. But who is this Schneider? German? French? Contemporary or vintage? I gather that a gentleman paperweight expert named Bob Hall has written a book on Schneider glass. I hope he reads this board.
Note: The image is slow to download, even with a cable modem. But it does show up.
http://www.dargate.com/225_auction/225_pics/1462.jpg
-
Not from China either, due to the quality of the glass and crafstmanship of the blue flower and green petal lampwork. The flower is flawless with lovely shades of blue and the petals are perfect.
What makes you so sure this is not from China? The quality of Chinese glass has been improving so it could be Chinese.
-
There are myriad reasons why it's not from China, most of which I've articulated above. There are clearly defined characteristics regarding all paperweights, even China-made paperweights. This weight fits none of the Chinese factors. It's a signed Schneider, so now we have to discover who or what Schneider is.
Additionally, if it were from China, hundreds of others would have the same weight and most assuredly, some of these people would be contributors to this board. China's glass industry doesn't simply release one-off paperweights. And the odds of a one-off paperweight showing up at a cluttered antique shop in Chicago USA are long. The owner of the shop said she had read about a man she thinks is Charles Schneider in France, and I'm still doing resarch on this aspect, but I'm not finding any paperweights.
In all collecting, there are absolutes - those things of which we can be sure. Regarding some weights, it might be one thing, or it could be many. A weight that is not bubbly, non-striated, not soapy to the touch, has a precision-ground and polished base, has a pristine lampwork flower, and is crystal clear in terms of coloring is not Chinese. Flowers in Chinese paperweights have a clearly defined look, which helps identify them as Chinese. And 100% of the large and/or pedestal Chinese weights I've seen will have a flower with some creature from the animal industry attached to it, be it a bird, a bee, a frog, or a butterfly. Yes, even the oft-maligned China-made paperweight industry has generated definite absolutes regarding its output.
And, if it were Chinese, where is the rest of the production run? The owner of the shop said she bought it at a flea market in Wisconsin, and the item has been in her shop for about a year, just waiting for the right buyer.
-
Could you post a photo of the signature please.
-
It's Murano.
Not 'Chinese Murano' but a weight made in Italy on the island of Murano.
The flower is a crocus.
I have one in my collection pictured here:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?album=66&pos=18
Murano makers have been known to occasionally place a faux Schneider signature on the base of some weights.
This signature is much fainter than that on an authentic Schneider piece but is otherwise a good match.
I have several Murano weights in my collection with this faux Schneider signature including a pedestal tulip weight.
Schneider did not make many paperweights and those that they did make were very simple items that did not employ any torchwork or lampwork techniques but rather had simple control bubble designs.
-
Thank you Mark for your superb reply. I am very pleased to have my question answered with knowledge, insight, common sense, and a photograph to boot.
Do you have any idea as to why some of the Muranese makers would go to such lengths to do this? Frankly, this pedestal weight, and I am sure the ones you and others have, are exquisite enough to stand alone as beautiful works of paperweight art. One would think that the Muranese would be proud to make a weight of this beauty and perfection and sign it themselves. Why place a fake signature in it? And a faint one at that.
I guess I just don't get it. And, I'm not a naive person; I do understand that the world is full of artists claiming attributions that turn out to be false. But couldn't the maker or makers of these lovely pedestal perfections looked at them and appreciated them as works that stand tall?
I've read herein of other fakery and it astonishes me. If someone makes a gorgeous paperweight why not sign it proudly with one's own name? Oh well, it's the way of the world I guess.
Of course, there is another possibility. Perhaps there actually is (or was) a Mr. Schneider working at one of the glassworks on Murano. A Gunther or a Gerhart - not Charles at all, who was in France at Galle or Daum. Perhaps this Muranese Schneider was Italian-German or German-Italian. Or perhaps he was a Swiss fellow named Franz who moved to Murano Island to craft glass. And he made these wonderful pedestal paperweights and signed them legitimately because his name was Schneider. Frankly, this all makes sense. Why assume only Italians make glass on Murano?
Again, I think you for your spot-on comments. You've opened up a new way of thinking about glass attribution.
-
To Wrightoutlook: To answer your last part first, the island of Murano has a rich history of inhouse glassmaking. The signature that you see is as faint as it is because of the process of the forgery.
Over time, and that is almost always the case with collectiing, the passage of time and the inherent experience & knowledge that comes with time, I have seen several Murano weights with this faux Schneider signature. They've done it with Baccarat too employing the same process of copying with the same faint result. Why do they do it? As you say, one can only guess but ostensibly to garner a premium price for a non premium weight.
Murano is also known for inserting fake 19th century date canes into their modern millefiore weights. Unsuspecting tourists & neophyte collectors can be fooled by these as well.
