Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: Liz on July 08, 2006, 12:41:18 AM

Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 08, 2006, 12:41:18 AM
1. What is done with artists proofs?
2. Are seconds sold in a retail environment?


Thanks!
Liz
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Leni on July 08, 2006, 11:40:20 AM
I believe some companies do sell off seconds to the public.  I know Caithness do.  (You often see them on ebay, where people seem to think being signed CIIG is a good thing, not realising it means a Caithness 'second'  :roll: ) Whether Glass Eye do the same, I don't know.  

An 'Artist's Proof' I would think is a different matter, and although I have heard somewhere that Caithness also used to mark these as CIIG, I don't know if that's true.  I think Artist's Proof weights are more likely to have come out of a studio 'via the back door' if you take my meaning!
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: KevinH on July 08, 2006, 10:58:19 PM
Liz, I would have responded to your "newbie" questions earlier but got bogged down with other things, then completely forgot about this message.

I think Leni's comments are on the right lines.

When I used the term "artist's proof", I was thinking about items that were specifically made to test a design and which could then have prompted some changes for the actual production output. In which case, parts of the "proof" may not have been as perfect as desired and also the finishing (of the base, for example) may not have been completed to usual standards. In some cases, such "proofs" could have been kept by the maker, held in the company stock room or even simply chucked out. They might also have been put into the market place by intention, or otherwise.

But what each "proof maker" in each company actually does with them probably differs every time one is made.

Another aspect of this is that occasionally weights can be found with a "1/1" mark, meaning "No 1 of an edition of 1", or just "a one off". If there was no follow up as a production run, then could such a one off be called a "proof"? Maybe it could, and maybe it was just that, but with a decision that something about the design was not suitable for progression.

Well, those are just thoughts off the top of my head. The truth is, I don't actually know the answer to the question. :D
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 09, 2006, 03:27:30 AM
Thanks Leni, KevH !  :D

Thanks again everyone, hopefully someday I'll have enough knowledge to answer questions instead of asking them! And I will have all of you to thank for the guidance!  :D

Liz
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Frank on July 10, 2006, 06:05:37 AM
Caithness also sell seconds through their factory shop and these are often sold on eBay and can fetch substantial sums, the have a CIIG mark.

Paul Ysart never sold seconds, they were destroyed but he was always on rocky financial ground. When you consider the cost of running a studio with todays energy prices it is not surprising that seconds need to be sold to make ends meet. To sell or not sell seconds is thus a commercial issue and not a moral one.

Vasart weights were deliberately making for the gift trade and not connoisseurs, mostly. Indeed many glassworkers need to produce bread and butter work in order to afford to produce their expensive art pieces.
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 10, 2006, 02:04:35 PM
Now, I'm glad I asked again, the responses were worth the wait! I have certainly learned alot from this, thanks all!!

Thanks for the education! (To whom do I send the tuition check???  )

Liz
Title: A few thoughts on this
Post by: Angela B on July 21, 2006, 02:13:16 PM
I'd like to add a few thoughts on this topic. If you search the www you can find a range of US paperweight artists have produced "Artist proof" paperweights and signed them either "Artist Proof" or just AP. For example a Correia Art Glass Tropical Fish paperweight marked ARTIST PROOF (from 1989); Jim Donofrio paperweight of  wizard faces and flowers signed Jim Donofrio 02 artist proof; Rick Ayotte 2001 artist proof hummingbird and orchid miniature paperweight; Cathie Richardson Green Octopus paperweight identified by the seller as an artist's proof; and a 1976 Paul J. Stankard Artist's Proof Mixed Bouquet Paperweight  - an experimental bouquet paperweight signed by Paul J. Stankard and marked "AP1 23876." In fact there is a book called "Paul Joseph Stankard: The First Decade" which is a catalogue of artist proof paperweights by Stankard in the collection of the Wheaton Museum of Glass.

What is an "artist proof" paperweight.  It is the first of a design produced by an artist and intended for use as a model for a series or as a test for a design to be used again in other weights. By its nature, the original artists proof is unique even though the design is then reproduced as a series. I don't think there is any reason to think it is less than perfect or damaged or not finished off completely. Some may be, but there is no reason to expect this. The US "artist proof" paperweights mentioned above sold for thousands of dollars. Some artists may choose to leave their "artist proof" paperweights unfinished but I do not think that is the norm.

