Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: gemmacler on June 07, 2008, 07:28:45 PM
-
Hello to all
I would like your help with identifying a large glass vase I have had for a few years. It stands about 11 inches high and is about 9 inches wide at the top. It is very very heavy. The colour is brownish/ amethyst. The shape is unusual, like a chalice The inside is clear polished,also the rim and base, the outside surface is very deeply moulded [ or cut ? ] with a wood, tree trunks and branches. The design is different all round, it doesn't repeat. When the vase has a light shining on it the scene is 3D like a picture. I have included a picture of it with a light and without. It came from France. There is no mark or signature. I wonder if anyone has seen anything like it before, or could suggest a maker.
Thank you for your help
Best regards
Gemma
-
Suggestion = Sabino?
-
Barolac!
-
Hi
Great to have your suggestions. The Sabino work I have seen seems to be in very pale colours, and I have not seen many Barolac pieces but they seem pale too, opalescent very often. I suppose there might be some in this darker colour - it actually can seem to be brownish mauve amethyst sort of colour, or a golden brown depending on how the light falls on it - don't know if that helps.
Best wishes
Gemma
-
It was made originally by Barolac (i.e. Inwald for John Jenkins). There have been some recent repros too.
-
I agree with Ivo & Glen. Barolac, catalogue no. 11589, shown in the 1949 Glassexport catalogue, available from www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de.
Re. colours, the vase is shown in the Markhbeinn catalogue (also available from SG at pressglas-korrespondenz.de) which lists available colours as: Fume Mat, Ambre Mat and Blanc Mat. The 1949/52 glassexport Barolac catalogue indicates Blue, Amber, Smoke and Rose were available. This pattern also appears to have been produced in both types of Barolac opalescent glass.
As Glen pointed out, there are repros. Marcus has highted versions of this vase with modern Libs stickers. However, I suspect the Libs versions may be from a different mould. I had a Libs seahorse vase, placing it next to the original none of the details matched and the mould seams followed a different path.
Don't forget to take a look at my gallery too http://www.glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/thumbnails.php?album=144 . I have been documenting my Barolac collection for reference, though, as yet, I don't have a picture of one of these forest vases.
Steven
-
Hello, I have an identical vase in clear glass with a Verlys signature and also "signed" by Carl Schmitz. There are currently 2 of these on eBay, one listed under glass vases, and the other listed as Rene' Lalique! The "Rene' Lalique" vase has an opening bid of $4000.00. Is it possible to get a scan of the Barolac catalog?
Thank you and best regards
-
As Steven rightly says, 11549.
Can we please make it absolutely clear that "Barolac" is a trade-mark, used by Josef Inwald a.s. and John Jenkins, and is NOT the name of the manufacturer. The original manufacture took place at Rudolfova hut', and moulds were later moved to Rosice, then Libochovice.
Moulds at Libochovice, were of inferior quality, and as Steven suggests, some may have been later remakes of the moulds.
One aspect is not clear at the moment is whether designs were licensed out for production elsewhere, ie Verlys, but my suspicion is that the "Carl Schmitz" is a spurious indicator of designer. Some items were initial sketches by Douglas Jenkins, forwarded to Inwald, from John Jenkins, the UK importer, and professionally draughted by Rudolf Schrotter.
Barolac catalogue:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/thumbnails.php?album=701
Regards,
Marcus
-
Carl Schmitz designed several pieces for Verlys of America. They were: Seasons Vases, Girls and Deer Bookends, Girl, Lamb, and Ewe Bowl, Greek Horse Ashtray and Cigarette Box, Americana Bowl and Candle Holders, and the Fleur de Chine Vase. Carl Schmitz was the most famous artist to design pieces for Verlys of America. In 1934 he won the Linday Morris Sterling Memorial Prize for metals and bas-relief. In 1935 he deisngned the figure of a historic postman for the Post Office Department in Washington D.C. His work also appeared in the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission buildings in Washington, D.C. This information is from "Verlys of America Decorative Glass" by Carole and Wayne McPeek. Someone obviously thought engraving the Verlys signature and the Carl Schmitz signature to this vase would increase it's value. Thank you for the link to the Barolac catalog. It is most helpful.
-
Original drawing (Jenkins/Inwald) for this vase.
The vase was called "In the Forest".
GT
PHOTO BELOW COPYRIGHT G&S THISTLEWOOD
-
Oops, sorry my previous post should have read 11589, of course.
Please note when viewing the files in the Glass Gallery link given above: File 11/12, the bottom item is definitely not a "Barolac" pattern, being a design from Hermanova hut'.
regards,
Marcus
-
Thank you for all your help.
-
Hello again
Having just read recent posts am now thoroughly confused ! Mine is the vase at the top. It is identical in every way including colour, to the vase recently posted as Lalique on ebay us to which I was alerted by msiscoe's post. I had accepted the Barolac/Inwald/Jenkins origin suggested here, particularily after seeing the online catalogue [in German alas] Re the " Lalique " post on ebay, I would have thought that the Lalique output from before the war was pretty well documented. I noted the seller did not claim the vase was signed. I am well aware that ebay items can be less than accurate/honest but I would have thought that at that price it would only be high end Lalique collectors - with their knowledge of the glass - interested, so the seller must have had some cause for confidence. I did find that at least 2 vases of the same basic description have been sold in the last few years listed on auction values sites as " in the manner of Lalique " I do not know for how much. I have not had the opportunity to examine an old - not repro - piece of Barolac glass, but I assume it is of superb quality. I say this because in one respect I was struck by the ebay us seller saying their vase was " of museum quality ". This was what I felt about my vase. Lastly, my particular vase was acquired by me in France, nearly all the old glassware I have seen where I bought it is French, naturally enough !!!
Best wishes
Gemma
-
Hello, There is really nothing to be confused about with the vase. I have seen this piece both with and without the Verlys mark. I do not now if the Verlys marks have been spurious or not. IMHO the addition of a Verlys mark would not add significant value to a piece of glass such as this..... Maybe someone can clarify if Verlys actually did a similar item to this vase. I have always been under the impression that they did.
If you go to the following link:
http://rlalique.com/Sections/Fakes/Vases.Glasses.html
You will be able to locate the vase in question on that page shown in, if memory serves me correctly, at least 5 different colors including yours.....A study of the images will also reveal a great disparity in the quality of the molds used and the quality of the results for the same decor. All of these have been identified as fake Lalique. In other words, not Lalique, but offered for sale as Lalique.
Not only is the vase relatively easy to identify, it is also relatively easy to identify as a fake in the world of Lalique.
Let us simply suffice by saying that the sellers offering it as Lalique should spend less time dreaming about their possible future income and a little more time researching exactly what it is they are selling....... That, of course is assuming that they are honest sellers who are not intentionally misrepresenting the item.....
Craig
-
Regarding the amber "Lalique" vase offered on Ebay, I did refer the seller to rlalique.com when they first posted the listing. I knew it was definately not R Lalique, but I have seen it listed on eBay in clear glass as R Lalique as well. The seller thanked me for the information, and continued the listing anyway. No serious collector would have fallen for that obvious fake, and a $4000.00 opening bid lets out the less serious or informed buyers as well. Regarding my vase, I do not understand why anyone would add the Verlys signature and the Carl Schmitz signature other than to try to increase it's value. It is a stunning piece of art whoever made it. My vase has the highest quality molding and finishing, so I am quite pleased either way.
-
Hi
Thanks for the posts. Looked at the link. Yep ! Doesn't say if the Lalique fakes are signed or not. Would have thought a deliberate forgery/fake might as well sign itself as Lalique, I believe plenty do. My fellow vase owner - in usa ? - has on the balance of probabilities a genuine post war Barolac forest vase, maybe sold through Verlys. [ good for you ] I, on the other hand, am back where I started, my argument that a piece of glass in France is more likely than not to be French turns back on itself at this point and tells me that my vase is less likely to be Barolac, and more likely to be " fake " Lalique, albeit no signature. So forever unable to describe it, [ am constitutionally unable to pretend something is what its not ] no idea of its value, will just have to gaze into the forest landscape and wonder.