I'm with you in that when they or the Chinese make a superb weight, the beauty and artistic acheivement stands on it's own which is why I have such weights in my collection.
-
Mark,
Assuming that the Schneider signature is a forgery would lead one to believe that Schneider is someone well-known enough to be forged. Do you know anything about Schneider?
-
It takes a highly skilled paperweight artist to make a convincing fake of a master. Yet there seems no shortage with fakes of many 'names' cropping up. Larger fake production needs the facilities of a glasshouse and several people working.
The bottom line is as ever greed. However, I am sure there is a motivation that gives some justification to the glassmaker - Each month they have a large gas or electric bill, the market decides the price of their weights and at the same time they are aware that another makers weights are fetching ten or more times as much. There they are sweating and struggling to make ends meet and along comes a 'spiv' dealer with the suggestion to produce 50 weights in the style of xxxxx. Perhaps it made the difference in their survival, certainly they would have seen much smaller profit than the dealer. It is still a crime but it is one that is created by the demand from collectors for something made by a dead master. If all collectors also put a significant part of their money into directly purchased weights from local makers then the pressures to create fakes will be lower. There will always be the bad fish that enjoys the game, like Tom Keating for example.
Probably the best known forger of paintings was Elmer de Hory whose fakes are so sought after that they have themselves been faked.
The best fakers gain notoriety and can almost become social heroes as well as boosting the value of their own work - possibly after a short stay in prison. In almost every forgery case the artist remains famous but the corrupting dealer disappears into obscurity. Some crooked justice!
-
Just a couple of comments. I do appreciate the input and I love the turn the thread is taking
The key factor here is that the weight is beautiful. Quite exquisite. As always, photographs don't capture the beauty. The light blue petals in the flower are utterly flawless. The sharpness of the glass, the lay of the green leaves all indicate somebody with talent made this weight. Mark (m1asmithw8s) indicates he has others in his private collection and I can accept that there are other examples of these Schneider pedestal flowers in the marketplace.
Which brings us to that vital question. Whoever made this weight is either a Schneider working somewhere, most likely Murano -- perhaps as I have stated an Italian-German or an Italian-Swiss -- or he or she has knowledge of paperweights made by a Schneider. But if Charles Schneider (of France's Galle and Daum) never made pedestal weights, then who the heck is this talented faker faking? Why put a Schneider signature - ever so faintly - in a gorgeous work of glass art like this if there is no sourced reference to these weights?
As for Simone's comment that Muranese companies are outsourcing work to China, I will go with Mark's very determined comments, made back in March and April in very long threads about Chinese weights and that whole messy situation, that glass factories on Murano are not doing it. I agree with his sharp perception that it would be pointless and makes no sense. Those two threads are headed: "Murano versus Chinese weights" and "A new weight, but I'm baffled as to maker -- any ideas?" Also in one of those threads the name of the legendary EstlinClichy came up. I've been reading the board for about seven months before I joined (time wasn't on my side - my architecture firm was working on a huge project) and I've read EC's comments. Frankly, I question the wisdom of pulling everything he/she wrote, because there were some very salient points being made.
One of the intersting things we are seeing is that -- based on threads herein -- now that eBay's in China, numerous fake auctions are occurring as unscrupulous sellers are finding their way around eBay. And, it's not just paperweights that are being folded into scam online sales. It's practically everything. I guess -- and I sincerely hope this isn't offending anyone -- that we really should be a touch leary of the Chinese behemoth. In fact, one of the posters in this thread had one of his auctions duplicated. This is not a good development and it adds fuel to the anti-Chinese fire.
Anyway, I'm pleased with my superb Schneider (fake or otherwise) pedestal paperweight. Maybe these weights are imported by a person named Schneider and are made on Murano.
Ultimately, these leads us to the big question. If the weight is a superbly crafted work of glass art, does it really matter who made it? Except, of course, when it comes time to sell? Probably. But right now, I'm glad I have it and I'm glad it's a superior glass obejct and I'm very glad it has lead to a thoughtprovoking and intelligent discussion.
-
Here is some online information about the Schneiders that I located. Now if only I can find a photo of the signature. I'm going to keep searching.
http://www.glassencyclopedia.com/Schneiderglass.html
-
And yes, after much research, I did discover a website called schneiderglass.com, but according to all information, Charles and Ernest Schneider did NOT make paperweights. So, who is the talented faker and why is the signature being faked?
-
But what about Charles Jnr and his brother Robert Henri? The glass encyclopedia just says they made art glass. Have you tried looking them up?
