Topic: Unsigned Legras??

[Margi]

Hi Blair

Is there anyone who you would suggest other than Legras? 

[Glasshound]

There were so many french manufacturers making Legras style "knockoffs" at that time. Without some sort of signature it would be near impossible to attribute unless you find another one with the same shape that's signed....

This is most likely an undecorated "blank...

Blair

[flying free]

http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/57118-legras-series-89-000-vase-ref-no-89-0?in=1179
This vase I've linked to above is a decorated and signed Legras piece.  With a catalogue reference.  It appears to me at least, to be the same vase as Margi's although Margis is undecorated.
m

[KevinH]

Well spotted "m".

Even I, wearing my "pedantic and hard-to-please" hat, think that the evidence of the decorated and signed vase (albeit with very worn signature) along with the matching catalogue image, and having essentially the same weight and height as Margi's vase, is a very strong indication of maker.

But ... do we know whether Legras used outsourced blanks, and if so were the same blanks decorated by other companies? If yes, to both aspects, then Blair's "undecorated blank" remains the only true description for Margi's item.

And ... is the Collectors Weekly contributor, "bohemianglassandmore", known to us, here? If so, maybe we can get extra info and pics of the signed example for inclusion in this thread.

[flying free]

good point Kev - I believe there has been discussion elsewhere recently of vases produced at Harrach FOR Legras - whether Legras decorated Harrach blanks or whether Harrach produced and decorated them and sold them to Legras to sell, I don't know
link to this topic here http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47844.msg269437.html#msg269437
I have also read that other companies used Legras blanks i.e. the other way round to the point you have made, but I don't know where I read that to reference it,  so that point remains 'anecdotal' for now. 

So I suppose it could come back to the point made that it is an unattributed blank yes.
I am not sure if the CW member is a member here unfortunately.  It would be nice to have those pictures as a reference along with Margi's undecorated piece.

In addition to which, another CW contributor has commented on this thread
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/59393-harrach?in=442
that the vase the poster has shown ( un- marked apart from a number on the base), is the same shape as a vase which appears on the cover of a Legras book.  The contributor goes on to say they have seen that vase marked as Legras and St Denis yet they say, it is documented in Truitts as being by Harrach. ( I have checked Truitts and whilst I can see the definite similarities with the decor I just wanted to note that the vase being referenced in Truitts is not the same shape as the vase the poster has put on for that thread.)

It's a minefield out there 
m

[Lustrousstone]

The CW member is Warren, so yes he is a member here

[Ivo]

It's a minefield out there 
m

The question if Legras supplied blanks to other companies: yes they did, they were the largest glass works in the region and had several departments, the largest being bottles and packaging. I was therefore highly surprised by the claim that Legras imported Harrach glass as it makes no economic sense. Legras had a large customer base, not just in the Paris luxury section but also in perfume, toiletries, mineral water, beer, medical, novelty packaging etc. It seems unlikely that they would need to add external glass to their sales catalogue, as they could cover any demand from their own production either in St.Denis, Aubervilliers or Pantin. They had 1500 glass workers and 150 decorators and were the largest producer in France of fancy glass.

[flying free]

Thank you Ivo 
I have also been curious as to why, given the size of their company,  Legras would need to import glass decorated or otherwise, from another enormous glass producer, Harrach.  It will be good to hear more information on that.
m

[flying free]

I just wanted to add that on the last thread on CW I linked to earlier, the contributor to that thread has added some links (Live Auctioneer links to a few vases, some of which are marked/signed Mont Joye vases).  The contributor says those  have been 'documented to be harrach with depository pics and record book entries, But also can be found in early legras/MJ/SD catalog pages and marked as such is this styling'.(sic)

I would say speculatively that one theory (of many possibles) if this is true and they are exactly the same vases, could be that this indicates they were made at Harrach then signed subsequently by Legras (Mont Joye) and sold by Legras (Mont Joye). But I am also curious as to the contributors wording '...marked as such is this styling'.  Were they exactly the same vases or just similar styling?

However, I also  do not know if depository pics and record book entries would be sufficient to substantiate that they were made at Harrach as I don't know what records would be necessary to substantiate that it was their production of vases.  If a 'record book entry' is a production log, then presumably that would be substantiation, although I would have thought original line drawings from the factory would be the only documetary proof that vases were made there?   I don't know if 'depository pics' are substantiation.  Presumably they would be, only if the rules for items going into the depository were that they were only to be items made on the premises. (although I may have misunderstood what the term 'depository' means in relation to glass houses.)

I'm questioning  for two reasons 1) Truitt's volume 1 documents some known Stuart peacock eye vases as Harrach  and 2) I think I have read somewhere that some vases were mistaken as Richardson's, as they were given as a collection by Richardson's and from Richardson's,  but some turned out to be other makers.
I do appreciate that I have very limited knowledge of glass and I am probably not in the best position to be questioning    and I have never written a book, never mind one on glass, and I can appreciate it must be very difficult 

m

[Ivo]

It is very easy to jump to false conclusions especially where big names are concerned.  Mont Joye was (is?) a big name in for american collectors of art glass, but is hardly found by that name elsewhere. In France it is referred to as Saint-Denis or Legras, for instance.  Wishful attributions should always be treated with care - and it is well known that names appear on pieces which do not belong there. This was a known problem in the states where silly money was paid for the big names.

And then there is the fact that glass works often held a catalogue or even reference collection of the competition - sometimes to check which model could be produced, sometimes to avoid producing the same.

So I say, only go by irrefutable proof, and when there is none, formulate carefully.