Best wishes
gemma
-
Hello,
The "Fake Laliques" are not intentionally manufactured to be fake Lalique, but Barolac pieces identified as Lalique either perpetuating a mis-attribution they have stumbled across, or called Lalique to in an attempt to deceive less knowledgeable buyers. There are actually quite a few pieces of Barolac glass on that page, several of which I own.
If one goes to the trouble of actually producing a "fake or forged" Lalique piece, they at least bother to produce, usually poorly, a known Lalique piece, and those pieces are also out there and shown on the Lalique site I referred you to. I do not use the term forged to indicate another manufacturer's piece of glass with a spurious signature put on it.
I think attributing your vase to Barolac is pretty much a sure bet, especially if the details are well defined, and cewrtainly in light of the fact that the color is among those mentioned in the literature.
For what it is worth, I also think that an assumption that glass purchased in France, is more likely to be from France, is a hypothesis, that if used as a starting place for ID of items, will make attributions quite difficult....
As an example, I am in the US, and if I started with that assumption, I would have a difficult time attributing much of the Czech, Italian and Scandinavian glass I own. To follow your hypothesis would mean that I should assume to start that the glass I buy here in the US is more likely to be from the US, and that people in Scotland, England, Italy, etc. should all make that assumption to start....
A much better position to start from when identifying a iece of glass is the position of "I have no idea what this is or where it is from. Let's see if we can figure it out." In some cases your location, or the location of purchase can "aid" in the attribution, but it is generally not a good assumed initial position.
As an example, I have a piece of Victorian era art glass in a very organic form. I started with the "assumption" it was from the Stourbridge region of England based on it's form. I looked for over 5 years to identify it. It turns out, when I dropped that false assumption, and sent a picture to a good friend of mine, a resource I had known the whole time I owned the vase, he informed me it was Czech, by Kralik, and sent me an image of a known vase to confirm the identification. Had I simply started from scratch 5 years ago I would have sent him the image and saved myself a bunch of research time....
Simply stated, starting with false assumptions will, more times than not, lead to incorrect results.....
Maybe your Barolac vase was a post war souvenir taken home by a French soldier or tourist....
In today's world, glass from everywhere is everywhere..... the older it is, the further it has had time to travel.... I also own a pair of late 16th / early 17th Century German Roemers... I purchased them in Seattle....
Craig
-
The "fake" Lalique webpage has an unstated inference that all the items illustrated were intended as fakes. That is, of course, nonsense (as Craig noted above when he correctly noted that "the "Fake Laliques" are not intentionally manufactured to be fake Lalique). Many of the items shown on that page are important pieces in their own right, produced by well known glass factories such as Inwald, Libochovice, Dugan-Diamond and so on. The fact that some people appear to have claimed them to be Lalique does not make them either fakes or forgeries.
I can offer an explanation why the Barolac "In the Forest" vase was found in France. It was marketed by a French wholesaler called Markhbeinn. I have a copy of their 1936 catalogue which shows the Inwald vase (called "Foret"). Markhbeinn handled much of Inwald's glass.
I have studied the location of "finds" of rather a lot of pressed glass from this era (1920s-1930s) and I can assure you that it was widely exported around the world.
Finally a personal opinion - Barolac glass (in fact Inwald glass in general) was top notch in both quality and design. IMHO it easily equals some of Lalique's pressed glass (and yes, I do have some R Lalique glass and some Barolac glass).
Glen
-
Hi
Thanks for your posts, your knowledge of the subject is awesome. Re place of finds as a starting point for attribution, I generally do not give that much weight at all - I am in England currently, and my little collection features American 1900's glass, Bohemian art nouveau glass, and French opaline glass, all collected locally, I do not have one piece of old glass I know to be English ! What I mostly begin with is an appraisal of the quality of a piece, and my Forest vase is the only piece of glass I have that as far as an amateur can tell is a real piece of art, stunning, rather than just pleasing, which is why I felt it was from a top class maker or factory. I hope to be able to see more Barolac work one day, as the glass is so very lovely.