-
Schneider.com is Robert Hadley's site. I had never for a moment thought you guys were discussing that Schneider... I had assumed this was about the Bohemian/German Oskar Schneider.
Salvador Ysart worked with the Schneider Brothers in Paris before WW1 when they were making lightbulbs.
Schneider sigs are well documented, is it sand blasted, etched or engraved. In anycase, rub over it with a pencil and it should photograph easily.
-
THIS is what I love about this website. I didn't know there was an OSKAR Schneider. Now, who is he and did he make paperweights?
There must be others with these pedestal weights. SOMEBODY is making them and they are in the marketplace. Even if rarely seen.
I love a good mystery. And it's one of the reasons I love collecting paperweights. Finding surprises and tracking down the maker. I think I'll call it the search for THE SCHNEIDER CODE.
-
Frank. I have rubbed the VERY, VERY, VERY FAINT signature with a pencil and have taken some photos. I have also written on a 3 x 5 card a replica of the signature. I will post them shortly, as TINYPIC is down at the moment.
-
As I posted at the beginning, the signature of the pedestal paperweight signed Schneider is very faintly etched or embossed and is raised only very, very, very slightly. It is as faint as a signature can be.
The first image is of my replica of the signature. The others are the best I could do considering the slightness of the signature. But if you look carefully, you will see the signature. As Frank suggested, I rubbed the signature with a pencil and photographed it. It was extremely difficult trying to get the light source right.
But, anyway, here is the signature of the mystery Blue Flower Pedestal Paperweight that is signed Schneider. Mark states it is Murano and I'm leaning that way until proven otherwise. It is not Chinese as I have stated and as Mark has stated. The telltale signs of Chinese glassmaking are not present. But if this quality piece is not Murano, then who could have done it? Is it German? Austrian? Czech? Why is someone making paperweights and signing them Schneider? How many were made? Where are the rest of them? Is Schneider an importer? Is Schneider the last name of a glassmaker in Murano?
Stare at the photographs very carefully and you will see the signature. Consider my hand-written impression of it and then relate that impression to the photos.
I love this hobby.
http://i4.tinypic.com/zwe0w6.jpg
http://i4.tinypic.com/zwepnr.jpg
http://i4.tinypic.com/zwepvs.jpg
http://i4.tinypic.com/zweq7b.jpg[/url]
-
Hi wrightoutlook,
I managed to find this:
http://www.aspireauctions.com/auction34/details/5430.html
after googling many different variations. It is also signed Schneider.
Still not an ID, I know, but maybe the canes used will 'speak' to the experts.
-
Definitely Murano canes.
Anyone thought that perhaps a Mr (or Mrs) Schneider owned these paperweights, and marked them to show they belonged to them? :lol:
Only joking! :wink:
-
The signature looks close to one that was needle engraved by Schneider company in France in the period 1918-30. I have asked on the Schneider forum for any reference to paperweights.
Oskar Schneider was a Bohemian decorating firm 1919-45, they do not have any attribution for weights.
-
It's starting to look like this is the thread that will go on forever! So I would like to insert 2 points that are tangentially related to the overall subject:
1. What this forum seems to be lacking is anyone with direct knowledge of the Murano community. We've got experts galore on Scottish paperweights, lots and lots of expertise on French paperweights (even crouching bunnies and tadpoles!), people with intimate knowledge of Millville... We have a number of significant paperweight makers contributing! If anyone out there knows someone actually in the Murano community, I would beg you to attempt to get that person involved!
2. China - like Bohemia, this is becoming a generic term. When we discuss China, are we referring to Taiwan or to the mainland? Are there specific areas known for their glass or paperweight production? Are there actually any known Chinese paperweight makers who produce or have produced quality/collectible weights as opposed to the "contract" mass produced weights or the forgeries?
It may be that these are appropriate topics for new threads. It may also be that I'm offbase completely on whether these are topics of interest. Mostly, I just felt the urge to type!
ps - thanks to the administration for apparently having deleted that objectionable sex posting. I got suckered into looking at it, but by the time I knew what it was it had disappeared from the menu. Good work!
-
There are people in our membership directly involved in current Murano glass. It is their choice to join a debate or not. For example, poster Artofvenice in this thread http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1486.msg10924.html#msg10924 is in the trade, He has not posted here for a while though. Check his website.
Due to lack of research into Chinese glass production, and other countries, there is very little detailed knowledge. It is an area crying our for academic research. Bringing these other countries into the documented sphere will give those makers a chance to promote themselves instead of relying on anonymous overseas contracts.
However, some people have obtained catalogues of Chines production and identified some websites of glassmakers. Language is obviously a big stumbling block as is distance for most researchers. I would have thought it likely that Japanes weight collectors have more detailed knowledge bu that probably just adds another level of language abstraction.
