Author Topic: Looking for this kind of glassware... Leerdam Carex? (Read 12090 times)

Jay · « **Reply #10 on:** May 26, 2006, 10:59:30 PM »

Frank, do you have contact with her then?

If you can get the lady to join GMB and answer questions I will be your friend for life!!! ;-)

glasshypo · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2006, 09:53:49 AM »

Quote

Could that one piece have been the Luce piece included as homage.

My best guess too.

Jay · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2006, 11:54:16 AM »

Never sar never, but...

The quotation about the Jean Luce inspiration comes from a different book.
The Kley-Blekxtoon book doesn't mention Luce, and doesn't refer in the text to anything else which would explain an imposter in the picture.

glasshypo · « **Reply #13 on:** May 27, 2006, 01:38:52 PM »

Jay,
I know, I own this book (Modern Glas in Nederland) too, not the latest version of the Leerdam book though, so the picture of this left glass in this version of the Leerdam book surprised me.
This particular form was not pictured in the earlier version, only similar photo's of the "real" Carex you posted above.

Perhaps it is too simple to add up 1 and 1? But the shape is so differently and also sizes in Sydney's pictures would suggest that for different glasses two versions (the "real" Carex and the one's in Raymond pictures) would have been made??

I had never encountered the name Luce before, not read my own book well enough (shame on me :oops: )??

Is there an expert on French glass on the forum?
Anyone who knows any book mentioning glassware from this (I googled and found quite interesting items) man?

Apologies for any "bad English" as it is not my native language.

glasshypo · « **Reply #14 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:13:19 PM »

Jay,
An additional question.

My Leerdam book says the Carex range is:
six glasses, water bottle, decanter, goblet, finger bowl.
This would with the additional glasses in Sydney's picture, be to many for the description. The candle holder is not mentioned in my book either.

Has this information changed in the recent copy of this (your) book or is the text still the same?

Ivo · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2006, 06:11:35 AM »

I think this is a typical case of misattribution finding its way into a book. The glass with the bell shape is clearly not the rounded Leerdam Carex model; whoever took the picture thought every glass with a square foot must be Carex.
But square footed glasses are not exclusive to Leerdam. I'm sure if you handled one of Sydneys glasses and a Leerdam Carex you would see differences in quality, in thickness, in clarity, in crystal and weight. Not to mention the bowl shape which bears no relation.
Sydney's glasses could have been made in Belgium or in France or in Germany or in Sweden by any one of a dozen manufacturers. Apparently not many have been made; the manufacturing process with flared out rims and square cut feet is quite expensive and these glasses are fragile, so they would have been expensive at the time. I have no idea how or why Jean Luce entered the discussion - but he shouldn't be in this equasion. So it's back to square one, I'm afraid.

Jay · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2006, 06:43:58 AM »

Ivo, Jean Luce entered the discussion because of the quote from Titus Eliens (see above).

I'd also suggest that we DO know that the photo in Kley-Blextoon was taken at/by the National Glass Museum.
This would seem to me to suggest that the glass at the left is very likely Dutch. What would it be doing in the museum at all otherwise?

Ivo · « **Reply #17 on:** May 28, 2006, 07:21:50 AM »

Seems like a good question for the museum, then.

Frank · « **Reply #18 on:** May 28, 2006, 07:51:43 AM »

Working on it.

Jay · « **Reply #19 on:** June 07, 2006, 10:19:15 PM »

Any progress on this one, Frank?