Best wishes
Gemma
-
"The "fake" Lalique webpage has an unstated inference that all the items illustrated were intended as fakes."
Hi Glenn. The main page of the forgeries section on RLalique.com that takes you to the various photo sections (vases, perfumes, etc) including the page with the vase photos you refer to, clearly states that most of the items were not made as fakes.
"The items in this section are from a myriad of manufacturers, and were not originally created with the intent to deceive anyone. It is only the later addition of a spurious R. Lalique signature, or the representations made while marketing the item, that put them in this Rene. Lalique Forgeries category."
Here is a link to that page: http://rlalique.com/Sections/Fakes/forgeries.html
-
Just an interesting note that if one goes to the "Most Forged" page, the vase that started this discussion is shown in the same color..... There are also at least a couple other Barolac pieces I recognize.
One other note of interest along the lines of Glen's comment: "Many of the items shown on that page are important pieces in their own right, produced by well known glass factories such as Inwald, Libochovice, Dugan-Diamond and so on."
Shown on that page are copies of a Curt Schlevogt produced vase from the Ingrid line. I recently attended an auction in Montana where a frosted version of the vase was offered which had a Lalique acid stamp on the underside. The vase has been reproduced many times including current production by Desna, and a couple of reproductions are shown on that page, but there is, what I believe to possibly be an authentic 1930's version of the vase in "Lapiz Lazuli" blue glass, and may be the only image I have seen of one in that color.
-
Kidcobra – thanks for your response. I accept that the Lalique website does note on the page headed “R. Lalique Forgeries” that “the items in this section are from a myriad of manufacturers, and were not originally created with the intent to deceive anyone” however elsewhere on the website things are written that seem (to me) to give a slightly different impression.
In the rest of that first quote, the Lalique website goes on to say “It is only the later addition of a spurious R. Lalique signature, or the representations made while marketing the item, that put them in this Rene. Lalique Forgeries category." This feels rather uncomfortable to me. Take the first point that refers to “the later addition of a spurious R. Lalique signature”. Surely in a case such as this it would be the signature that is the forgery and not the glass item? Now take the second point, i.e. “the representations made while marketing the item”. If such “representations” are false then surely they would be misrepresentations. It would not necessarily follow that the glass item itself would be a forgery. The person making the false statements would be at fault, not the item of glass.
The page showing vases is headed: “Forgeries - Vases and Glasses” and a mouse over the items on the page reveals the words R Lalique Fake for each piece. That gives one the feeling that those items are fakes. But they’re not. They are not Lalique pieces, true – but that alone does not make them fakes. In my opinion, they could only be termed fakes if they had a fake Lalique signature on them.
The Lalique website gives this definition: “Forgeries are any item not R.Lalique, that is falsely signed with a signature indicating it is R. Lalique, or which even if not signed, that is advertised as, or represented to be the work of Rene Lalique.” I personally disagree with the second part of this definition. Here’s a for instance. Say an unsigned Dugan-Diamond vase gets posted on eBay as a Lalique bud vase. Is it a forgery? By the definition given on the Lalique website, yes it would be a forgery. But I don’t see that at all. The vase is not a forgery. It is a genuine Dugan-Diamond vase that someone has either mistakenly attributed incorrectly (innocently) or falsely misrepresented in the hope of selling it as something that it is not. But in neither case is the Dugan-Diamond vase a forgery or a fake.
Glen
-
For what it is worth, I agree with Glen.
Although I agree with the intent of the site, I think that their terminologies will lead many to misunderstand what is being represented.
A Kurt Schlevogt vase marked with a Lalique signature is not a fake Lalique, it is a Schlevogt vase with a spurious (forged or fake) signature. The misrepresentation can be either intentional or by mistake, but it is still a Schlevogt vase with a fake or forged signature... it is only the signature that is "fake" or "forged", and not the piece of glass.
A Schlevogt vase with no markings, represented by a seller as a Lalique vase is still a Schlevogt vase. It is neither a fake or a forgery (manufactured with the intention of deceiving). It is simply a quality Schlevogt vase being misrepresented with the intention of deceiving, or mis-attributed due to poor or incomplete research combined with a lack of in depth knowledge about Lalique products.