-
I found a paperweight signed Schneider?? :D
http://www.forwardedge.com/abednego.html
The signature is in their photo #2.
Don't know that the signature is similar, but it shows very clearly so wrightoutlook can certainly tell better.
The site attributes the weight to "Eric Schneider of Abednego Glass Art in Williamsburg, Virginia". It seems that "Abednego" refers to some form of glass beads - don't know whether it refers to the maker or the style.
-
It seems that "Abednego" refers to some form of glass beads - don't know whether it refers to the maker or the style.
I think it refers to 'The fiery Furnace' :shock: as Abednego was the third person to be thrown into aforesaid, along with Shadrach and Meshach :shock:
-
Thanks to all for the continuing comments. These kinds of threads are extremely helpful and are one of the key resources people will be able to use to help identify paperweights.
The posted photos of the signed Schneider contemporary American paperweights have a signature dissimilar from the one I and another member (Mark) have. And I think I can safely say that the pedestal is older and of a completely different glassmaking style than the more modern weights shown in the posting. Our signature has more of a formal template appearance - as if a mold had been made of the signature and then impressed faintly into the glass. But with his comments, Frank may have taken that "mold" concept out of the equation.
I am going to post a reference to this thread on the Murano Board and hope that Murano collectors will take a look at the photographs and commentary.
I am very interested to know that a needle-etched signature similar to the one I have is attributable to Schneider from 1918-1930 as Frank has posted.
Somewhere, somebody was making these paperweights and people have them in their collections. In fact, because of the faintness of the signature on the bottom of the smoothly finished and highly polished base, there may be many others who have these pedestals and have never actually seen the signature.
I'm also posting another, albeit sharper, image of the pedestal weight to help in the search.
http://i4.tinypic.com/zx3bd0.jpg[/url]
-
The link that I posted was most definitely NOT a contemporary American paperweight. Leni already said that the canes were Murano.
-
I wasn't referring to you. Another has posted other Schneider (American) factory output. Perhaps you missed that post in scrolling.
-
Hi, may we know your name btw? :)
No, I didn't miss it in scrolling. I read everything very carefully as I am trying to learn. 8) :oops:
The reason that I posted the link, was to substantiate the fact that there are other Murano paperweights out there, in different styles, that are also signed Schneider.
-
I've asked Jackie Lindsey if she has time to 'look in' and give us an opinion :D
-
Mark when you say that Murano glassmakers fake Shneider signatures on weights - how do you know that they are Murano?? Do they also put a Murano label next to the Shneider signature?? Why would Murano glassworks fake such a signature when they can sign it with their own glassmasters names? I think it is far more likely to be a Chinese copy. I agree with Simone that it looks Chinese - that was my first gut reaction. But it certainly does not look like a Murano weight to me.
-
Thank you very much for your time and your expert opinion, Jackie :D
I didn't want to commit myself before, but it certainly looks like a better quality Chinese weight to me. While the glass is very clear, and the blue is a lovely intense colour, the 'petals' do have a slight similarity in shape to those in this 'dime a dozen' :wink: Chinese weight from my collection, which is a common Chinese flower shape. http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-1982
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-1983
I haven't seen Chinese pedestal weights before, but I am not surprised if they are now making these. Nor am I surprised at the quality of the glass, which has much improved from the greasy, yellowish glass of previous years!
-
Hi, I have seen and sold many, many Murano paperweights, made by different glassmakers (as Alt, 3 fiori, Millefiori). I have seen (but never sold) several paperweight made in China. My idea is that this one isn't made in Murano, but noi in China too.
Obviously I can be sure at 100%, but it looks too perfect compared with the other pieces made in CHina, that I have seen up to now. The glass looks to clear, same the flower.
Concering the Murano origin, I have seen pieces with the flower inside here, but never with that kind of base. The master glassmaker who worked for 3 Fiori, than for the new company, is very good Murrina canes maker, but he isn't great to shape the soft glass; instead in this piece the base/stem looks very simmetrical, with a perfect connection point between the ball and the stem.. A good glassmakers specilized in blown glass (as alzate, classic vessels and vases, or goblets), can be able to make a such perfect part. At the same time, I know also that they don't have any kind of moul with that shape.
So... If it is made in Murano it was made by somebody that I don't know, but there are so few glassmaker here making paperweights and I know personally all them.
At the end my opinion is: No china, no Murano, but somewhere else. I don't know where.