A few months ago there were several "artist proof" paperweights from Caithness Glass which were offered for sale on ebay.  Unfortunately I did not manage to buy one. They each had documentation that they were original artists proofs and/or experimental designs. Caithness Glass have been taken over a number of times in recent years, and ever since they became part of the same organisation as Edinburgh Crystal, all kinds of items have been put up for sale that were never sold to the public before. I have bought items which the sales staff told me "We weren't allowed to sell these before, but now it seems that everything is being cleared out of the stock room". So it did not surprise me to see artists proof paperweights and experimental designs coming out of Caithness Glass.

The late Colin Terris (Caithness chief designer for many many years) described the making of the first model for a series of paperweights. Once the design was accepted, that artists proof was then the model for the whole series, and any paperweights which were too large or too small or where the design was not close enough to the original model, were rejected and if they were nevertheless good paperweights, they were etched CIIG and sold as seconds only from the Caithness shop (not via their official retail outlets). These paperweights often turn up on ebay, as Frank has pointed out. The point of this story is that Caithness in particular must have had literally hundreds of artists proof paperweights. I wonder what has happened to them. The Caithness exhibition of their paperweights was supposed to contain number one of each series, but over the years some of those first editions have crept out into the hands of collectors. They were the first of each series; they were not artists proofs.

Paperweights that are "one-of-a-kind" or marked 1/1 are something different again. Sometimes an artist is asked to produce a special paperweight as a commission, sometimes an artist makes a one-off paperweight as a gift or to celebrate something special, and sometimes they just decide not to make any more. These are not artists proofs because they were not the model for a series or for later production.

An experimental design is something different again. It may or may not have led to a series of similar weights being made. But the implication is that it did not. It was just an experiment.

Paperweights sometimes turn up marked "Sample". One US dealer assumed that this meant they were artists proofs, but that is unlikely. A sample would normally be produced to show the kind of work available, and there is no reason to think there wouldn't be dozens or even hundreds of such samples produced.

And finally, a word about "seconds".  Some artists choose to destroy any piece that they do not think is up to their normal standard (Paul Ysart became famous for this). Some artists sell such pieces without their signature, refusing to sign anything that is not up to standard.  And some outfits, like Caithness Glass, identify the second quality output with an indelible mark and sell it at a discount. I am not absolutely certain that current "seconds" sold by Caithness Glass are all so clearly marked as they used to be. But in every case, the item sold is still a piece of art made by an artist which may appeal to some people for the very  features that caused its rejection.
There is a difference between a "second" which is essentially a piece which does not measure up to standard,  and a lesser quality item which was produced for a different market.
Many artists employ a different form of signature for their best pieces to distinguish them from more run-of-the-mill output. And many European artists have different grades of work. Their very top pieces are often referred to as exhibition pieces; then there are collectors' pieces; possibly a grade below that for high class gifts; and then a range of designs intended for sale in tourist outlets and gift shops. The time spent by the artist will vary with the intended designation, and the quality and price will reflect this. It is up to the buyer to judge the quality of  the item they are offered and to decide if it is worth the price asked. And most dealers will accept return of a paperweight that the buyer is unhappy with.
Title: The rest of this thread
Post by: Angela B on July 21, 2006, 02:26:24 PM
Quote
Some posts reinstated here that got accidentally split from this thread


Quote from: "CRAIG DEACONS"
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 4
Location: SCOTLAND
   
Posted: 12 Jul 2006 12:30 am    

Regarding my production of paperweights you will be aware that we have a small group of 7 glass workers the production falls into 3 categories:

1-Top of the market averaging 15 per week
2-middle market averaging 18 per week
3-millifiori market averaging 30 per week

Sincerely yours
John Deacons
_________________
CRAIG DEACONS




Quote from: "Lustrousstone"
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 545
Location: Warrington, UK
   
Posted: 12 Jul 2006 12:53 am    

I have very few paperweights, mostly Chinese Shocked , and an awful lot of early to mid 20th century/late 19th century glass, mostly factory made but one thing I love about it all is the character that low levels of mechanisation, i.e., much hand involvement gives it. Should creativity and passion be stifled because machine-made perfection hasn't been achieved yet? I don't think so
_________________
Christine, Uranium Towers
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Glass Message Board on July 22, 2006, 08:23:08 AM
Originally, this topic contained inflammatory statements and angry responses that resulted in this thread being temporarily moved into the committee forum, where after careful review and removal of the inflammatory comments it is now felt that it provides a useful response to the original question.

