Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Margi on May 09, 2010, 12:13:55 PM
-
Another find today on the same stall as the possible Flavio Poli I found this. I did pay more for it than I usually do but it was calling out Legras. It is not signed but feels of quality and has a largish polished pontil with outer rings. It is pate de verre and stands just under 34cm tall. Yellow and orange smattering cased in clear (well sort of clear). Is it Legras or similar??
Thanks as always
Margi
PS I think I have seen it in one of my books but for the life cannot see it now but If I do find out of course I shall update.
-
Definite not pate-de verre,looks a bit Bohemian to me,doubt it's Legras,
Keith.
-
It is the same glass as one of my haunts has for sale and they have it also as pate-de-verre. Definately is not standard crystal or glass what would you call it satinized?? I have seen the same colours etc used will try and pull the image up. Thanks for thoughts Keith
-
Please check your definition for pâte-de-verre. It is powdered glass baked in a mould. It is a very expensive procedure and currently the only producers are Daum and The Grand from Taiwan. I think I mentioned before that French dealers misuse the term constantly to apply to anything semitransparent or semi opaque or anything satinated. Don't pick up the habit (as the bisshop said to the actress).
I agree that the yellow base with white splitters rolled in is most likely Czech, not Legras.
-
Thanks Ivo I consider myself told I have read the definition in one of my books. May I take this opportunity to say there is no white at all on the vase. this picture is more a true definition on ebay France 150437929966 I am not saying I trust their attribution this is for colour purposes only as is 350282515076 also ebay France.
-
Had a look at the first ebay item(can't find the other) and that looks Bohemian to me despite the sig'.all the Legras pieces I've seen are signed Legras in full,sorry I can't be of more help,
Keith.
-
Legras did use the mark shown on the two examples on ebay. I can not attest to the authenticity of those pieces.
I do not believe the "Leg" mark was used after WWI. I am not 100% sure of this, but the research I have done has indicated that the "Leg." mark was used on enameled pieces when the company was Legras & Cie. After WWI they merged with Pantin Glass Works to form Verreries et Cristalleries de St Denis et Pantin Réunies. At this point I believe they continued to use the full "Legras" signature on some pieces through the 20's & 30's. I am not sure the use of the "Leg," signature continued after the merge, but I do not know for sure.
Attached is an example of the signature on a different style piece that I know to be authentic. The style of enamel work this piece would tend to make me believe they used the mark after WWI, possibly into the late 20's or early 30's, which is what this design strikes me as...
Craig
-
Thanks for all thoughts it is not a keeps so will pop it on ebay under possible bohemian still a very quality item.
-
Should have asked Craig first :-[shows what I know or don't know! :pb:
-
They are not the standard Bohemian yellow and white, as they don't have the almost orange yellow spatters.
-
Please excuse my thickness are we saying it is not bohemian nor legras if so who else is a contender. Sorry for sounding so dense its getting later by the minute and had a busy day.
TIA
Margi
-
I'm not saying it's not Bohemian. I don't know, but its not the run of mill Bohemian yellow and white.
-
What are the measurements of this piece??
-
Good morning all
The vase is 34cm tall, rim diameter 7cm and base diameter is 9cm and the weight is approx 2lb.
-
It is quite difficult to tell from pics but the glass appears to be relatively thick. That is why I asked dimensions of the piece. I would also say that perception seems to be supported by the weight of the piece based on it's thin overall diameter.
My inclination would be to agree with Christine and say that it is likely not Bohemian. Another thing that would point me away is that typically Bohemian glass, at least what I am familiar with, has a flat ground lip, generally, but not always, parallel to the base, and this does not appear to be that way.... When I look at the image it does not appear to have a pontil. If it does, then my take on the rim would not apply. I also agree with Christine in that the coloration is not that of the standard Bohemian Yellow and white. If the pieces on ebay you gave as examples are actually Legras, and they appear to possibly be correct, then this glass appears similar. I do not know if Legras produced any unsigned pieces or not......
I do not know French glass all that well, but I may be inclined to look at your home country as the source.....
Craig
-
For comparison, see this photo (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-12179), which shows "typical" Bohemian yellow-and-white. Note that these items are formed from yellow glass with obvious white blobs which are set quite unevenly and of varying sized blobs. They are then cased in clear glass and the item formed, causing the white blobs to stretch fairly evenly up the neck.
Margi's item is certainly different to these "typical" Bohemian ones - although the technique for making is very similar.
-
Hi thanks for your input craig. Just to clarify it does have a polished pontil but very difficult due to the colouring to get it to pic well.
-
OK, I still shy away from Bohemian as an origin..... Kev's images seem much more indicative of Bohemian glass I am familiar with....
Craig
-
Might there be a connection between Margi's vase and this old topic about a lamp base?
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,4715.0.html
-
Definitely French...but attributing it to Legras would be a bit of a stretch....
Blair
-
Hi Blair
Is there anyone who you would suggest other than Legras?
-
There were so many french manufacturers making Legras style "knockoffs" at that time. Without some sort of signature it would be near impossible to attribute unless you find another one with the same shape that's signed....
This is most likely an undecorated "blank...
Blair
-
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/57118-legras-series-89-000-vase-ref-no-89-0?in=1179
This vase I've linked to above is a decorated and signed Legras piece. With a catalogue reference. It appears to me at least, to be the same vase as Margi's although Margis is undecorated.
m
-
Well spotted "m".
Even I, wearing my "pedantic and hard-to-please" hat, think that the evidence of the decorated and signed vase (albeit with very worn signature) along with the matching catalogue image, and having essentially the same weight and height as Margi's vase, is a very strong indication of maker.
But ... do we know whether Legras used outsourced blanks, and if so were the same blanks decorated by other companies? If yes, to both aspects, then Blair's "undecorated blank" remains the only true description for Margi's item.