Sincerely
Alex
http://www.artofvenice.com
-
Wow. This is getting good. I take your comments seriously Alex. I never thought for one second that it was Chinese. Mark believes Murano, and until I can get a declaration, I'll hang on to Murano. If the Chinese were making these, where are the rest of them? They simply don't do singles or even dozens. As stated, ad infinitum, the glass is too perfect and not soapy to the touch, and the flower too pristine.
-
Wow. This is getting good. I take your comments seriously Alex. I never thought for one second that it was Chinese. Mark believes Murano, and until I can get a declaration, I'll hang on to Murano. If the Chinese were making these, where are the rest of them? They simply don't do singles or even dozens. As stated, ad infinitum, the glass is too perfect and not soapy to the touch, and the flower too pristine.
I visited a glass factory outside Shanghai a couple of years ago. The two masters there who were stem-ware experts were Roumanian. It is quite possible that there are also master-glassmakers from other countries maybe including Italy, working in different parts of China training young people in a similar way to the Roumanians.
I realise the Chinese debate is contentious and time-consuming and unfortunately I don't have the time to get involved with this at present. However, I also attended a design seminar recently where a Danish designer who has relocated to Beijing gave a very interesting presentation, in which he pointed out the size of the Chinese internal market and the fact that Chinese exports account for a very small proportion.
A lot of the old cliches about the Chinese market are just that. You only need to look at how Liuligongfang who make the most superb work, granted in Taiwan, have pretty well overtaken the rest of the world in their speciality. And just a few years ago people were as disparaging about goods made in Taiwan.
I apologise in advance if this stimulates a frenzy of replies, since I won't be able to comment ....because with the National Glass Fair coming up at the weekend, I have some of my own more zany paperweights to finish, and next week we have a trade buyers event to coincide with the Pulse trade fair. So I shall be conspicuous by my absence from the board for a while!
Hope to see you all in Gaydon on Sunday. :D
-
For Liuligongfang see http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,3385.0.html
-
The Chinese question is interesting because of the geopolitical nature of the issue.
I believe others have already mentioned this in myriad threads, but regardless of what leaders of mainland China believe, the reality of the world is that there are two Chinas. Mainland China and independent, free, democratic Taiwan. This may be upsetting to Beijing, but I won't get bogged down in the politics or semantics of it all. The actual map of the world, the mindset of Taiwan, and representation at the United Nations confirms there are two Chinas.
I believe that when people write - either wrongly or rightly - about poor-grade and lesser quality Chinese paperweights they are writing about some of the work made in Zibo City in the Shandong province of mainland China. Mass market decorative items - vases, animals, ornaments, clowns, paperweights, etc. Utilizing the restrictve nature of contemporary Chinese society, the government has established industrial zones in Mainland China or Red China or the People's Republic Of China (whatever you want to call it). The glassmaking zone is Shandong and Zibo City, specifically. I realize this may be difficult for some to understand or appreciate, but that is the nature of Beijing's industrial policies. There is a steel zone, a glass and ceramic zone, a clothing zone, an appliance zone, a computer zone, an electronics zone, a car zone, etc. Of course, lack of specific freedom notwithstanding, these zones have carried China on a wave of superb economic success.
The mass-produced Chinese paperweights and vases from Shandong are not representations of artisitic achievement or individual craftsmanship. It's a society based on the concept of the collective. Mass market wins. Individual expression is not high priority - yet.
HOWEVER, there are glassmakers on Taiwan who are ARTISTS (such as we have in the West; people like Tarsitano or Trabucco or Chihuly or Secrest or Muller) and these Taiwan artists create unique and exquisitely crafted glass objects. They are Chinese as well, although I gather they are Taiwanese Chinese.
Therefore, in stating the above, I wish to return focus to my original debate. The facts are these, right now two people herein have written that they have pedestal paperweights of superb design and crafting that are signed Schneider. Myself and Mark.
As I've stated, there have to be more of these Schneider weights and somebody made these weights. One of the things I've noticed is that there is not a lot of written history about Murano. I am always suprised how few Murano works (vases, lamps, weights, etc.) are signed. Yes, there's 3 Fiori (now gone) but far too many Muranese creations are unsigned or had labels that are long gone.
Why is that? What was in the Murano mindset that made the workers and owners of the factories there not significantly sign their work?
If we were all detectives, we'd state the facts. There's a pedestal weight. It's a beautiful and top-notch piece. It's signed Schneider. Two people have an object like this. One lives in California; one in Chicago. Is there some importance to be placed on the fact that both live in the U.S.A.? None of the experts can precisely pinpoint the source of the pedestal. There have been good clues, but so far the answer is elusive.
I wish more Italians would read this board, especially anyone from the area of Venice or actually from Murano. But Schneider is a German name. So, we're back to square one.
