Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on September 13, 2009, 09:08:41 PM
-
not the sort of Daum I dream of finding, but certainly the first signed piece I have been aware of seeing on my travels round the boot sales. Unfortunately, some degree of water staining (on which I will try Coke/Brasso or whatever). Simple, completely flat base, showing reasonable amount of wear scratches, and incidentally, the piece is not pink - its just the electric light giving a false colour. Is the signature good, and what sort of age might this be please. thanks for looking. Paul S.
-
hi
Its difficult to tell from photos like these, but I'm not too wild about the signature -looks too large but that might just be photo's fault.
The ' D ' looks odd too -well wrong and I'd expect to see a France after it
I would add though the main reference books really only carry signatures up to 1975, but this matches none of them -quite.
sorry -maybe someone can find one I've missed
cheers
Mike
-
Mike,
I agree, usually with a Croix d'Alsace between the Daum and France....
But, as a central european specialist, what would I know?.. ;D
M
-
Hi Marcus
actually by about 1950 they'd dropped the Cross of Lorraine -but not the France
sorry
Mike
-
Hi Mike,
It was still used on a pair of candelabra, "Jumeau", a design from 1957, and probably later than that.
M.
-
Hi Marcus
I 'sit' corrected
Noel Daum's book has it dropped in 1945 but even I've seen early post war pieces with it still on -I'd thought it might have lasted just a few years but obviously it lasted more.
Either way for a large part of the post war period there was often no cross according to Noel Daum's book
cheers
Mike
-
Hi, I was about to post, when your posting came online Mike.
The only book that I have to hand here suggests that the Cross of Lorraine was dropped in 1960, however I think that a book by Noel Daum should be more accurate than one by Ray and Lee Grover - "Contemporary Glass"!!
That said, I think that the question that has not been answered is, "Is this Daum?", since so far the signature is being concentrated on.
Although I do feel with my limited experience the piece is right, you are better placed than I to answer that Mike.
BTB, I think what one can glean from the second photo of the signature the 'D' looks more confident than in the close up in photo 3. Perhaps one like that without the glare of the lights Paul?? (The pink is taken from the background colour I fear).
Nigel
-
I was just trying to recall a piece of Daum I held at the weekend. I agree the D is wrong purely going on the signatures I see on a lot of Daum glass here in France. The D is not so open generally, but I do have to say I cant remember if all pieces have had France after Daum. But what do I know I could be completely wrong and I could have been picking dodgy ones up myself. If I see more Daum at the glass fair at the weekend I will have a good look at the signature.
Margi
-
thanks everyone for such an erudite input. I have no knowledge of this factory whatsoever, so cannot contribute anything academic. Having said that - and having held the piece of course, I can say that it does have a substantial weight and 'feel' to it (tips the scales at 1.6 kilos, and is 19 x 15 cms. in size) - reminds me very much of some of the heavy abstract shaped Czech vases from the fifties and sixties. Get the feeling also that the ground and polished flat base (not really too evident in the pics., I'm afraid) indicates a non cheap piece of glass - and as mentioned, the scratches to the base are what you might see on 30 - 50 year old glass. Given that sort of age, wud there have been any mileage in creating a forged sig. back then? I appreciate that the water staining doesn't necessarily mean a great deal, but am I right in thinking the level of stain we can see might also indicate some reasonable age?? As for the sig., it looks confident in the sense that it has been applied 'smoothly' - without wobbling or going slowly. Hesitant sigs. can be an indication of fraud. Later today I will try to take a better pic. of the sig. - I found it very difficult the first time - again I think the camera has a problem with focusing at the surface level of clear glass - and it is a curved part of the vase of course. Sorry also about the pics. showing pink, it really is just completely clear. Thanks again and as it only cost me a quid, and can actually be used for flowers, I am quite happy whatever it may be (but really wud have liked it to be Daum!) cheers Paul S.
-
I have now taken some better pics. of the sig. - as shown - so hope these may help with possible verification. cheers Paul S.
-
Interesting, a quid you say? So, not done recently to deceive that's for sure. As you ask Paul, why would it have been done during the history of the vase?
Not the first time this dilemma has been addressed, but on the face of it, it does suggest that all is well ..................anyone????
Nigel
-
... Unless it was done recently to deceive, but the buyer gave it to charity in disgust after realising the rip off?
