everyone to their opinion, but I'd suggest that preferring aesthetics over provenance does appear deny our naturally inquisitive nature to want to know who made what, when and even, sometimes, how
Pieces like Roy's
Globlet, are simply beautiful, but just imagine how much more interesting a piece becomes when we can know the maker and his process - and I'm not aware of any books that show beautiful glass without any attributions. It's also why many of us have in excess of 100 books - so that we can provide answers to those members who post unidentified glass requesting a maker, and there are a lot of requests. History becomes very real when we can fill in the gaps, and do I take it then that no one is interested in the data that comes out of Kew anymore
![Wink ;)](http://www.glassmessages.com/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
And just think of the difference in value that might occur with some pieces .... a real Lalique fetches hundreds if not thousands - but a wannabee a lot less
![Smiley :)](http://www.glassmessages.com/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
None of which lessens the beauty of Roy's goblet, but I for one would love to know who made it
![Smiley :)](http://www.glassmessages.com/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
The tulip design looks very nouveau (1880 - 1915 ish) - am I right in saying that???