At the moment, my gut instinct tells me that these pedestals were made on Murano and were imported by a company or person called Schneider. I wish there was some vital ledger or piles of paperwork that ultimately answered the question.
Of course, it's sort of exciting to think that out of all the paperweights in the world and of all the paperweight collectors in the world, there are only TWO examples. And, of course, we know (and I know) that this cannot possibly be true.
But, if it is - very cool.
-
I wish more Italians would read this board, especially anyone from the area of Venice or actually from Murano. But Schneider is a German name. So, we're back to square one.
Did you miss the earlier post by Alex, ArtofVenice? He is a Venetian and in the Murano Glass and paperweight trade. He also said that he knows personally most of the paperweight makers in his hometown of Venice.
-
The mass-produced Chinese paperweights and vases from Shandong are not representations of artisitic achievement or individual craftsmanship. It's a society based on the concept of the collective. Mass market wins. Individual expression is not high priority - yet.
This is fairly close to the philosophy of Salvador Ysart as far as paperweights are concerned. Setting up the canes was 'womens' work, the men finishing then back to the women for signing. He also told Paul that he was wasting his time messing about with paperweights. Yet these weights are regarded as collectible.
-
Did you miss the earlier post by Alex, ArtofVenice? He is a Venetian and in the Murano Glass and paperweight trade. He also said that he knows personally most of the paperweight makers in his hometown of Venice.
No, I didn't miss it. I clearly wrote I wish - MORE - would read the board. This implies that I read it and wished others posted from Murano.
-
Perhaps there actually is (or was) a Mr. Schneider working at one of the glassworks on Murano. A Gunther or a Gerhart - not Charles at all, who was in France at Galle or Daum. Perhaps this Muranese Schneider was Italian-German or German-Italian.
Actually, the different Schneiders are well documented. But the ones for whom this signature matches ase the brothers Ernest and Charles. Charles was a designer for Daum and his brother Ernest was a salesman there prior to setting up their own glass-works - this was financed by Ernest's income from Daum. They were born in France to French parents, so definitely French. It is very unlikely that either of them worked in Murano.
Other Schneiders were based in Germany, Austria and Haida but are not related to the French family which had a fairly humble background.
-
Daum are quite good at signing things but apart from a few items are generally hard to sell for a reasonable price.
-
Frank, you mentioned an Oskar Schneider, but didn't pursue that. I'm going to stick to the subject at hand - the pursuit of the mystery of THE PEDESTAL PAPERWEIGHT SIGNED SCHNEIDER. THANK YOU.
The pedestal paperweight is the focus of this thread. The search is now on by seven others who have emailed me - and are finding this an enjoyable treasure hunt - to find out once and for all who is making these beautiful pedestal paperweights and signing them Schneider. Three are in the U.S.A, two in England, one in France, one in Italy, and one in Scotland (which I gather is still the U.K.), but after seeing Braveheart, who knows how they feel.
Alex from Italy says: "not Murano, not Chinese." Mark from California says Murano with an etched signature. Others say Chinese - but are they saying Mainland Chinese or Taiwanese Chinese? Haven't heard from the German favorites yet.
I lean towards Murano with a Schneider signature that indicates the name of an importer in the U.S.A. (Or if a German, Swiss, or Austrian; perhaps an exporter.)
Where are the other pedestal paperweights?
-
Oskar Schneider has no relevance here, very different mark and period.
-
I emailed Eric Schneider, to ask if he made this sort of pedestal paperweight. Sadly, he has not replied as yet. I also asked him if he would look in at this thread, if he has time.
-
Hi,
Sorry to be posting here so late but I have stopped getting emails alerting me that this thread had been continuing and so I was not aware.
Jackie wrote: Mark when you say that Murano glassmakers fake Shneider signatures on weights - how do you know that they are Murano?? Do they also put a Murano label next to the Shneider signature?? Why would Murano glassworks fake such a signature when they can sign it with their own glassmasters names? I think it is far more likely to be a Chinese copy. I agree with Simone that it looks Chinese - that was my first gut reaction. But it certainly does not look like a Murano weight to me.
OK, I know they're Murano because I and other collectors have similar Murano weights without the faux Schneider signature.
Researching Scheider, we found that Schneider did not make paperweights with encased lampwork or torchwork designs.
I have a pedestal Murano tulip with the same faux Schneider signature as wrightoutlook's and she has received my pics.
I also have a Murano pedestal crocus like hers but that one does not have the faux Schneider signature. The fashion of the pedestal & foot as well as the design within, all say Murano, not Chinese.
