Topic: Large Woodland Vase

[obscurities]

Just an interesting note that if one goes to the "Most Forged" page, the vase that started this discussion is shown in the same color.....  There are also at least a couple other Barolac pieces I recognize.

One other note of interest along the lines of Glen's comment: "Many of the items shown on that page are important pieces in their own right, produced by well known glass factories such as Inwald, Libochovice, Dugan-Diamond and so on."

Shown on that page are copies of a Curt Schlevogt produced vase from the Ingrid line. I recently attended an auction in Montana where a frosted version of the vase was offered which had a Lalique acid stamp on the underside. The vase has been reproduced many times including current production by Desna, and a couple of reproductions are shown on that page, but there is, what I believe to possibly be an authentic 1930's version of the vase in "Lapiz Lazuli" blue glass, and may be the only image I have seen of one in that color.

[Glen]

Kidcobra – thanks for your response. I accept that the Lalique website does note on the page headed “R. Lalique Forgeries” that “the items in this section are from a myriad of manufacturers, and were not originally created with the intent to deceive anyone” however elsewhere on the website things are written that seem (to me) to give a slightly different impression.

In the rest of that first quote, the Lalique website goes on to say “It is only the later addition of a spurious R. Lalique signature, or the representations made while marketing the item, that put them in this Rene. Lalique Forgeries category." This feels rather uncomfortable to me. Take the first point that refers to “the later addition of a spurious R. Lalique signature”. Surely in a case such as this it would be the signature that is the forgery and not the glass item? Now take the second point, i.e. “the representations made while marketing the item”. If such “representations” are false then surely they would be misrepresentations. It would not necessarily follow that the glass item itself would be a forgery. The person making the false statements would be at fault, not the item of glass.

The page showing vases is headed: “Forgeries - Vases and Glasses” and a mouse over the items on the page reveals the words R Lalique Fake for each piece.  That gives one the feeling that those items are fakes. But they’re not. They are not Lalique pieces, true – but that alone does not make them fakes. In my opinion, they could only be termed fakes if they had a fake Lalique signature on them.

The Lalique website gives this definition: “Forgeries are any item not R.Lalique, that is falsely signed with a signature indicating it is R. Lalique, or which even if not signed, that is advertised as, or represented to be the work of Rene Lalique.” I personally disagree with the second part of this definition. Here’s a for instance. Say an unsigned Dugan-Diamond vase gets posted on eBay as a Lalique bud vase. Is it a forgery? By the definition given on the Lalique website, yes it would be a forgery. But I don’t see that at all. The vase is not a forgery. It is a genuine Dugan-Diamond vase that someone has either mistakenly attributed incorrectly (innocently) or falsely misrepresented in the hope of selling it as something that it is not. But in neither case is the Dugan-Diamond vase a forgery or a fake.  

Glen

[obscurities]

For what it is worth, I agree with Glen.

Although I agree with the intent of the site, I think that their terminologies will lead many to misunderstand what is being represented. 

A Kurt Schlevogt vase marked with a Lalique signature is not a fake Lalique, it is a Schlevogt vase with a spurious (forged or fake) signature. The misrepresentation can be either intentional or by mistake, but it is still a Schlevogt vase with a fake or forged signature... it is only the signature that is "fake" or "forged", and not the piece of glass.

A Schlevogt vase with no markings, represented by a seller as a Lalique vase is still a Schlevogt vase. It is neither a fake or a forgery (manufactured with the intention of deceiving). It is simply a quality Schlevogt vase being misrepresented with the intention of deceiving, or mis-attributed due to poor or incomplete research combined with a lack of in depth knowledge about Lalique products. 

A piece of glass intentionally manufactured to deceptively mimic a decor and to be mis-represented as a Lalique piece, would then technically be a fake / forgery based on the original intent of the manufacturer.

These are the correct use of the terms as defined by Webster's.

On the Lalique site, any of these scenarios are classified by the website authors as a "Fake Lalique", and technically, only one really qualifies.

If you read their "Introduction" they clarify their use of the terms, but in relationship to the rest of the world, they have reinvented the definition of the words "Forgeries" and "Fakes" when they use it in reference to a large portion of the non-Lalique glass on their site.