We remind our membership that we ask in our guidelines that all discussion be respectful. Where comments are made that are found unsettling, please do not attack the poster - this only raises temperatures and the serious discussion is forgotten. It is better if you are offended by any comment, to add a reply addressed to the GMB committee expressing your concern. Be assured that in all such cases that a rapid review will take place.
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 22, 2006, 11:25:27 PM
Angela,

  Thank you so very much for your very informative answer to my questions! I sincerely appreciate the response and hope that others found it as interesting as I did!!   :D

Liz
Title: Some pictures
Post by: Nadine on July 24, 2006, 03:07:46 PM
Hello Liz,

I totally agree to the things said above about Artists Proof and 1/1 paperweights.

If have some pictures to show you a artist proof weight and how it will look later.

You found them by clicking this link: http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/ap/index.html


Picture 1 is the artist proof weight of the Strathearn Series from John Deacons

The second picture shows the artist proof signed base.

Picture 3 is the weight how it was produced later as a limited edition of 25 pieces. It´s signed 1/25

Picture 4 shows a 1/1 which was made as a test for a new design.

Picture 5 shows the signature of this weight.

Probably this might be interesting for you to understand the difference.

Best wishes
Nadine
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: aa on July 24, 2006, 07:37:02 PM
Thank you Nadine. It is very helpful to have images to illustrate some of the points made. I note that the artist's proof shown is facetted, whereas the edition of 25 were not. This shows a clear distinction between the AP and the edition. And as a glassmaker myself I think they are superb pieces and very well executed.
Title: Artists seconds
Post by: Angela B on July 26, 2006, 10:27:37 AM
I think we have covered the issue of artists proofs well between us. But there are still some things that I think need to be said about SECONDS. So here goes.

There are some glass artists, mostly in the US, who sell their paperweights for thousands of dollars. Debbie Tarsitano, Paul Stankard, Chris Buzzini, Victor Trabucco, and Rick Ayotte come to mind. There are several more. Their reputations and the market for their work allows them to make relatively few paperweights to make a good living.

There are other paperweight artists who can and do produce paperweights to a similar high standard, but they do not have the market to sell any of their work for thousands of dollars. Their best paperweights can be bought for less than a thousand dollars, yet they have the same costs of operating a glass studio. Most of the glass artists in New Zealand and in Scotland come into this category.

There is a strong tradition in Scotland to make and sell paperweights for a range of different markets. To my knowledge, this goes back as far as Paul Ysart. John Deacons in his post to the Glass Message Board, said that he makes 15 “Top of the market” paperweights a week.  John works with a small team, including his son, as many other artists do. And the way they work is to produce some of their work for other markets. On average, he wrote, they make 18 middle market paperweights per week and 30 millefiori.

I buy from John every time I visit Scotland (every year) and I know that the price he charges for his best paperweights is some 20 times the price of his cheapest paperweights. This reflects the time spent making the paperweights as well as the skill and artistry involved. His cheaper paperweights are just different. They are not seconds in any way. They are obviously not going to be the same quality as something costing 20 times as much, on which more time has been spent.

I have discussed paperweights with many many glass artists in their studios, and I have often been shown something the artist regarded as an unsatisfactory paperweight. Please take my word for it, that what one person regards as a flaw, somebody else would find quite attractive. And what some artists think is a perfect paperweight leaves a lot to be desired. And I am not talking about John Deacons in this context.

So how did all this aggravation on the Glass Message Board come about?

Clearly some people thought that all of an artist’s work should be of the same standard. But many glass artists do not intended all their work to be  the same standard, and this is an accepted tradition in many parts of the industry.

Some people regarded some features as flaws that others would accept as a feature of hand-made artistry. To complain that a signature cane is not up to standard strikes me as very unfair. The purpose of a signature cane is to identify an artists's work. Like handwriting, the artist can surely make it how he or she likes.

Tiny bubbles and tiny stones are not unusual in glass paperweights, especially those from Europe and the same is true of New Zealand. I don’t doubt that if you pay US$5000 for a paperweight you can demand perfection. But is it a necessary feature of a beautiful paperweight? If you look at a portrait from a 17th century Dutch artist the details may be perfect. So would you say a painting from the later Impressionist school was therefore a “second” because the details were less perfect? Most people would not say this.

As one of the contributors to this thread said, sometimes the imperfections are part of the appeal of a paperweight.  And provided the seller is willing to accept the return of a paperweight the buyer is always in the position of choosing to buy what they like.