As to Who put the faux Schneider signature on the Murano weights that have them well, we know that Murano artisans occasionally place faux 19th century date canes in their modern weights so yes, it could be the makers/glasshouse that did it. Or, it could be one or more retailers/dealers who did it in order to capitalize on the Schneider name for fun and profit.
This link, http://www.glassencyclopedia.com/Schneiderglass.html, placed here before, contains helpful information on Schneider.
Finally, many collectors know from experience that there are also some modern Murano weights extant that have a faint faux modern Baccarat acid etched signature as well. So these faux Schneider & Baccarat signatures on modern Murano weights, while not plentiful, become known to collectors with experience, over time.
I hope this is helpful :)
-
Very helpful, Mark, as usual. But, who is the Schneider that is being copied. I'm still not clear on what Schneider is having his/her signature placed on these Murano paperweights.
-
Possible solution, this company was making abstract paperweights in the 1960's, I will find out how they are signed.
From the front page of their catalogue...
Cristallerie Schneider 1968
Lorris / Loiret Tel 127
Complement du catalogue general 1965
42 Rue de Paradis, Paris Tel: 62-64/5
From Glass Encyclopaedia (http://www.glassencyclopedia.com/Schneiderglass.html)
Cristallerie Schneider was a new glassworks set up by Charles Schneider and his two sons, Charles and Robert, in 1949. Charles Schneider senior died in 1953. The Cristallerie Schneider operated until 1957, when the works was destroyed by an explosion, and during that time they produced some beautiful lines in lead crystal blown glass, often with random internal bubbling.
So it is possible that this is not connected to the original Schneider, but some sites attribute a 1980 to the end date of the original firm, most do give 1957.
One source, regarded as unreliable, states they moved to Lorris in 1962. This is repeated on Great-Glass site without reference.
A third French source, also considered unreliable, links them but in an uncertain way.
I will come back with more info from this source and maybe some pictures :D
-
As always, I am eagerly awaiting solutions to the Schneider pedestal mystery.
And I'm still trying to find information about Bayel of France, as regards my other recent post. This one is proving to be as tough to crack as the Schenider case. Thanks again.
-
I suggested Charles Jnr and Robert three pages back but nobody took it on board :?
And I posted about an Eric Schneider who makes paperweights. I have not had a reply from him, so I have no idea if his signature is anything like the one shown, and I have no idea if he has ever made paperweights like the one in question. However, his existence proves there clearly is at least one person named Schneider who is currently making paperweights!
But of course, there's none so blind ...... :roll:
-
Honestly, the one thing really I'm learning in all of this is that the craftsperson tradition in terms of factory-made paperweights did not engender or allow personal pride in terms of signing something.
I guess an entire book could be written about tradespeople (mostly men) and craftspeople (again most men) in the 12th through 19th centuries making exquisite glass items, but not signing them individually; although sometimes the glass was signed, dated, or stamped by the factory. We know almost nothing about the men (were there any women?) who were kept in virtual isolation in small villages in France who made some of the world's greatest paperweights. Individual names are rare.
So, it comes as no surprise that this Schneider Pedestal weight continues to be a mystery. I was hoping that some people reading might know some people who collect or remember that they've seen one of these Schneider Pedestal weights in a show, or in a gallery, or at a museum.
I'm sort of saddened that, as noted, there might only be two of these because I really wanted there to be more to solve the mystery. I wanted someone to post something like: "hey, I got 20 of them and them came from my great aunt who bought them for a song as they were made by an apprentice who was allowed to do some work after hours at Millville." But nothing like this has happened. But I am also sort of happy that there are only two of them, mine and Mark's. Makes it all very cool.
I even scoured every page of an online Chinese glass catalogue (talk about excess and talk about eye strain - if I looked at one more multi-colored clown I was going to scream) and nothing matched up. Thousands of glass pieces in that catalogue, and not one match. I looked at eBay auctions for Chinese glass and Murano glass and nothing matched up.
I searched Schneider on Google again and again and came up with the usual suspects.
There's a spectacular antique show coming soon to Liverpool, New York (near Syracuse), which is set up along a gorgegeous lake - the Onondaga. It's called the 23rd Annual Great American Antiquefest, July 21, 22, 23. Tons of glass, Belleek, buttons, glass, clothing, paintings, lamps, musical instruments, kitchenware, postcards, medals, furniture, pottery, etc. One year, one guy had something like 50 German paperweights from the late 19th century or the early 29th. One elderly couple has 5000 pieces of white cut glass layed out on red velvet. I asked the old time fellow how he packed them up. He said, "what doesn't sell gets wrapped up one piece at a time." Another dealer, two gay men, have 1000 pieces of Roseville for sale.
Anyway, I hope to find a few paperweights, especially another Pedestal Crocus signed by Schneider. In fact, I better.
