You probably won't find them in many books yet either. But if you do... please shout.
Then there are those being made, or sold by a dealer, to pass of as Ysart
http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/Fake%20Ysart%20Glassware.htmAnd some of the lookalikes:
http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/NotYsart.htmI came across some comments on another glass site recently that tried to argue that the ones on shown as Bohemia/Stourbridge? or Cellophane glass are indeed Monart and it is only because Frank Andrews 'pronounces' that they are not that they don't get bought by collectors.
:huh: I pronounce :spls: Hmmm! How can I pronounce when all my sites are so obviously open to peer review and public debate. They are obviously people with zero knowledge of free hand-blown glass, Monart styles, techniques, methods or colours. Yet it also disturbing that even today people want things that are so clearly not to be something else, so better to criticise the research of dozens of people using one name as a target.
If it is not obvious that I am open to discussion people should try instead of sowing malicious doubt - I do not own probably 90% of the research that went into Ysart Glass and the list is long. Some of the names will be found as authors on both Ysartglass and Scotland's Glass others on the lists of contributors.
http://www.ysartglass.com/Contributors.htmhttp://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=25In addition to 100 members of the collectors club during the 1990's, most of whome contributed information.
Neither list is up to date.
Additionally since being on the web a lot of relatives of glassmakers referenced have been in touch adding to or correcting information about their family. The Ysartglass site represents the state of knowledge, with the exception of later research (Glass Association Journal and Perth Conference 2005) by Ian Turner.
Further, the naive view that anything with two colours IS Monart still persists - yet until the 90's, 99% of Monart in auction was described as Schneider. Monart that does not match the catalogues is extremely rare and mostly traceable as a personal gift to friends of the Ysart's.
Yet there is also a lot of glass decorated in a similar technique which we are still unable to attribute to country, let alone factory. The point being that Monart has been well researched with a lot of input of first hand knowledge, most of which has been confirmed through second or more avenues of research. Despite which myths are still being perpetuated and even created, sadly often with an eye to financial gain.
I suppose the reason few other sites go to such a depth is simply time. I have had the unique opportunity of being given the time, through personal misfortune, to spend on building these sites and facilitating a channel for that research to be brought into the open. I can spend up to 12 hours or more working on the sites and have done so with few breaks for eight years now. Many others have contributed hundreds of hours too.
One of the things that I am trying to achieve with Scotland's Glass is to ensure not only that more sharers get credit and sources are quoted, but that some of these people can actively work on the site content. Controls only being implemented to ensure editorial integrity. The field is so large that my own involvement should become balanced by the number of people actively involved and thus less a target for personalisation of criticism. The Caithness catalogues are being digitised mostly by other people, currently I do all the adding on line and some of the image work. The several thousand images still waiting to go on are the input of dozens more. The effort is helped by collectors, dealers and other researchers.
[sorry to use your thread for that little rant, it is not completely related your question :-[]
Topic: Non-monart glass identification (Read 2434 times)