Craig

[KevinH]

In my web pages about Ysart paperweights I include illustrations of many weights made with false signature canes embedded at the tme of making. I have always tried to take great care in what I say and write about those items. Because of my experiences in this area, I am uneasy about the all-too-common use of the word "fake" in general conversation, even though I know many people use it to mean "misattributed" rather than "made to deceive".

So, with my uneasiness aroused, I thought I'd just add a few lines and say that I am in agreement with Glen's and Craig's thoughts about the website information mentioned above. If people wish to draw attention to items that they believe are "not as described" then they ought to take care in their own descriptions about those items.

[Mosquito]

Thanks for posting the links to the R. Lalique site - just noticed they've nicked one of my photos & added their own watermark - see the Barolac rose vase here http://rlalique.com/Sections/Fakes/Authenticate.html

Quite interesing given their definition of what constitutes a fake....

[obscurities]

Ahhhhhhh.... We have discovered a "Fake" Rlalique.com photo!!  Actually, based on definition, it is a real photo by Steven, with a spurious RLalique.com watermark, and being represented as theirs!!  

Did you sell the piece, or did they take the image from your online gallery?....  You know... The one with the really big red heading where it states that the images are all copyrighted and can not be used anywhere without permission!!

Maybe, you should email them and ask them to remove the photo and see what they say....  or ask them to apply the correct watermark and give you credit for your photo.... While clearly stating that it has never been offered by the photographers owner as a Lalique piece.  :thup:

The presence of the photo on their website may lead people to believe that it is, or has been offered as a fake Lalique....  You scoundrel you   

Craig

[kidcobra]

Hello Glen, Obscurities, and KevH.

I understand your points and some of them are well taken. And even if you ignore that the website defined it's use of the terms, I think the public perception and understanding is not as technical or narrow as yous.

Here is a common example:

If a school teacher is masquerading as a doctor, from the standpoint of the doctor community (and the patient , that person is fake. He is a fake from the standpoint of anyone relying on the false representation, no matter how he says it, with a badge, a uniform, a phony degree, a statement, etc.  Now, from the standpoint of the school teacher community, of course that person remains a school teacher. If he showed up in school the day after being exposed as a fake doctor, he would be a teacher. This is consonant with the general understanding and definition of fake as something that is held out to be what it is not. It could be a CD in a box that says it's by some company when it's not, it could be an ebay ad that says a piece, signed or otherwise is something it is not, or a purse that is just sold as some brand it is not, or it can be just by showing fake signature on an item. All of these are intended to make the item out to be something it is not, and from the standpoint of what it is falsely represented as, in this case RLalique, it is a fake.  

The point here is that obviously everything is something, but that doesn't mean it's cannot be a fake when held out to be something else If a million dollar painting is represented as something else to make it a 10 million dollar painting, it's a fake as far as the 10 million dollar people are concerned, but a totally genuine painting for the 1 million dollar people. If a new just painted painting is represented (signed or not) as an old master, it is a fake.

And on the forgery usage, in common everyday use (right or wrong from whatever perspective), fake and forgery are often used to mean the same thing as a noun, and you will find forgery listed as a synonym for fake in reference guides I'm sure (I'd say thesaurus but I'm not sure of the spelling).

Ignoring the details and looking at the big picture: that page of vases is just to show the public what is out there that has been put out there as RLalique when it is not. Some of the pieces are quite valuable in their own right, apparently they are just more valuable when sold as RLalique. I don't think the public could misunderstanding what the page is there for. But if guys feel it is off base, why don't you make some suggestions about specific changes that would get the point across in a way that would satisfy your comments, keep it easy to understand for people just looking to see if what they think is RLalique, is or is not, and also something that would be easy for the website to implement in the context of that overall section?

[obscurities]

Kidcobra,

I agree, "I think the public perception and understanding is not as technical or narrow as yous [sic]."

To simply "paint a picture" using a large brush and very big strokes eliminates the details so necessary for the full impact of the "image".

We can discuss the technical meanings of the word faked and forged all we want, but I believe the real discussion here is regarding the obligation one inherently assumes when presenting public information for the purpose of "education". IMHO simply stating "Forged Lalique" or "Fake Lalique" does not fulfill that inherent obligation, and redefining word usage, coupled with strong "image statements" for the purpose of your own website is, IMHO not right. Let us not lose sight of the fact, and the internet is living proof, that people "believe what they see", and "not what they read!".