-
Sorry, had little time to deal with this one. It was not made by Schneider at Lorris. It was indeed a son of the original Schneiders who ran that plant until the 1980's. The few paperweights produced in the 1960's were all clear glass abstracts and did have a script signature just like the one on this. From this information I think it is clear that the signature is a fake - but some doubt will obviously remain.
Finding an unsigned match to one of these two weights might resolve the matter.
My source for this information is a Belgian dealer that specialises in quality glass and will be putting some original Schneider paperweights up for sale when the website is rebuilt www.tinyesveld.com
Should you want to contact her sooner then if you mention my corrspondence with her it should save time. I will email you some material privately.
-
What are the chances that the pedestal paperweight in question is American-made? Could someone in New Jersey or New England have made it and also made the one Mark has?
I think the pedestal is American-made because of the clarity of the glass and the size. Probably made between 1890 and 1940.
-
Thanks Frank. Unfortunately, I couldn't read the address area as it wasn't large enough. But the thought is appreciated. The company is Cr. Schneider, but the location is impossible to decipher. Can you just post the address? Is that the address of the collector or an auction house? Anyway, thanks.
-
As for the pedestal paperweight being American, as is hinted at by Girlglassguide, well, it could be possible. It does have some Millville factors to it.
-
The address was posted earler in this thread but those are hi-res scans so you zoom in for detail.
-
GirlGlassGuide wrote: What are the chances that the pedestal paperweight in question is American-made? Could someone in New Jersey or New England have made it and also made the one Mark has?
Answer: No chance.
See my previous posts in this thread as well as the threads regarding Ray's pedestal rose weight as to why.
-
Then I think I will agree with you Mark that it is Murano and the Schenider imprint is the importer or exporter.
I read somewherein these message boards that a Roumanian or a Dane was making glass in mainland China. If a Roumanian or a Dane makes a paperweight in mainland China, is the paperweight Chinese or Roumanian or Danish?
If a Dane or Roumanian signs the weight that was made in China, it seems to me that it's a Roumanian or Danish weight.
-
No, the signature is a fake copy of a genuine Schneider signature.
-
But you really don't know that, now do you? It could be a real Schneider signature on a fake paperweight from Murano. Maybe Schneider worked in Murano.
-
Yes I do, it is a close copy of the signature used by the Charles jnr son of the original Charles Schneider brothers. He did produce a very small number of paperweights in the 1960's but all clear glass abstracts.
If there is another Schneider making paperweights he is not connected to the original glass family and is thus unlikely to have a signature that matches.
-
Frank - any chance this "son" is the maker of the pedestal that is the focus of this thread? Have we all accepted that the weight is Murano and stamped Schneider by someone? And, I'm still bummed there are only two of these about which we know - mine and Mark's. Yes, I like the rarity, but I'd rather know where and when these were made, and by whom.
-
No chance at all that is was by Schneiders son.
-
It really makes you wonder where all the paperweights go and who is making them, doesn't it?
-
:D I imagine that creating a complete list of people who have made paperweights since, say, 1950 would be impossible.
-
Here is a genuine labelled and signed Schneider weight. Note that the signature on the weight in this thread (above) is one used on the earlier incarnation of Schneider glassware, not paperweights.
(http://www.ysartglass.com/forum/Schneidersig.jpg)
Two views of the weight which contains a spiral of bubbles, weighs nearly 1.5Kg and is 10cm diameter.
http://www.ysartglass.com/forum/Schneiderweight.jpg
http://www.ysartglass.com/forum/Schneiderweight2.jpg
-
... the weight which contains a spiral of bubbles, weighs nearly 1.5Kg and is 10cm diameter. Big
That's probably why, in the literature I have seen [which is not much] about those 1960s Schneider pieces, they have been called "Glass Globes" rather than "paperweights".
And my understanding is that the signatures on the 1960s "globes" always included "France" as well as "Schneider".
This whole topic of false Schneider signatures on paperweights was discussed, with no proper conclusion, in a Yahoo!-based paperweight forum some years ago (I am no longer a member of that forum, so can't easily extract any info). But I do recall that somebody pointed to the signatures in Anne Geffken Pullin's Glass Signatures, Tradenames and Trade Marks and suggested that an example they had on a weight matched one as shown in that book. I pointed out that when compared to the marks shown in Edith Mannoni's book, Schneider, it was clear that the Pullin versions had lost part of the relevant detail in the print process! (Also, the form of the "amphora" section of the mark referred to appeared to differ with respect to the handles.) I mention this here, just in case anyone does start browsing the Pullin book in this context.
-
Some pictures have been lost, can the posters please supply new copies.