This brings me to eBay, which is a very imperfect market. A dealer can put a paperweight on eBay with a reserve of $40 and find that it sells for $500. This is unlike the normal transaction between a collector and a dealer. If a dealer says to you the price for this paperweight is $500 and he has only paid $25 for it and the price from the artist is normally only $25, then he is cheating you and the artist. But if he puts it on eBay with a reserve of $40 and you bid up to $500 then he is not cheating you. It may be that there is a reason for you to bid so highly. Maybe there are no more of these to be found. Maybe you need this one to make up a set. But it is not the dealer’s fault the price went so high.

This is the difficulty with buying and selling on eBay. In general, serious dealers will put a reserve price on a paperweight which is the price below which they would not sell, and the price at which they would be OK about selling. You can take it that the value is not a great deal higher than their reserve price, unless you know something the seller didn’t know about the item he is selling. Scarcity can push a price way above the reserve price; and so can beauty. An especially beautiful paperweight might demand a much higher price than an equivalent quality paperweight from the same artist.

Having said that there are some dealers who don’t put a reserve price on their glass. This may be because they start the auction at the price they are willing to accept, or it may be for some other reason. So you cannot take my suggestion of the reserve price as a hard and fast rule. Just a guide, especially with dealers who do use reserve prices.

I hope my comments help some collectors to take a different view of the  concept of perfection in paperweights.  But at the end of the day, it is each collector's personal choice.
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 26, 2006, 12:30:42 PM
Nadine... a picture truly is worth a thousand words! Thank you for posting yours, they were very helpful!!

Angela...your response, once again, was not only informative but insightful as well! Thank you!!

I learned something new from Nadine's post, I did not know that John Deacons did a "Strathearn" series, when was this done and how many are in the series? I would love to see more pictures!!

Also, when a design is approved, for say a limited edition series, does the same artist complete the series or do others help as well?

As for the demand for "seconds", Jim Hart occasionally will put up for auction some of his paperweights that are not perfect (which he describes in detail in the description) and there is always a steady supply of bidders ! I have no idea if other artists do the same, but I would bet they would have the same response! It would be wonderful if they all did...gives the average Joe/Jane a chance to own a beautiful work of art at a fraction of the normal cost.

Hmmmm...I had already decided to take my collection in the Scottish makers direction, maybe I should add "seconds" as a sub-category! Aside from the obvious advantages, it could be alot of fun!

Thanks again everyone for all of your very helpful reponses, it is greatly appreciated! :D

Liz
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Nadine on July 26, 2006, 02:34:48 PM
Hello Liz,

the Strathearn Series from John Deacons was made this year.
Series one (S1 – S12) was made from April till June and Series two (S13 – S24) was made from July till now.
Each weight was made in a limited Editon of 25 pieces.

Here are some pictures of the 24 weights, sorry that I don´t find better ones.
I´m very happy that we have all the 1/25 (and also the 25/25) of the both Series, but as we go to a summer holiday tomorrow, I don´t found the time to take pictures of them, but I will do that soon.

These are really very beautiful weights.

(http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/s1.jpg)

(http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/s2.jpg)


@ Angela,
I totally agree to your words regarding selling and buying on ebay, you took the words right out of my mouth :lol:

Best wishes
Nadine
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: aa on July 26, 2006, 03:35:12 PM
Wow!  :D  :D
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 26, 2006, 03:43:18 PM
:shock: Quite possibly the fastest response on record!!  :D

Nadine, they are beautiful, each and every one!! I really love this series!!
My "want list" just keeps growing longer and longer!!

Have a fabulous holiday!!
Liz
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 26, 2006, 07:30:24 PM
Actually "Magic" the original question posed by myself regarding a GES paperweight has been answered totally and completely. I sense that you have a different agenda and would very much appreciate you starting your own thread, one that I am not associated with.

Enough is enough!
Liz
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: haveneisday on July 26, 2006, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: "Liz"
Actually "Magic" the original question posed by myself regarding a GES paperweight has been answered totally and completely. I sense that you have a different agenda and would very much appreciate you starting your own thread, one that I am not associated with.

Enough is enough!
Liz


Very well put, Liz. I think you speak for the majority of members, some of whom, I have heard, have been put off from posting owing to this spate of aggressive posts. That is a great pity. Members such as yourself, Leni, and others are what makes this board so special. Keep posting.
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Leni on July 26, 2006, 09:22:50 PM
Quote from: "Liz"
As for the demand for "seconds", Jim Hart occasionally will put up for auction some of his paperweights that are not perfect (which he describes in detail in the description) and there is always a steady supply of bidders !

