Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Anne on December 11, 2012, 11:01:20 AM

Title: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Anne on December 11, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
If you saw the words "of Lalique design" in a sale listing, would it make you believe this item was Lalique, or that  it was an item "in the style of Lalique"? Please don't link to any examples found online, I'm just interested in how people would interpret that wording, thanks.  8)
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Lustrousstone on December 11, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
was Lalique
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Wayne on December 11, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
"of Lalique design" sounds the same as "designed by Lalique" to me, so yeah, was Lalique.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: flying free on December 11, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
I would read it as a fake Lalique piece.  However I am a very suspicious person and unless something says
'A Lalique (or insert other designer/maker) vase' or ' A  Lalique (or insert other maker/designer) bowl' I would not purchase.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: chopin-liszt on December 11, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
If it's Lalique, why not say so? I'd be suspicious immediately, I'd ignore it.
Wouldn't even click the link to see an enlargement. ;D
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: bigbri on December 11, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I would say if its not called Lalique then however it's worded it's either not or is in the style of,keeps you safer that way.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Anne on December 11, 2012, 03:47:16 PM
Thanks all, it's interesting to see how you view this. :)  What I was trying to establish was if that form of wording could confuse people into thinking it might be by Lalique... which, when I read it, was what I thought it meant - i.e. a design by Lalique. 

Words are part of my stock in trade, so writing clear descriptions is important to me, and when I spotted this one it set me thinking about how it would be interpreted by people who know about glass, and also by those who know very little about glass, but who may have heard of Lalique.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: tony5card on December 11, 2012, 10:19:15 PM
The price they are asking should help. They obviously know who Lalique was so I believe they would actually say it was by him.

Jobling bought an actual Lalique design and used it on one of their Bowls - so if they said it was Jobling and it was originally designed by Rene Lalique that would be fine.

About 10 years ago some fake Laliques hit the market, originating from Barbados then.

If a dealer has this discription then it is probably definately NOT Lalique as they would say Lalique if it was.

In an  Auction room they would say Lalique style if it was wrong.

Have you any photo's?

Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: azelismia on December 12, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
it would depend on the words around it for me. like others said though. I'd be thinking fake cause if it was lalique they'd be stating it as such.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Anne on December 12, 2012, 08:12:06 PM
Hi Maryam, the item in the listing isn't Lalique, and the auction house have told me they know it isn't Lalique, so that's not the issue. :)

The question I was mulling over was the wording, "An opalescent glass bowl of Lalique design" which was used in the catalogue and how it would be interpreted by potential buyers; especially given that another item in the same catalogue was described as "A Lalique cut-glass oval bowl of naturalistic design". The 2nd item was indeed a bowl of naturalistic design, so one could possibly make the assumption that the other "of Lalique design" meant that it was Lalique, in the same way as "of naturalistic design" meant it looked naturalistic.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Fuhrman Glass on December 12, 2012, 08:47:34 PM
In advertising and even in some texts this has been used a lot, such as in Tiffany style, or Tiffany type shade. Even in modern stuff many refer to pieces as being in the Chihuly style that have no resemblance to his stuff outside of being large, having a ruffled edge and lots of color.
Think how many things are referred to as being in the Bauhaus style that have no connection to it at all. Some names have a well known design connotation that they have become the common way to describe them. Art critics use these style and design terms a lot when describing someone's work. Think how many references are made to something being in the Frank Lloyd Wright type of design. Good designs and designers  have a habit of taking on a new life with their names creating even "movements", "eras", and definite styles. Wright's work was actually in the "prairie style", but most don't recognize that as a term that is as well known. Good design takes on a "life" of it's own.
As long as people don't try to actually sell or describe an item for what it is plainly not, I think it is OK to use references to well known designers and their designs to describe the item.
In addition, there are some glass pieces that I know of personally that have been produced by as many as 3 or 4 different companies all from the same molds. A line of glassware designed by Reuben Haley and initially produced by Consolidated Glass was eventually made by as many as 4 different glass companies all from the same molds and in different colors and decorations. This line of ware has been described many times as being in the Lalique design style and they were produced in the 1920's.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: flying free on December 12, 2012, 09:19:35 PM
Even though I wouldn't have been caught out by what I think of as their weasely description, I still think there is a difference in adding the word 'style' to the description though -

'of Lalique design style' says very different things to the wording of the phrase 'of Lalique design'

One means the item is of Lalique design - i.e Lalique designed it (that's a catch I hook onto because if Lalique had also MADE it, it would have just said ' Lalique vase' )
The other implies an item ' in the style of Lalique Design'.  No claims.

