Topic: Help with Signature on Fish Vase - Lalique???

[chopin-liszt]

I'm afraid you did not make that clear, Markus - you have "Lalique ??" in your title - and when some of suggested that the marks on the base might be a (fake) attempt at "Lalique", you got upset, assuming we were accusing you of having done it!

Now you're saying we all knew all along that it's not Lalique.  :spls: :spls: :spls:

Perhaps if you had worded your query a bit more clearly, misunderstandings and assumptions of what others were saying or what it actually was you were asking about, could have been avoided.

I personally was not sure what you were asking in the first place, and was certainly not aware that you are familiar with/ have a lot of Lalique to start off with.

When one sees something like this turning up on the gmb, one tends to assume some novice has been diddled.

[mikebonne]

If you go to the beginning of the thread you will see I was just asking if anyone recognized the signature.  I did NOT put Lalique on  the title..someone has added that along the way as all everyone wanted to do was say that it was NOT Lalique and I knew that anyway.  I just wanted confirmation of the vase being made by Josef Inwaldand if the signature was recognized.  Of course..too many people always want to jump and say what something is NOT rather than share their knowledge of what it may be. 

[chopin-liszt]

None of us knew you hadn't put Lalique in the title - why didn't you just ask right away if it could be confirmed as Inwald, and what might the signature read (and that you knew it wasn't Lalique) - that would have made it clear.
I don't think our moderators go around changing folk's titles without being asked to do so in the first place, but if this is what has happened to you, please don't take it out on the folk taking an interest in your query - we've only got the typewritten words here to go on, and I have read every single one from the beginning on - and my (and other's) impression of what you were saying/asking is clearly quite different to yours.
I'm also sure if somebody did recognise this mark as a signature, they would have said so.

[Max]

Everyone taking part in this thread is attempting to help the identification of this item.  Possibly a Moderator added the - Lalique part to the title to attract more responses for you, as the signature does look like R.Lalique, as people have pointed out.  By attractring more responses to your thread, you have a greater chance of finding out exactly what you have, obviously.  

Of course..too many people always want to jump and say what something is NOT rather than share their knowledge of what it may be.  

This is really unfair to members of the GMB who give their help without charge and gladly.  



To move this thread on a bit, is it possible that if this item is Inwald, that it would be signed at all?

 

[Lustrousstone]

Factory pieces like this are rarely signed and not too often marked, when they might be acid etched or have some kind of mark as part of the mould. Sometimes, the unscrupulous add signatures to try to boost value; sometime previous owners get Dremel happy and add their names.

Assuming the "signed" one on ebay is not yours, two identical signatures seem a little odd. There is the possibility that they might be retailer marks I suppose.

[Mosquito]

This is Barolac, I can't recall the exact number but it's a variant of the 11100 pattern (just noticed John has already ID'd it as 11062 above). This one with the plain frosted finish looks decidedly post-war. For comparison here's a nice early 11100 vase with the taller rim from my collection: http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-2446

The mark is completely wrong - I agree it's probably an attempt at an R. Lalique mark, but it's a very poor one. Unfortunately there's a lot of Czech glass in circulation that has been damaged in this way - I really wonder why as Lalique's production has been very well documented.

Regarding your vase, it could be Inwald production, though the Barolac patterns were later made at Rosice and, more recently, Libochovice issued some designs, though the mould quality on the Libs pieces was markedly poor. Marcus Newhall has commented on the Libs versions on PK, and much of my Barolac collection has also been featured there.

Genuine Barolac marks are either acid stamp marks or are moulded, sometimes with an additional 'Made in Czecho-Slovakia' acid stamp. Some pieces destined for the French market carried a 'Tchécoslovaquie' acid stamp. On one occasion I saw a Barolac roses vase with a diamond point 'Barolac' mark, but I don't know if it was original. A great deal of Barolac, both early and more recent production, is unmarked.

Steven

[scimiman]

Surely when a moderator alters any posting this is shown on the post.
Mike

[Max]

No, it's not always shown on a post if a Moderator changes something.  I've altered titles without anyone knowing before and it's usually in order to get the right kind of collector/expert to view a thread or to correct spelling or something like that.

[Anne]

I added Lalique??? to the topic to attract the attention of those members of the board with specialist knowledge - Lalique production is well-documented, as has been stated on the board in earlier topics, and we have members who are extremely familiar with both Lalique patterns and signatures.

Having their input into this topic would be a benefit to many members, especially as it appears there is more than one of these bearing what appears to some to be a false Lalique signature. Members who have been here for some time will recall a somewhat notorious seller who sold many items with doubtful or spurious signatures and it is possible that these date from that time. Many of them did not look like the genuine signatures either, hence the possible connection to yours and the other signed one. Of course, they could be entirely legit Barolac production signed by someone at the Czech factory which made them, but that seems doubtful.

The only time it shows in a post if a Mod has changed it is if we manually add a Mod note, which we do when we amend the text of a post for some reason, rather than a subject line.

[pamela]

Rod PGCC has got one too - similarly marked  

 :wsh: