It is good to get your input in this discussion Stephen. Yes I do see the problems Dartington face too, although with managing Scotland's Glass I find it unfortunate that I live to see an end to the story of Scottish Glass tradition.
In cataloguing the work of Caithness, much of my effort is on the gift trade part which is the greatest in numbers of models produced. The techniques used are the simplest and while they do have a following it is much less so than the higher end. Surely in commercial terms it is better to transfer such work overseas to remain competitive in the low end gift trade. Burn's Crystal have managed survival and import all of their blanks. Outsourcing ocerseas is always an emotional issue but if it can maintain a business viability - then some people keep their jobs.
The UK has always excelled commercially but never had the success of the US, which I believe is very much about the difference in attitude of the workers. The UK has always managed to maintain its position through the talents of individual - both working on their own and working for companies. Paperweights were brought back onto the modern map partly through Scottish enterprise and one man's passion, it was he that gave the push to Caithness to start producing paperweights. The original purpose of Caithness Glass being to bring employment to rural Scotland. It was the success of Domhnall Ó Broin and Charles Orr designs that made Caithness a success. Colin Terris built on that foundation to complete its success and introduce weight making. There is much in that design portfolio that could still be exploited to great effect. But the most recently active weightmakers, lampworkers, cutters and designers have created paperweights that are in a world class yet never marketed as the art they were.
Paul Stankard's work fetches remarkable sums straight from his studio today and Caithness certainly had people capable of working in his class. It is realistic to develop in that end of the market but in the UK the artist entrepreneur is fairly rare in comparison to the US, but the UK could create teams of marketeers and designers that could enter this lucrative market. Caithness still has the infrastructure to achieve this, it must be worth exploring. It is the larger dealerships in paperweights that should be involved in these discussion, not just the US.
But there is a fundamental issue that really matters here, without an outlet for skilled glassworkers within the UK those craft skills will die out and the UK will suffer in the long term as designers will not have access to the knowledge needed for effective glass design. Shareholders and investors are primarily concerned with short term gain, long term stability being desirable but a first victim at times of stress. I am sure, Stephen, that without your family efforts Nazeing would have been absorbed and spat out long ago - it is only a family that will invest in the long term today and that is sad. Perhaps a different approach to investing or company finance is the way to overcome these external fluctuations, a bit outside my sphere. Certainly it will be sad to see the end of factory hand-glass production and I for one hope it does not come to pass.
General note for visitors: Glass production is an expensive business, glass requiring a lot of energy to keep at the working temperature and the selling price has to cover energy that and the workers salaries. You cannot turn the pot off if orders do not meet your capacity, likewise you need a capacity that will meet sales orders in a reasonable time frame. With today's energy costs and wage levels this is a complex balancing act and the responsibility of management. Get it right and profits are feasible, screw it and you lose money. Britain also has a history of low expenditure, per capita, on glass production and profit levels of glass production are not very high. But the value of the exports has usually been important as well as the respect that UK glass has had for quality.
I quote here from a 1947 report on hand made glass in the UK that is probably reasonably comparable to today apart from the percentage of costs to wages and energy. Courtesy the Glass-study
The hand-blown section of the glass industry in Britain is very small when measured financially. If the money value of turnover or of capital employed is used as the yardstick, the eight companies (of which two are “public” and six are “private”) are together no larger than any one of many companies in other industries. All the businesses are old established, and it is certain that in no firm does the balance sheet set a value on the chief asset, i.e., the world-wide high reputation of English Hand-Blown Crystal Glass, or what in financial parlance is known as “goodwill.”
It is, however, of the utmost importance that this hard won asset should be preserved and, indeed, fostered and developed for the benefit of the country as well as for all engaged in the industry.
It is probably true to say that in no other industry is the family business more predominant, for even the two public companies have this characteristic to a certain degree.
The family element is less obvious today but probaby more important as far as survival is concerned.
Employer and employee vividly remember what has already happened when the market was flooded with glassware of good quality produced in Central Europe under conditions which would not be tolerated here. The industry must, therefore, first be assured that it will be protected from this form of competition.
There are many such comparisons made today! And no chance or protection through tariffs.
In 1936, about half the hand-blown section of the industry made a profit of not over 4 per cent. on sales turnover.
In 1937, 16 firms representing about 80 per cent. by volume of this section showed an average net profit on sales of 4.57 per cent. Nine of the firms made an average profit of 8.62 per cent., and the other seven an average loss of 3.02 per cent.
In 1938, 16 firms representing about 80 per cent. by volume of the industry showed an average loss of 3.59 per cent., six showing a profit of 4.53 per cent. and ten a loss of 13.44 per cent.
In 1939, 21 firms representing about 90 per cent. by volume of the industry made an average profit of 1.74 per cent., nine showing a profit of 8.84 per cent. and twelve a loss of 9.65 per cent.
In 1940, 22 firms representing about 90 per cent. by volume of the industry showed an average profit of 5.05 per cent., twelve showing a profit of 10.04 per cent. and ten a loss of 7.96 per cent.
The fortunes varied a lot with swings between profit and profitability - with today's high costs such swings can be more destructive.
One thing that would make a difference is that if everyone reading this detrmine each year to buy at least 6 items of hand-made glassware produced
in their own country in addition to their usual buys AND encouraged other collectors to do the same - these problems in the glass industry are not unique to the UK.
Topic: Caithness news (Read 7804 times)