And ... is the Collectors Weekly contributor, "bohemianglassandmore", known to us, here? If so, maybe we can get extra info and pics of the signed example for inclusion in this thread.
-
good point Kev - I believe there has been discussion elsewhere recently of vases produced at Harrach FOR Legras - whether Legras decorated Harrach blanks or whether Harrach produced and decorated them and sold them to Legras to sell, I don't know
link to this topic here http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47844.msg269437.html#msg269437
I have also read that other companies used Legras blanks i.e. the other way round to the point you have made, but I don't know where I read that to reference it, so that point remains 'anecdotal' for now.
So I suppose it could come back to the point made that it is an unattributed blank yes.
I am not sure if the CW member is a member here unfortunately. It would be nice to have those pictures as a reference along with Margi's undecorated piece.
In addition to which, another CW contributor has commented on this thread
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/59393-harrach?in=442
that the vase the poster has shown ( un- marked apart from a number on the base), is the same shape as a vase which appears on the cover of a Legras book. The contributor goes on to say they have seen that vase marked as Legras and St Denis yet they say, it is documented in Truitts as being by Harrach. ( I have checked Truitts and whilst I can see the definite similarities with the decor I just wanted to note that the vase being referenced in Truitts is not the same shape as the vase the poster has put on for that thread.)
It's a minefield out there >:(
m
-
The CW member is Warren, so yes he is a member here
-
It's a minefield out there >:(
m
The question if Legras supplied blanks to other companies: yes they did, they were the largest glass works in the region and had several departments, the largest being bottles and packaging. I was therefore highly surprised by the claim that Legras imported Harrach glass as it makes no economic sense. Legras had a large customer base, not just in the Paris luxury section but also in perfume, toiletries, mineral water, beer, medical, novelty packaging etc. It seems unlikely that they would need to add external glass to their sales catalogue, as they could cover any demand from their own production either in St.Denis, Aubervilliers or Pantin. They had 1500 glass workers and 150 decorators and were the largest producer in France of fancy glass.
-
Thank you Ivo :)
I have also been curious as to why, given the size of their company, Legras would need to import glass decorated or otherwise, from another enormous glass producer, Harrach. It will be good to hear more information on that.
m
-
I just wanted to add that on the last thread on CW I linked to earlier, the contributor to that thread has added some links (Live Auctioneer links to a few vases, some of which are marked/signed Mont Joye vases). The contributor says those have been 'documented to be harrach with depository pics and record book entries, But also can be found in early legras/MJ/SD catalog pages and marked as such is this styling'.(sic)
I would say speculatively that one theory (of many possibles) if this is true and they are exactly the same vases, could be that this indicates they were made at Harrach then signed subsequently by Legras (Mont Joye) and sold by Legras (Mont Joye). But I am also curious as to the contributors wording '...marked as such is this styling'. Were they exactly the same vases or just similar styling?
However, I also do not know if depository pics and record book entries would be sufficient to substantiate that they were made at Harrach as I don't know what records would be necessary to substantiate that it was their production of vases. If a 'record book entry' is a production log, then presumably that would be substantiation, although I would have thought original line drawings from the factory would be the only documetary proof that vases were made there? I don't know if 'depository pics' are substantiation. Presumably they would be, only if the rules for items going into the depository were that they were only to be items made on the premises. (although I may have misunderstood what the term 'depository' means in relation to glass houses.)
I'm questioning for two reasons 1) Truitt's volume 1 documents some known Stuart peacock eye vases as Harrach and 2) I think I have read somewhere that some vases were mistaken as Richardson's, as they were given as a collection by Richardson's and from Richardson's, but some turned out to be other makers.
I do appreciate that I have very limited knowledge of glass and I am probably not in the best position to be questioning :) and I have never written a book, never mind one on glass, and I can appreciate it must be very difficult :o
m
-
It is very easy to jump to false conclusions especially where big names are concerned. Mont Joye was (is?) a big name in for american collectors of art glass, but is hardly found by that name elsewhere. In France it is referred to as Saint-Denis or Legras, for instance. Wishful attributions should always be treated with care - and it is well known that names appear on pieces which do not belong there. This was a known problem in the states where silly money was paid for the big names.
And then there is the fact that glass works often held a catalogue or even reference collection of the competition - sometimes to check which model could be produced, sometimes to avoid producing the same.
So I say, only go by irrefutable proof, and when there is none, formulate carefully.
-
I would like to correct my comment made above
'I'm questioning for two reasons 1) Truitt's volume 1 documents some known Stuart peacock eye vases as Harrach '...
I was questioning two vases on page 67 of Truitt's that I thought were very similar to Stuart vases but I do not know for sure that they have been incorrectly documented as Harrach in Truitt's. In another thread it has been brought to my attention that my questioning on peacock eye trail vases identification in Truitt's might not have been correct, and in doing so this has highlighted to me my error in the wording I have used :-[ Note to self...choose wording more carefully :-X and I should have put references on if I was going to question this. Apologies.
m
-
Just to add for reference and to explain my previous comment -
the tall Peacock eye trailed vase here on the Style and Design site is identified as Stuart (you need to scroll down to the group shot to see the tall vase) http://www.stylendesign.co.uk/guidepages/estoz1.html
This is appears to me to be the same vase as the vase in Truitt's Bohemian Glass 1880-1940 page 67 top plate, tallest vase, identified as Harrach. Style and Design have stated
" Peacock Trails" (Cairngorm), Arts and Crafts styles by Stuart, from the start of the 20th century. Frequently attributed Harrach. Bohemian glass in this style is thinner and has no polished pontil. (There are reference book errors in this area of collecting)."
However, they do not give a pattern no or reference for their identification that these are Stuart.
m