I guess my position would be that the implied intent of the site is to "educate" people in regards to what is and what is not Lalique. IMHO undertaking the process of "education"  the "educator" takes on an additional and increased responsibility to clarify all "information" they are providing through either written statements or implied meanings.

If one does not read their description in the fakes section, as many people won't, the titles "R. Lalique Forgeries", "Most forged", etc... on the icons that get you to the different image galleries have an implied meaning that I feel most people will pay great attention to.....  Therefore, a "Woodland" vase, a Schlevogt vase in Lapis glass, and many other examples they present then become a "forged Lalique" to those people seeing it, especially in the complete and total absence of an explanation of what it actually is.....

IMHO, to simply state "Forged Lalique", and not provide an explanation of what it really is, shirks the responsibility of completing the educational process they appear to be undertaking.  

The purpose of this forum is to identify glass and share knowledge, and we would not get very far if all of the members simply added comments to the posting of an image stating what it is not!!  

I guess that additionally, to provide the information regarding these "forged or fake" pieces on their pages, would reduce the instances of this occurring, as quoted from the "R Lalique Authentication Overview", a page where they have watermarked an image not belonging to them that, it appears, they may have procured from a different website.

"2. If we tell you your item is not RLalique [sic], and you want additional information, such as getting the actual identity of the company that did make the piece, there is a small charge (typically $20), assuming we can identify the item for you. The email we send you after we see your photo will give you your options and how to select one if you are interested."

Technically, the offering of a service for a fee (fees for the authentication of non Lalique glass, commissions for selling Lalique in their for sale section, etc.) would make the site a revenue generating entity, and the use of images, as Steve so nicely put it, nicked from the internet, would make the use of the nicked images a flagrant and actionable copyright violation.

As far as offering "constructive criticism", my personal experience is that the authors of this particular site are not really open to that kind of thing......  

Craig

[kidcobra]

Hi Obscurities. I understand your point about wanting more education. But the purpose of the page is to identify what is not RLalique. That is the education, fast and simple for someone wanting to compare a supposed piece of RLalique to the photos. It would definitely be great if every piece that was falsely represented to be RLalique was tracked down as to origin and labeled, but to 99% of RLalique collectors, or to someone looking to purchase something being sold as RLalique,  it doesn't matter what they are, only what they are not (RLalique). That is why they visit the page. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you should make the good the enemy of the perfect.

And about that, I also understand that if you collect or own something in it's own right, that seeing items from that collecting field labeled as fake in any context might be disconcerting. And it may be that this wasn't considered or wasn't sufficiently considered when the pages showing the fakes were developed.

I have a few ideas of how this could be further clarified and will see what can be done. This will also shed some light on the constructive criticism observation which you have brought up.

[obscurities]

Hi Kidcobra,

Don't get me wrong, I like the general concept of the site and have looked at it for many years.....  I just think that the delivery of their information does a disservice to much of the glass they show as fakes and forgeries... Many of the pieces would take little work to identify and disclose those identities. By doing so, the increase in information they supply, IMHO would increase the overall credibility of the site as an educational and informational tool for collectors in general.

I am also of the personal belief that a site with fakes and forgeries as one of the primary basis for it's construction should be very careful, in light of Steven's discovery, regarding what they do with images and how they get them... I personally would take umbrage at the presence of one of my images with their watermark being on their site.  especially in light of the fact that the site is not purely educational or informational in purpose.

It is not that the site is bad by any means, IMHO they could just be much better, and more complete..... I commend the work they have done to this point, and wish there were more sites like theirs that showed not only what a good "Brand X" product is, but what is generally and commonly represented as such that is not..... I commend their free authentication service......

There is a Steuben site that is attempting the monumental task of producing an online catalog of pictures of all Steuben shapes. They also show false signatures and stamps. There is a Tiffany site that shows fake Tiffany items and identifies sellers on ebay, and there are couple of others also. The more information that every site can offer, the better off the collecting world, and collectors will be.....

Nothing RLalique.com does in the way of image display would be disconcerting to me personally, but to all of those collectors out there that have a much broader and more general view of what they own and collect, and of what the site is doing, that statement may not hold true.....

Just food for thought.....

Thanks, It is an interesting discussion presented from a few different points of view.....

I think that those of us on this board, for the most part, believe in sharing as much knowledge, information, and opinions as possible.


Craig