A piece of glass intentionally manufactured to deceptively mimic a decor and to be mis-represented as a Lalique piece, would then technically be a fake / forgery based on the original intent of the manufacturer.
These are the correct use of the terms as defined by Webster's.
On the Lalique site, any of these scenarios are classified by the website authors as a "Fake Lalique", and technically, only one really qualifies.
If you read their "Introduction" they clarify their use of the terms, but in relationship to the rest of the world, they have reinvented the definition of the words "Forgeries" and "Fakes" when they use it in reference to a large portion of the non-Lalique glass on their site.
Craig
-
In my web pages about Ysart paperweights I include illustrations of many weights made with false signature canes embedded at the tme of making. I have always tried to take great care in what I say and write about those items. Because of my experiences in this area, I am uneasy about the all-too-common use of the word "fake" in general conversation, even though I know many people use it to mean "misattributed" rather than "made to deceive".
So, with my uneasiness aroused, I thought I'd just add a few lines and say that I am in agreement with Glen's and Craig's thoughts about the website information mentioned above. If people wish to draw attention to items that they believe are "not as described" then they ought to take care in their own descriptions about those items.
-
Thanks for posting the links to the R. Lalique site - just noticed they've nicked one of my photos & added their own watermark - see the Barolac rose vase here http://rlalique.com/Sections/Fakes/Authenticate.html
Quite interesing given their definition of what constitutes a fake....
-
Ahhhhhhh.... We have discovered a "Fake" Rlalique.com photo!! Actually, based on definition, it is a real photo by Steven, with a spurious RLalique.com watermark, and being represented as theirs!!
Did you sell the piece, or did they take the image from your online gallery?.... You know... The one with the really big red heading where it states that the images are all copyrighted and can not be used anywhere without permission!!
Maybe, you should email them and ask them to remove the photo and see what they say.... or ask them to apply the correct watermark and give you credit for your photo.... While clearly stating that it has never been offered by the photographers owner as a Lalique piece. :thup:
The presence of the photo on their website may lead people to believe that it is, or has been offered as a fake Lalique.... You scoundrel you :o
Craig
-
Hello Glen, Obscurities, and KevH.
I understand your points and some of them are well taken. And even if you ignore that the website defined it's use of the terms, I think the public perception and understanding is not as technical or narrow as yous.
Here is a common example:
If a school teacher is masquerading as a doctor, from the standpoint of the doctor community (and the patient :), that person is fake. He is a fake from the standpoint of anyone relying on the false representation, no matter how he says it, with a badge, a uniform, a phony degree, a statement, etc. Now, from the standpoint of the school teacher community, of course that person remains a school teacher. If he showed up in school the day after being exposed as a fake doctor, he would be a teacher. This is consonant with the general understanding and definition of fake as something that is held out to be what it is not. It could be a CD in a box that says it's by some company when it's not, it could be an ebay ad that says a piece, signed or otherwise is something it is not, or a purse that is just sold as some brand it is not, or it can be just by showing fake signature on an item. All of these are intended to make the item out to be something it is not, and from the standpoint of what it is falsely represented as, in this case RLalique, it is a fake.
The point here is that obviously everything is something, but that doesn't mean it's cannot be a fake when held out to be something else If a million dollar painting is represented as something else to make it a 10 million dollar painting, it's a fake as far as the 10 million dollar people are concerned, but a totally genuine painting for the 1 million dollar people. If a new just painted painting is represented (signed or not) as an old master, it is a fake.
And on the forgery usage, in common everyday use (right or wrong from whatever perspective), fake and forgery are often used to mean the same thing as a noun, and you will find forgery listed as a synonym for fake in reference guides I'm sure (I'd say thesaurus but I'm not sure of the spelling).
