Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > New Zealand & Australia Glass

What constitutes proof, with specific reference to Australia

<< < (3/4) > >>

Does anyone else feel like chipping in on the non-Australian part of this thread?

“What sort of proof is acceptable before one can state, for certain, that a piece of glass is definitely made by a particular company?”

(Apologies for using the word "chipping" on a glass message board :twisted: )


That is easy Glen,

1. Memories are unreliable.
2. Faking is popular
3. Plagiarism, licensing/sale of design, similarity, etc.


First hand account, supported by photographs and a sworn legal statement to the effect.

I should add that even this would not be a complete guarantee but about the most that could be achieved given human nature.

I believe similar questions are raised in most areas of pholsophy and ultimately the question falls into that category.


I would certainly support the view that first hand accounts, with photos and a sworn legal statement would do the trick.

But....... I wish that were a practical option in some of the areas I work in. Attempting to get first hand accounts, sourced from some distant countries, for a time line that would date back to the early 1900s, would be rather difficult (certainly for me, anyhow) :roll:

Back to photos for a moment - they can help us with all sorts of amazing background information as well. One of the most astounding discoveries of the year (for me) was the uncovering of a mass of archive photos of the Rindskopf glass works.

Glass research is detective work - especially when one is looking back to the 1800s and early 1900s.


My previous reaction is probably closest to truth but it is also possible to be more pragmatic unless one is firmly entrenched in the philosophical perspective.

It can be just as difficult getting data from as little as 10 years ago. I have found a wide variety of 'opinion' and first hand tales which are often in complete opposition.

At the end of the day you are left with the option of grading researched information into a number of groups.

Beyond reasonable doubt,
1. Supported by documentary evidence.
2. Supported by verbal/written evidence from multiple sources.

Some doubts remain,
1. Supported by first hand verbal evidence
2. Supported by inference from related sources

Moving into hearsay,
1. Supported by contemporary press reports
2. Supported by second hand verbal/written evidence
3. Supported by previous research where the researcher has been doubted.

1. Rumour.
2. Stories passed through several hands.

However with hand made glass there is the potential to provide an attribution from techniques that are known 'fingerprints' of the maker. Moulds ownership and provenance, as we have seen, can be taken as good source. Catalogues of the factory, although non-photographic types can lead to uncertainty.

The issue of a product being made in the attributed glassworks can also be taken at two levels and is largely personal taste.
1. This was a product sold in that region by that company as their product with their mark or label regardless of actual maker. It is their product.
2. They did not make it.

Stuart Strathearn, Crieff Scotland. Produced at Stuart Crystal in Stourbridge marked as and sold as a product of Stuart Strathearn.

Jules Lang, London and UK. Own design registration but just a retailer. Maybe they actually designed the pieces they registered in the UK and maybe not!

Tony Henry, Baccarat, France. Retailer of Baccarat in early 20th century, now a git shop of the same name. Items have appeared on eBay as Tony Henry.


--- Quote from: "Frank" ---Tony Henry, Baccarat, France. Retailer of Baccarat in early 20th century, now a git shop of the same name.
--- End quote ---

No doubt aimed at selling to the lower echelons.  :lol:

Seriously now - I enjoyed reading your further comments Frank. Thanks


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version