Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass
My Recent Find - Guess What it is!
Connie:
Thank you, Della.
My stamp looks like the one at the top that is the authentic stamp.
I guess I will send pictures to the CMOG and let them make the determination. Or I could bring it since I am less than 100 miles from them :wink:
Glasshound:
I'm willing to bet $$$ that it's NOT Steuben :D
/Blair
David Hier:
--- Quote from: "Glasshound" ---I'm willing to bet $$$ that it's NOT Steuben :D
/Blair
--- End quote ---
To start with I would like to say that I'm not an expert (not even remotely, so this is just my opinion) on Steuben.
Secondly, the mark as described (and illustrated in a previous message) does indeed seem to be correct. The mark is identical to that illustrated in Glassmarken Lexicon, which is one of the best resources available for glassmakers marks, and I (and my father) have yet to find any mistakes in the publication.
Finally........if the bowl isn't Steuben, it seems remarkable that I managed to guess that the piece was by them, given my limited knowledge. I don't know the factory very well, but I finally guessed the maker after recollecting similar pieces I have seen (although these were amber with black threads 'scattered all over' - as mentioned by grayhorse).
The only doubt I had was the fact that the bowl seemed to have a cut-off rim. This however may be a miss-interpretation of the image. If the rim is cut-off, then an eastern European origin would make sense (including a fake acid mark).
David Hier:
--- Quote from: "Frank" ---David thank you for the ATG booklet. But, Oh dear, it has quite a few errors and also has a wrongly attributed piece on - Page 33 Blue/yellow stripey.
See http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/NotYsart.htm 3rd row.
If that was at a Lyon & Turnbull sale, they were told. But at frequently happens at that sale room they ignore identifications. They have sold many fakes as genuine.
Who is Roland Arkell?
--- End quote ---
No, problem Frank. Even though the article was somewhat ill-informed, I still thought you might want a copy for your records.
The piece that interested me the most was on page 34, which prompted my comments about Studio Glass. Obviously that resulted in some contentious remarks in the Studio Glass thread, which I really must address when I have the time (I hope I don't upset too many people).
The piece on pg 34 really is fantastic though......WOW! :D
As for Arkell, I would suggest that he is probably just another freelance antiques journalist. I’ve spoken with other similar journalists in the field and they never do any real research or check their facts.
Lustrousstone:
I heartily concur with the last remark, you wouldn't believe the basic errors in some of the stuff that comes through my hands. There are a lot of cowboy journalists out there
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version