Ignoring the details and looking at the big picture: that page of vases is just to show the public what is out there that has been put out there as RLalique when it is not. Some of the pieces are quite valuable in their own right, apparently they are just more valuable when sold as RLalique. I don't think the public could misunderstanding what the page is there for. But if guys feel it is off base, why don't you make some suggestions about specific changes that would get the point across in a way that would satisfy your comments, keep it easy to understand for people just looking to see if what they think is RLalique, is or is not, and also something that would be easy for the website to implement in the context of that overall section?
-
Kidcobra,
I agree, "I think the public perception and understanding is not as technical or narrow as yous [sic]."
To simply "paint a picture" using a large brush and very big strokes eliminates the details so necessary for the full impact of the "image".
We can discuss the technical meanings of the word faked and forged all we want, but I believe the real discussion here is regarding the obligation one inherently assumes when presenting public information for the purpose of "education". IMHO simply stating "Forged Lalique" or "Fake Lalique" does not fulfill that inherent obligation, and redefining word usage, coupled with strong "image statements" for the purpose of your own website is, IMHO not right. Let us not lose sight of the fact, and the internet is living proof, that people "believe what they see", and "not what they read!".
I guess my position would be that the implied intent of the site is to "educate" people in regards to what is and what is not Lalique. IMHO undertaking the process of "education" the "educator" takes on an additional and increased responsibility to clarify all "information" they are providing through either written statements or implied meanings.
If one does not read their description in the fakes section, as many people won't, the titles "R. Lalique Forgeries", "Most forged", etc... on the icons that get you to the different image galleries have an implied meaning that I feel most people will pay great attention to..... Therefore, a "Woodland" vase, a Schlevogt vase in Lapis glass, and many other examples they present then become a "forged Lalique" to those people seeing it, especially in the complete and total absence of an explanation of what it actually is.....
IMHO, to simply state "Forged Lalique", and not provide an explanation of what it really is, shirks the responsibility of completing the educational process they appear to be undertaking.
The purpose of this forum is to identify glass and share knowledge, and we would not get very far if all of the members simply added comments to the posting of an image stating what it is not!!
I guess that additionally, to provide the information regarding these "forged or fake" pieces on their pages, would reduce the instances of this occurring, as quoted from the "R Lalique Authentication Overview", a page where they have watermarked an image not belonging to them that, it appears, they may have procured from a different website.
"2. If we tell you your item is not RLalique [sic], and you want additional information, such as getting the actual identity of the company that did make the piece, there is a small charge (typically $20), assuming we can identify the item for you. The email we send you after we see your photo will give you your options and how to select one if you are interested."
Technically, the offering of a service for a fee (fees for the authentication of non Lalique glass, commissions for selling Lalique in their for sale section, etc.) would make the site a revenue generating entity, and the use of images, as Steve so nicely put it, nicked from the internet, would make the use of the nicked images a flagrant and actionable copyright violation.
As far as offering "constructive criticism", my personal experience is that the authors of this particular site are not really open to that kind of thing......
Craig
-
Hi Obscurities. I understand your point about wanting more education. But the purpose of the page is to identify what is not RLalique. That is the education, fast and simple for someone wanting to compare a supposed piece of RLalique to the photos. It would definitely be great if every piece that was falsely represented to be RLalique was tracked down as to origin and labeled, but to 99% of RLalique collectors, or to someone looking to purchase something being sold as RLalique, it doesn't matter what they are, only what they are not (RLalique). That is why they visit the page. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you should make the good the enemy of the perfect.
And about that, I also understand that if you collect or own something in it's own right, that seeing items from that collecting field labeled as fake in any context might be disconcerting. And it may be that this wasn't considered or wasn't sufficiently considered when the pages showing the fakes were developed.
I have a few ideas of how this could be further clarified and will see what can be done. This will also shed some light on the constructive criticism observation which you have brought up.
-
Hi Kidcobra,
Don't get me wrong, I like the general concept of the site and have looked at it for many years..... I just think that the delivery of their information does a disservice to much of the glass they show as fakes and forgeries... Many of the pieces would take little work to identify and disclose those identities. By doing so, the increase in information they supply, IMHO would increase the overall credibility of the site as an educational and informational tool for collectors in general.
