Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > Glass Book Reviews

The New Mdina Glass Book

<< < (2/4) > >>

I suspect I may not agree with much of what is written. I just want to know what it is that is being put about.  ;)
A book is not a proper, academic peer-reviewed exercise. The author is free to write whatever they choose.
It is up to the reader to decide whether or not to trust the author.

Rosenthal is a bubbly yellow background with teal ribbon strapping marvered in. No browns.
Tiger has the rich deep browns and deep buttercup yellow bits, the pieces are thick glass and the colours penetrate deeply into it.
Marble has a darker and much duller brown with flat creamy white bubbly bits. The decor is mostly confined to the surface. It's hard to describe in words, obvious to see in reality.

Are we sure that the colours/descriptions used by collectors are the same as those used in the Mdina factory............

Not sure if this image from the Austin USA distributors is relevant.

It's the names appear to be the trouble, Patrick.
Your image clearly shows Tiger.
Some of the colours in large bits of Tiger can be a little thinner than in other bits, because of expansion when blowing, and the yellow can go a little creamy, but it's still completely different to Marble.

I agree with both your descriptions of the mentioned Rosenthal, Tiger and Marble. To me this is how they should be described or at least amongst collectors and dealers in any case.

However, the book calls Rosenthal Tiger and addresses it by stating there is mass confusion by collectors about the actual name for the range. Whilst the pieces were indeed intended for and produced for Rosenthal the actual name of the design is Tiger.

The pattern we refer to as Tiger is referred to in the book as Marble and addresses the differences in colourway as early and later pieces of Marble. I believe I remember someone asking about an early rimmed bowl in this colourway and an ex-Mdina glssblower responded and  also referred to them as they do in the book and not as we do.

It would appear that Mdina glass refer to them differently which is very confusing.

Thatís another issue I had on top of the one about the dating of items.

I understand what youíre saying about it being a book and itís not peer reviewed etc. But for the book to be produced by the company itís actually about and indeed it being for the 50 year anniversary talking of legacy. Itís unacceptable to me that they can get things so wrong. Itís a good source of info on a number of things Iíll admit, but youíd think theyíd make sure it was accurate.

It just seems the vast majority of attention (to be expected I suppose) is on the Said years and only by the contributions of Eric and Peggy Dobson does the book have some attention to the earlier years or the very least the section of the book titled The Dobson years.

Patrick's catalogue image shows Tiger, clearly labelled as Tiger.

I've got the Dexam catalogue and I've had a look. No mention of Tiger, Marble or Rosenthal. Only Ming is named.
There are no images of any Tiger pieces (Tiger as per Patrick's catalogue)
None of Marble.

There is an image of a facetted cube with tiger colours of ribbons inside, but not made into the Tiger pattern (laid over the surface and flattened in) but in seperate internal tangles of strings. (There are other facetted cubes with the Tiger pattern in.)
And there's a small bowl with the three spirals which is sort-of Rosenthal.

I can't find a date on it. (Dexam catalogue)  I seem to remember it was '79? but I might be wrong.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version