-
This is why I suggested some thought about the glass - and not just concentrating on the signature. There are any number of scenarios that could explain why it is, or is not, Daum via the way this thread is going, especially if we look at an inscribed signature under a microscope as it were.
So, this fraudster signs the bit of glass, is disgusted with him/her self and has a fit of regret - then puts it into the system anyway?? They give it to charity and it's sold for £1.00 at a boot fair. Whilst not impossible, it stretches the point somewhat. (Paul's implication is that is was bought at a boot fair). Sorry Cathy, I don't buy it I'm afraid :o
Sometimes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.........
Nigel
-
thanks to both of you for your continued interest, and speculation, and I do like Nigel's contention that the fraudster might have been of either sex. It's time that women shared the blame >:D But joking aside, there is perhaps a valid point in considering whether or not there is any point in someone copying something that doesn't exist in the first place, i.e. there wouldn't be a market for the articles you are faking. Copy a Drunken Bricklayer or a James Powell goblet perhaps, and you may well get takers - but if Daum have never produced these 'free form' sort of vases in flint, then almost certainly you wouldn't have any collectors to deceive. Yes, it was a boot sale Nigel - my favourite one, ssshhhh. ;) Now I must go out and find a footed baluster shaped vase by Henri Berge. ;D cheers Paul S.
-
In a Daum piece (Michel Daum, 50s/60s) I would expect the sig to be applied in very small lettering around the side of the rim and to read Daum France. But the sig itself is in the correct handwriting, although far too large. So it may look like a duck and make a sort of correct quacking sound, it would not be the first piece of unsigned Sèvres to turn up disguised as a duck.
-
It could be that somebody bought the "swan" from the (who produces swans in this world), and then realized that it was really a duck. :spls: The duck owner then gave said duck to the charity/boot salesperson, who sold (hopefully unknowing) the duck as a swan to the GMB member. (Good heavens, this analogy is getting complicated :o )
Carolyn :chky:
-
Now that, is a very fair comment Ivo, although I would say currently the two types of crystal have similar values - certainly over here.
Nigel
PS. Carolyn, I think that analogy is getting beyond me!!
-
What are the dimensions? Is it about 4''tall?
-
dear aa - If you read back in the thread, I had already given the size - 19 cms. tall x 15 cms. at the widest, with a weight of 1.6 kgs. I have in fact used Brasso on a polishing mop in the Bosch this evening, and removed 90% of the water staining. cheers Paul S.
-
Paul: Way off topic, but.... Can you tell us more about "Brasso on a polishing mop in the Bosch?"
Thanks.
David
-
David -my apologies for the late reply.........are you sitting comfortably...............there was this German you see......
No, only joking. At some point in the thread of my first post about February this year - we were discussing various methods of cleaning glass affected by water staining. Proprietary products have a limited effect on mild forms of calcium deposits - and suggestions were made where people had tried non standard chemicals such as coke,Sterodent etc. but again these seem un-successful when the glass itself is corroded, for say a micron or two. However, someone suggested Brasso, which is a British product made specifically as a metal polish - usually for brass, which has been around apparently for a little more than a century. Contains, among other things, ammonia and silica powder - and it is possibly this last item that helps to actually remove a micron or two of glass. The idea is that you attach a fexible drive to the end of your power drill, and into the chuck of the flexible drive you put a sewn cotton polishing wheel (say about 1/2" thick x 2"/3" diameter). Of course this only works if the piece of glass is such that you can get the wheel inside without causing damage, so has a limited use. The power drill is clamped into a vice - some liquid Brasso is put into the piece of glass - power on - and the flex. drive is held so that the wheel burnishes the areas of damaged glass, with Brasso remaining WET on the wheel. This is not a quick guaranteed method, but with a lot of patience can certainly improve the surface of the glass, where other efforts have failed. I'm sure that similar products to Brasso are available in most countries. Hope this helps to explain my earlier comments, and don't forget to use eye protection if you do try. Paul S.
-
Paul:
Thanks for such a full and good humoured reply. I grew up in Scotland where I was a member of the Boys' Brigade, so I'm very familiar with the workings of Brasso. I think I still have a can that I sniff occasionally to precipitate memories of childhood. Now I can I employ it for a useful purpose.
Thanks again.
David