Topic: Mosy annoyed...

[keith]

Since getting Truitts Bohemian Glass,1880-1940 I have become more annoyed at the rubbish books I first got in particular how so much was attributed to England,Stourbridge etc... for example this piece,according to one book the shading of colour from top to bottom it's applied decoration and style points to Stevens and Williams,after 2 min's drooling over Truitts I found numerous pieces(page 58) that all fit that description except these are Harrach.I know they never claim 100% attribution but the lack of respect given to Bohemian glass has my spleen well vented!Keith.

[glassobsessed]

Deep breaths Keith, in, out, think 'calm'. Cuddle your favourite piece.

John

[keith]

That is one of my favourite pieces but if I cuddle it the leg will fall off again!!(only just stuck it back on)decent glue this time,Keith.

[keith]

That should read MOST ANNOYED,very annoying,where;s my pills!

[keith]

And that should read where's my pills!!!!!!!not where;s!!!pass the bottle I'm going to bed!

[Ivo]

Extremely difficult and touchy subject I know but the same law applies when making attributions for a certain piece to Harrach or to S&W. In both cases it is very rare to match an item to the original product design, and secondary characteristics like colour, pontil finish etc. are used. It is not science - an educated guess at best. With all due respect to the Truitts - they were not infallible, and worked in uncharted waters. Since then, much has come to light on makers and designs. The authors who misattributed pieces did so in accordance with the state of knowledge at the time of publication.  Same problem occurs today with glass being attributed to Steuben, Whitefriars or Leerdam - based on the percieved quality but not substantiated by published material... Until 10 years ago virtually nothing was known about the Harrach production.  

[keith]

Thanks Ivo,I understand that attribution is difficult I just feel I've been led up the garden path by 'authors' who couldn't be bothered to check or confirm what they print and so many say 'oh it's probably this' and don't bother to mention all the other possible makers,sorry about this, got my goat today don't know why,Keith.

[Cathy B]

Which books are you comparing, Keith? Someone might be able to give you an idea of how far you can trust various attributions from different books.

There are all sorts of errors which can be made. The worst are where the authors have pulled an attribution from nowhere, but state it as fact. Better are those where the author at least acknowledge the guess. Best practice, however, is to either only give a definite attribution when there is definitive proof (design books, design registrations, etc), and if a guess has to be made, then probabilities and evidence should be stated.

Even so, it's possible to be wrong, especially as if a company's designer noticed a particular design was popular, they wouldn't bat an eyelid at copying it. Thus you might get such extremely similar designs from different factories that you can't even distinguish them from the catalogues. This was prevalent in the 1930s so maybe it's reasonable to assume it would have been happening earlier as well? (Do people agree?)

[keith]

They are books I got,when I first started collecting covering various antiques with small sections on glass and I assumed,wrongly,that the written word could be trusted,I'm far more choosy over my choice of literature now and take all attributions with a pinch of salt sometimes a large handful,I understand genuine mistakes,maybe I'm going through the male menopause or just becoming a grumpy old man!

[Lustrousstone]

Enjoy the glass, enjoy the books (pictures) and stop worrying about it. And yes I'm sure everybody copied everybody else in the 19th C as well as the 20th C.