Weasely words - Is it actually a Lalique design?  if not then I think that it is a claim too far and there is potential for Lalique to be involved over brand protection rights.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Fuhrman Glass on December 12, 2012, 11:02:10 PM
might work in France but in the US Tiffany tried to enforce it and spent lots of time and $ to no avail. Lots of shades and lamps that are advertised as Tiffany design. What it amounts to is, if someone wants to deceive and advertise in slanted ways there is no easy way to stop them. Here in the US patents are becoming very useless unless you have a lot of time and $ to enforce them. Courts are all ready jammed up with too many law suits and no one wants to spend additional tax $ to add more courts and judges for suits that no one gets any $ from and little consumer protection. It's too bad people have to resort to deception based on semantics, but it happens to the tune of billions every month.
 You're right about adding the style, but "weasels is be weasels." I sell items that I mention only as being similiar in appearance and style to those made by glass companies no longer producing.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: John Smith on December 13, 2012, 02:59:24 PM
... "MOST" collectors of R Lalique, know of most patterns, and they will instantly recognise a piece as most of his works are well doccumented and recorded. Added signatures will not dupe a collector, or will any suggestions that it is Lalique, if it is not. Much the same as when we see other glass being called Sowerby or Bagley for example, when it is not. "In the style of" or "In the manner of" is permissable as I am sure we would all agree... If any major auction house mis-represents then they are breaking the law. The golden rule should be, do not purchase unless you are 100% certain about what you are buying, or have a firm guarantee that you shall be refunded if it is not what it say's it is.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: chopin-liszt on December 13, 2012, 03:48:42 PM
I don't think too many of us are in the "Lalique collectors'" price range - I certainly would not know *every* pattern.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: Paul S. on December 13, 2012, 03:54:21 PM
it's one thing for the bright among us to offer words of wisdom and clarity on the legality of meanings and descriptions - and probably most people who frequent the GMB are wise enough to not fall foul of dubious descriptions - but that is not where the problems lay.

The 'mis-describers' of this world know that there is an almost limitless  supply of lay people out there who will fall for a less then honest description  -  people who have heard of Lalique, Tiffany, Daum, Galle etc., but are too trusting/gullible to question the semantics of an advertisment.          And so every day of the week, those same people buy from ebay or autions and come unstuck - and buyer beware comes to mind.          Famous names are used as link words to confer unwarranted value - and it works - too many folk don't take the time and trouble to learn about their subject and to simply be on their guard when reading descriptions.
I'm sure that John is very correct with his comments about real collectors of Lalique, but they aren't the only people who buy the stuff.

At the end of the day, the law is as much to blame for this situation as anything else  -  a lack of clarity in definition.    It's also greed that hooks people - so remember, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.   
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: John Smith on December 13, 2012, 04:08:49 PM
... What I mean is, that Lalique collectors in the main, will have access to all known patterns at their disposal. Not all R Lalique is highly priced either. Sure, certain pieces can be way above most peoples price range, but is not everything? I purchase the best that I can afford. That is all that can be expected. I don't suppose that ANY collector has an entire R Lalique collection, of say all of his Bowls, vases or his mascots for example. We tend to live with a piece and then pass it on to enable us to live with another, and unless I am lucky at a fair or whatever, I only ever purchase from a reliable source, many of which are out there! It is true also, that when we collect within our means or our chosen area, we also build up a very good working knowledge about it. I for example, would not be able to identify different Carnival glass makers or patterns, whereas a collector of such glass has a better chance... Perhaps as to why these pages exist. We are drawn to them to learn from the knowledge of others within their own chosen are of collecting, whilst we also try to help them.         
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: flying free on December 13, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
John I agree with what you are saying.  Paul I also agree with you.  I think the main problem for me is that if one was looking to collect, and had a reasonable amount of money at disposal, then it is entirely possible that an unsuspecting buyer would be duped - and that is not acceptable for any money never mind big money. 
Personally if I was 'duped' to the tune of up to 50.00 say, it would not be a HUGE disaster and if I subsequently found out I had been, I would take it as a lesson learnt, but...being duped of parting with anything above that would be not only a disaster but really make me feel I had been truly conned.  I would be livid.
Title: Re: Question re wording "of Lalique design"
Post by: John Smith on December 13, 2012, 06:08:32 PM
You are absolute right, ANYBODY that is duped, no matter the cost, should take issue with the seller. Even for 1. I have and I do! However, surely if one is spending many hundreds of pounds, then they owe it themself to research the piece first. There are sellers who act in the best of good faith. Listing Loetz for example, thinking that it is and without trying to dupe. It is times such as these that we must carry some of the blame, if we buy something only to find out a few weeks later that its not what "we thought."  After all, what was it which drew us to the piece in the first place? Surely we do not collect just for price! It is no different perhaps than purchasing a car... We look into it first before handing over the cash. "Try before you buy." I think also that an online facility begining with e, ending in y, has a lot to answer for. If a seller has purposely wrongly listed a piece, it AND THEY should be removed. No if's or but's. There is currently a R Lalique mascot, $20,000 USD. It is genuine and there are many offers being made. ALL of them by collectors. Then again, there are items listed by R Lalique with a starting bid of 99p. These shall not usually sell, because they are not genuine and most will know that.  I forget now who said it here, but it is very very true: IF IT LOOKS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE< THEN IT PROBABLY IS.... Wise words indeed. I am not here to brag, but I have many R Lalique mascots for example. Not one have I purchased without looking at first, in the flesh. I'd only have myself to blame if I did and I am most certainly not having such a piece sent thrrough the post, in a box wrapped by someone unkown to me. I had a Galle vase arrive once, wrapped in no more than a sheet of newspaper... It is now a Galle Jig-Saw puzzle, back in the hands of the idiot who mailed it to me. What a waste of our history, let alone money.