With regard to Jim's 'seconds' Liz, I often think that, being a perfectionist, Jim is over-critical of the weights he considers to be less than perfect!  I think the prices for which his so-called 'seconds' often sell are an indication that others agree!   :shock: :roll:

As to John Deacons and the 'Strathearn' series, I am very proud to own one - and no doubt will be purchasing more, when I have saved up my pennies!  However, I have noticed that there are minor variations in the designs.  For example, the one I own (no. S8 and 10/25) has very slightly different colours in the flower from some other S8's I have seen.  But after all, it's hand-made and this sort of variation is, IMNSHO  :twisted: , perfectly understandable and indeed acceptable in this type of art-form.
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Liz on July 26, 2006, 09:43:30 PM
Leni....agreed, Jim Hart's self-described "less than perfect" paperweights are fantastic, I have been outbid many times in my quest to purchase one! I love his "two-fer Tuesdays"!!! Hopefully , one of these days I will be the high bidder!!!

I have definitley added John Deacons "Strathearn series" to my list of "must haves", but like yourself have to work them into the budget. I just can't seem to hit the Florida lottery!!

Nadine....Yes, the remarks are a very good thing!!! Thanks again for the pictures, I'm still drooling over them!!

Liz
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Nadine on July 26, 2006, 09:48:04 PM
Yes Leni, your are right, there are some little difference in the single weights of the Strathearn Series.

Here are 2 pictures of the S2

1/25
(http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/s125.jpg)


25/25
(http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/s225.jpg)


You can see the difference size of the flower. Also in some of the other weights from the series are little differences between the 1/25 and the 25/25, but I would never have the idea to say that some of them will be a “second”.
It´s a fantastic artwork and every single weight is unique, that makes it very special, I think.

Edit: In the S4 the flower in the 1/25 is a little bit smaller than in the 25/25
Same in the S1 1/25 big Flower: 25/25 smaller flower
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: Nadine on July 26, 2006, 10:18:10 PM
After looking over all the weights, there are differences between every weight of the same range. This shows, that it´s probably not possible, even for one of the best glass artists, to create one weight 2times totaly equal.

I also agree to your oppion about the seconds of  Jim Hart and other artists.
Mostly the weights are not really a second.
Real seconds are very often the CIIG-signed weights from Caithness in which you see the imperfection at first sight. Often the canes are distorsed, something in  the setup is wrong or the quality of glass is not the best. I´ve had a CIIG “Luckenbooth” and a first quality “Luckenbooth” at the same time last year. The difference between this weights was so visible, that even people who are not common with paperweights, did see, that the CIIG must be a second.

I think when we spoke from seconds today, then mostly we do it at dealers, to get a better price. When I like a weight and want to buy it, because of it´s beauty then it doesn´t matter if it is a second or not. Real seconds today are rare.

You all know this weight:  http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/dip.jpg

Would somebody say it´s a second because one of the ducks did not match to the ducks in the book from Paul Jokelson? Never.
It´s a unique piece of artwork and one of the “100 most important paperweights” from Paul Jokelson´s fantastic book.

Nobody would spent more than 6.000 GBP for a “second” and if, then he never would say that he or she bought a second.
Most collectors buy paperweights, because of they like them as they are. No matter what others say, no matter what the artist say. If you like it – buy it and enjoy it!

Just my 2cents, now its time to go on holiday  :lol:

Enjoy your weights!

Nadine
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: aa on July 26, 2006, 10:52:23 PM
Nadine, your photography is fantastic! How do you get such good results?
Also, how wonderful to have such a superb collection, particularly with nos 1 and 25 of each example. It was very interesting to see the differences between the two examples. I know that often collectors are looking to see what the differences are, but speaking as a maker, although not a lampworker, what always amazes me is how similar they are. It is sometimes difficult for people to grasp how complex a task it is to achieve such close repetition.
Title: Artist proofs & Seconds
Post by: ALLAN on July 29, 2006, 02:21:48 PM
Just like to agree with Nadines thoughts ,if someone likes a weight then it doesn't matter what the quality is like in others eyes.Also,I totally agree with Adam that it is so difficult to make an entire edition the exact same.The more complicated the designs get,(especially with lampwork),the harder it is to achieve.Anyway, at the end of the day I believe that collectors would much rather know that each piece was indeed handmade and not mass produced in some machine,like milk bottles.