Nigel wrote:
It is quite possible that there are at least 3 sources for the various pieces that have similar stylistic features to Nazeing. Until that is sorted out to at least a basic level I feel that the least said the better.
Frank replied:
Some details of this could be useful as these, despite possible shortcomings, might assist in judging possible Nazeing attributes.
I do not think it would do the "debate" any good at all to discuss attributes that would only allow us to conclude that there are in fact a number of types of glass that are, or are maybe not, Nazeing. This would remain just as confusing, especially since we cannot give names to any of the alternatives without making assumptions about each origin at this stage. The issue is quite complex and I don't wish to publish my findings at this point in time without far more conclusive proof.
Raising my misgivings on these posts seems reasonable and reflects ideas and thoughts given on other glass subjects on these boards.
Frank then continued:
But without giving any of the information behind those misgivings they add no value to the debate, other than to cast a shadow over the Timberlake book
.
My intention is certainly not to "cast a shadow over the Timberlake book".
I discussed the situation with Geoff at the time, whilst we were setting up the exhibition. He had already written and had had the book printed, so there was nothing that could be done at the time, nor was there enough time to research the information we had received.
I thought that I had left a reasonable enough time between the publication of the book and the first public voicing of my misgivings, however it seems I was wrong, judging by this reaction.
I was given a piece of advice by a well-published and respected author once. It ran roughly along the lines that if you are doing original research on a subject there comes a point in time that you really have to put pen to paper, construct your book and publish. There will always be another piece of information, or another piece of the jigsaw coming in, but you cannot hope to get everything into a first publication on a given subject. The book you publish will be the keystone for the subject, and may indeed become the definitive one on the subject, but it may also serve to be a kick-off point for whoever comes after.
Geoff Timberlake produced an informative book that has added incredibly to our understanding of the history of Nazeing and its forerunner, Kempton and it is the keystone, but information is coming to light that necessarily adds to that written by Geoff, although most of this information bears no relavance to this current discussion.
I decided that I would flag up my thoughts.
I feel that your comments (Frank) are designed to tempt me into saying more than I wish at this point in time. I understand your point and have concluded with some regret that I will endeavour to keep my thoughts to myself in future.
Bernard, thank you for your kind reaction to my initial entry.
Ray, your detail photos are interesting. They do not look like anything in my Nazeing collection (comfortably over 200 pieces), nor anything that I currently have in stock (another 20 pieces), but if you take into account the previous posts on this thread that really means nothing, since I have avoided these pieces when collecting!!
Oh, by-the-by, it is unwise to use an Elwell label as proof that a piece is Nazeing since Elwell sourced their glass from a number of makers and manufacturers, including for instance, Gray Stan.
Nigel