I am also of the personal belief that a site with fakes and forgeries as one of the primary basis for it's construction should be very careful, in light of Steven's discovery, regarding what they do with images and how they get them... I personally would take umbrage at the presence of one of my images with their watermark being on their site. especially in light of the fact that the site is not purely educational or informational in purpose.
It is not that the site is bad by any means, IMHO they could just be much better, and more complete..... I commend the work they have done to this point, and wish there were more sites like theirs that showed not only what a good "Brand X" product is, but what is generally and commonly represented as such that is not..... I commend their free authentication service......
There is a Steuben site that is attempting the monumental task of producing an online catalog of pictures of all Steuben shapes. They also show false signatures and stamps. There is a Tiffany site that shows fake Tiffany items and identifies sellers on ebay, and there are couple of others also. The more information that every site can offer, the better off the collecting world, and collectors will be.....
Nothing RLalique.com does in the way of image display would be disconcerting to me personally, but to all of those collectors out there that have a much broader and more general view of what they own and collect, and of what the site is doing, that statement may not hold true.....
Just food for thought.....
Thanks, It is an interesting discussion presented from a few different points of view.....
I think that those of us on this board, for the most part, believe in sharing as much knowledge, information, and opinions as possible.
Craig
-
Just a quick note that it appears that Steven's (Mosquito) image has been taken down from the RLalique.com website on the "Free RLalique Authentication" page.
Craig
Kidcobra - Along the lines of a simple suggestion for the site would be to put a caption under known pieces as to manufacturer and period. As an example the Blue Ingrid vase could simply state under it, "Ingrid Vase by Schlevogt - Age Unknown". The clear or transparent color ones could state "Ingrid Vase by Schlevogt - Post WWII Production". The vase in question that started this thread could simply state "Barolac 11549 - In the Forrest ca. 1950" or "Age Unknown" if it cannot be determined. "Unidentified" for those that can not be easily named.
Providing this information would lend credibility to the fact that they are stated to not be R Lalique or Lalique. I recognize many of the pieces and identification of many would likely not be that difficult....
They could, after all is said and done, join this board and enlist the enthusiastic help of people here to identify difficult pieces.......
Craig
-
Hello, has anyone made any of these suggestions to the guys at rlalique.com? I have read a lot of criticism of them lately, but not heard of any positive actions being taken to rectify these issues. I do know that they do not "nick" images from other people's websites. They do post photos that are sent to them, and their form used to submit photos states that all photos sent to them become their property. Perhaps someone sent them the photo in question, and asked if it was Rene' Lalique because they own one or are interested in buying one. Not everyone owns a digital camera. Just an idea.
-
As someone who has been a spectator on this thread, I thought there have been a lot of positive suggestions. Also, you cannot solve a problem until you know you have a problem.
Isn't Kidcobra from rlalique.com?
Even if photos are sent to a website for ID purposes, they remain the copyright of the person who took them (hopefully the person who sent them in) or the company that commissioned their taking. The copyright doesn't revert unless full rights are purchased or waived.
-
I have had a couple of interactions with the site in the past, and as I stated in an earlier discussion with Kidcobra, they did not, at least in my interactions, seem to take well to constructive suggestions.
As far as the image question goes, Steven has not responded with a remark regarding whether he listed and sold the item or not, but I am going to go out on a limb here take a wild guestimate, and since he termed their use as having "nicked" his photo, and it is contained in a copyrighted album of Barolac images related to the GMB, I am going to guess he did not attempt to sell it as Lalique, thereby giving someone a reason to send it to them to verify, or send them a copy in an email to see if it was Lalique.
Following in the spirit of their use of forged and fake applying to anything pictured that is not Lalique, I would have to say that calling the use and watermarking of any image that is owned by someone else, "nicked", would seem to follow suit. :thup: (just having a bit of fun here)
In any event, since people are sending them random images, copyright laws would be something any website undertaking the practice of watermarking images should be very careful about..... If they use a form that states that all images sent to them become their property, that could be an issue if someone sends them a copyrighted image that they (the sender) themselves do not own.....
