Topic: Signed Michael Harris Landscape vase 6.500?

[Mr. Turnip]

Just acquired this one from Ebay. Judging by the amount of watchers it had some will be familiar with it. It's an Isle of Wight Landscape pattern from I'm suspecting 1985. I've only been able to find reference to two vases of this pattern on line. One of them (on antiques atlas) has 'Michael Harris 63.500' inscribed about one third up the side, horizontally, just above where the pattern changes. This is assumed by the seller to mean No.63 of 500. They're probably right too.

The other Landscape vase I can find (under 'collections' 'landscape' iowstudioglass.wiki.com/landscape) mentions - but usefully does not show! - that it has 'Michael Harris 6.500' inscribed along the top edge and 'Michael Harris England 2/500' vertically down the side. According to Mark Hill's book the 'Michael Harris England 2/500' should indicate that the vase in question is No.2 of 500 (or possibly less than 500) for export to the USA. So, that being the case, what does 'Michael Harris 6.500' actually signify? I have found examples of other Michael Harris signatures/limited edition numbers (presumed) with a . between the two numbers not a /

This vase that I have has 'Michael Harris 6.500' inscribed along the top edge of one side, quite close to the top edge (see picture). The signature looks totally genuine to me. I assumed that this signified No.6 of 500, but now I'm not so sure. The vase I have is 134mm in height, and as far as I'm able to determine is all as it should be. No other inscriptions and no 'IOW' or 'England'.

The only clammy moment of horror that did occur to me was that it might have been a taller vase (there was a 350mm version made) that was cut-down. Although as the height does correspond with a recorded size from 1985 and the signature runs along the top rim (let's hope it wasn't originally half way up the vase like the example on iowstudioglass!) I'm gussing it's all ok. On close inspection the wear on the polished top rim does look typical of a vase of this age. Can you sense the fear in my tone.... These Michael Harris conudrums are all a bit scary considering the sort of money involved. Perhaps I should just stick to investing in copies of Mark Hill's book instead. Any opinions or clarifications most welcome.

[glassobsessed]

Ask Ron Wheeler at Artius Glass he may well have access to the relevant details: http://www.artiusglass.co.uk/id2.html

John

[chopin-liszt]

 
I believe Landscape itself is a particularly unusual and difficult to find pattern to find any example of at all.
I did have a peek at the sold auctions, and I reckon you paid a reasonable price for one without a Michael Harris signature, far less one with, so I wouldn't worry too much. Ask Ron to confirm the signature if you are really concerned.

(I'm afraid I'm a philistine about signatures, I prefer unsigned pieces because of the price hike the mark creates. They don't change the actual piece into something better than it is.  )

Do you like the piece?
I think the colourings on Landscape are a bit more interesting than Seascape.

[Mr. Turnip]

Thanks for your suggestion, John. I'll contact Ron Wheeler and see if he's willing to offer an opinion. Yes I do like the vase - one of the reasons I bought it - although I can't deny the rarity and signature (I'm 99% sure that the signature is real - it's very well executed) did influence my decision. I have a Nightscape which I probably like more (see picture). I find it an uncomfortable thing to have to comodify art in this way. It would seem though that there is an invariable connection between the authenticity of the thing and its 'value', from both the artistic and price angle. Precisely the reason why this type of object could get buggered about with. I'm still not at all sure how to reconcile art and money. I expect somebody has written a book on it. I'm not about to sell this vase though so that helps me come to terms with my loss (the money).

I love my Nightscape - what a good example! I've just bought a Seascape too.

[chopin-liszt]

I've got a Nightscape Lollipop too, but only a small (and very bent) cylinder vase in Seascape.
I don't like Seascape much.
In general, I'm not willing to pay a premium price for a signature. I go by how much I like it.
If I really love it and it's got a pawmark, I do sometimes bite the bullet.

But only ever reluctantly and always fuming out the ears about the ludicrous mark-up.

But I don't buy to sell. I buy because I want to live with it around me.

Somebody once told me that in reality, there are no fakes in glass. 
When you are holding a piece of glass, you are holding a unique piece of real and genuine whatever-it-is.

I really rather avoid the "echelons" of collectors who want signatures.
I just want the glass.

[chilternhills]

There seems no reason to worry about the Landscape vase you bought on eBay. It looks perfectly genuine, though I have not seen that shape and size before. The price you paid was not excessive either. It is also characteristic of Landscape to have the signature(s) on the side rather than the bottom, the more usual place. I don't know why that is. No other IOW design has signatures normally on the side.

I own that Landscape vase at http://iowstudioglass.wikidot.com/landscape with the two signatures. I asked the studio what that meant and they did not know! Tim didn't know and neither did Ron Wheeler. I didn't put pictures of the signatures on my web site since, as you know, they are tiny on Landscape and hard to photograph.

Landscape is fairly scarce, but not excessively so. I have four pieces in my collection bought over a 5-year period (square vases 15 cm tall and 35 cm tall, a cylinder vase 21 cm tall, and a huge bell vase 20 cm tall by 21 cm diameter, all signed by Michael Harris and numbered, apart from the largest square vase, strangely enough). I have seen several others for sale in that time. Well done getting the square vase on eBay. It will be a good investment, if you ever sell.

Anton

[chilternhills]

I have just had a closer look at your pictures, particularly the rim. Enlarging the image seems to show flat, polished rims. It shouldn't be like that. I checked two of my Landscape pieces that were near at hand and both have untouched, smooth, rounded rims, not polished. Also, the stripy pattern on the side reaches nearly to the top in your vase. In my pieces the stripes reach no higher than the middle of the vase. Both features suggest your vase may have been cut down.    I hope that is not the case, but it might be sensible to take advice from Ron or Tim at the studio if it bothers you.

[Mr. Turnip]

Thanks for your considered reply Anton. The closer I look at the top rim the more I'm concerned too. What I initially considered to be wear looks more like restoration. The signature (which looks totally genuine) is uncomfortably close to the top rim and under a magnifying glass, the rim does look rather crudely polished, as if at the very least it's had some damage ground away at some time. I spend many hours removing and polishing minor scratches and chips from glass myself (it's the polishing that takes the time!), so I'm familiar with the signs of restoration.

Other IOW vases I have are not 'finished' in this way, but I don't have any other Landscape vases to compare it to. The height/shape of it does seem to correspond to the diagram on page 143 of Mark Hill's book - year 1985, the last drawing on the far right of the chart, 'Seascape and Landscape'. Hmm . I'm going to the Birmingham Glass Fair next week so I can show it to both Tim Harris and Ron Wheeler, who will hopefully be wiling to express an opinion.

[chopin-liszt]

According to the book (and my closest close-up glasses and a magnifying glass) these rectangular bowls/vases/troughs were only made in '85 and they should be 13 cm tall. At at 13.4 cm tall, it doesn't sound overly cut down, but I have to agree - a polished rim is not normal. They're normally all heat finished.

In some of the illustrations, the stripey sections can go quite high, with a large bit sticking up like yours does. I suppose it would depend on how rough the sea being depicted was at the time. 

I know these were considered to be very time consuming and difficult pieces to make - involving several steps and stages.
I imagine it might be feasible the studio might have polished something that went a bit awry, rather than consigning it to the bin, after all the time and expense put into it.

Maybe I'll see you in B'ham, Mr. Turnip! I'm going too. Got my train tickets!

[chilternhills]

I hope to be at Solihull for the Glass Fair on Sunday too. Maybe we can meet up Sue and Mr. Turnip? I haven't been to the fair for a couple of years, but it is always great fun.