I also find it interesting that the image in question is not present on their site after this discussion here, and was pulled pretty quickly. Kidcobra may have more input than we think.... which is good. (Christine, My suspicion is that Kidcoba is in some way associated with the site)
I do not feel that we were terribly critical of their site, but instead were having a conversation regarding definitions and use of specific terms. The same, or very similar conversations could be had in regards to several sites on the internet... They just happened to be the lucky ones that came to the forefront because of this piece of glass.
I for one stated several times that in general I like the site, and have used it for several years....
My suspicion is that the suggestion I made in my earlier post today will be read by Kidcobra and forwarded to the powers that be at that website.....
Only time will tell if the suggestion is deemed to have merit.... or if the conversation here is deemed to have any merit....
Craig
-
Hi Obscurities. A change was made to the 8 pages of photos (including the vase page which started this discussion) bringing essentially the statement from the first page of that section to every one of the photo pages; the statement being to the effect that all the items pictured are made by different manufacturers and none were made originally with the intent to fool anyone. Also, that many of the items are collectible in their own right. There are only a handful of lines of text at the top of those pages, so I think it's more likely than not that people coming to those pages for information will read them. And it's the same statement on the top of each of the 8 pages of photos, so it only has to be read once by someone going though the pages.
The suggestion to reformat the pages and provide labels to ID the pieces is a good idea. There are some programming and presentation issues (including with the way the pages were originally set up to take the photos), so it's not a minor task time wise both for redoing the pages and then of course getting all the info (or as much as possible that can be tracked down) and trying to make sure it's accurate, but everyone agreed it is something that would be great to get done, time, and priorities dictating if, how, and when it happens. Time will tell, but it's on the list. And I did confirm that it never did came up in the development of those pages what the effect would be on the fields or people that actually collect some of the pieces shown. The sole focus was on R Lalique collectors and their view, and no one ever thought about the rest of the planet in that regard. Can't think of everything, but the suggestion for labeling the item to satisfy this concern are obviously well taken if it can be implemented in a reasonably efficient and effective way.
-
Kidcobra.... I am pleased that our suggestions were taken into consideration, and I actually feel a little better knowing that the discussion here may have helped to influence a change which I honestly feel will increase the credibility of the site when completed in one form or another. I think the addition of the statement to the top of each page is a great step in a positive direction.
I again want to make it quite clear that I think the site is a good and valuable one, and speaking for myself and hopefully the others, the conversation here was much more about the "theory" of the internet and it's sites, than specifically in regards to any "negatives" regarding the RLalique site.
I must also say that I now stand corrected, and gladly so...... The site's reaction to constructive criticism seems quite open and receptive...
Thank you,
One last suggestion that may work in lieu of recreating the pages for text labeling, would be to make the text appear when the mouse hovers over each image. In place of "R Lalique Fake - Not The Work Of Rene Lalique", It could then say "Barolac 11549 - In the Forrest ca. 1950". If that text can be individualized for each inserted photo, then the need to reformat your pages to insert text would be moot. My suspicion is that it would be easier to that than to reformat your pages. If you can do it that way, then you can simply add a note at the top of each page directing the users to hover and read about the pieces. I believe it can be done by editing image properties, of course depending on the program that is being used to manage the site.
Lastly, I again invite you to utilize this site to aid in the identification of pieces.... We are a global community with an amazing diversity of interests, and we love a good challenge. I have found that the breadth and depth of knowledge present here is quite amazing...
On a lighter note about the RLalique.com site, I am not a Lalique collector (God knows I collect a lot of other glass!!) and have never owned a piece myself (much to the dismay of my wife), but I am a fairly frequent flier at your site..... My guess is that there are many others like me... window shoppers so to speak..... I have to admit that your site has helped to increase my knowledge of Lalique, and what is not Lalique, and I know that when the time or opportunity comes to purchase a piece the RLalique.com site will have played a role in educating me. I found your site long before I bought the books I own on the glass!! With the vast proliferation of the internet, scenarios such as this are most likely scenarios that may not have even been initially considered!!
Thanks again, as this discourse has been quite enjoyable....
Craig