Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: WhatHo! on September 25, 2010, 07:17:00 AM
-
What Ho! Look at this bunch of Master Fakers, they make the bricklayer fakers look like saints!!!! I really don't like this, if they have to make these exact copies they should at least mark the bases with a date or something. :-\
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=http://www.lesnisklo.cz/&ei=tqCdTMLNGoqQjAeOg5m8DQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLESNI%2BSKLO%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1424%26bih%3D729
-
i strongly object to the term "fakers". These are replica of ancient Waldglas models, they require extensive glassmaking skills, have valid outlets in museum shops and nobody is trying to sell anything that it isn't.
-
i strongly object to the term "fakers". These are replica of ancient Waldglas models, they require extensive glassmaking skills, have valid outlets in museum shops and nobody is trying to sell anything that it isn't.
Well I don't agree with Ivo. You may strongly object to the word "fakers" but I strongly object to "Fakers", however extensive their glassmaking skills are. They may have valid outlets etc but what happens to them after they leave these places? If they are unmarked they can be resold to the unwary as genuine, Im afraid that human nature for you. I have been dealing with Whitefriars fakes for ages, you get this same argument with them and it doesn't hold any substance with me, I'm afraid.
-
NOBODY would mistake this for 17th century Waldglas.
-
Nobody would mistake this for 17th century Waldglas with your level of knowledge I agree but there are a lot of others, like me who wouldn't have a clue that it is not original or in fact what it is at all.
-
HI , I am afraid i have to agree with Ivo ,
if any of these replicas were later offered as the real thing ,at a 'Real' thing price which would be very high indeed they would only attract buyers with the knowledge to know the difference ,and once seen in the hand it would be imediately obvious that it was a repro,and i must say that if any buyer does not have the personal knowledge to appraise what they are buying then they should take advice from someone who does ,
And for even more wonderfull replicas including engraved glass , look here ,
http://www.bohemian-glassworks.com/gallery/historic.html,
very expensive pieces in thier own right but would still not fool an experienced buyer of ancient glass once seen in the hand .
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
Just to say, I am with Ivo. Thank yoz for link, Peter
Jindrich
www.webareal.cz/ceskoslovenskesklo
-
I've split this off from the original ID query, as it's a separate discussion.
-
It's not the manufacturers where the problem lies; it's the secondary market sellers. I suppose the Whitefriars' items, such as Harry Powell's copy of the Anglo Saxon claw beaker, as just one example of his reproductions, is OK...
Reproduction goes on in all industries and has for 100s of years and many of them are unmarked. It's only when an item is sold with intent to deceive that there is a problem.
-
I understand what WhatHo is saying. While it may be easy to distinguish the old Waldglas from the newer reproductions, some reproductions can be almost impossible to distinguish from the originals unless someone is highly skilled. In Venetian glass, it has some unintended consequences. Because they are unsure, people tend to be shy of the old pieces. The old pieces don't sell as quickly and the values are generally lower. Signatures on the new pieces would be nice.
-
I see no logical reason to argue that a reproduction of an old piece should not be marked by the current day manufacturer..... It is a reproduction, and as such will not be value diminished by clearly marking it underfoot.
Not doing so dilutes the market for the original pieces, and does a disservice to the less knowledgeable collector, allowing unscrupulous dealers to take advantage of their lack of expertise. Understanding that the issue at that point is the unscrupulous dealer, I believe the manufacturers are contributing to the issue by producing an unmarked reproduction that can be misrepresented.
If I as a manufacturer have a reasonable suspicion or knowledge that my product may be used to deceive, and I do nothing to prevent it, then I share a portion of the blame due to my inaction. If I am proud of my reproductions, I should not have a problem "branding" them with my mark.
In the law, if it were a crime we were talking about, the term would be contributory negligence.... Simply taking the position that they can not control what sellers do later, is not a viable position. Especially in light of the fact that a simple mark underfoot could help to reduce the problem substantially.
Ebay tried that position (we can't control what sellers do) with Vitton, Tiffany and others, and it cost them tens of millions of dollars.... they were found to be contributing to the problem through inaction. I do not really see much of a difference......
Craig
-
Wolfie, similar here I picked up recently, really thought it was something special till I asked on here. It fooled me but then I've always been easily led :-[
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/107067405711297858658/CZECHTRAILEDARTGLASSVASEKRALOVICE#
p.s sold it for peanuts :cry:
Chris
-
I see no logical reason to argue that a reproduction of an old piece should not be marked by the current day manufacturer..... It is a reproduction, and as such will not be value diminished by clearly marking it underfoot. l
Neither do I. I don't think anyone was arguing that they shouldn't. It was producing repros in the first place that was being disputed. It would be nice if all glass was marked, but many companies obviously feel that at the original point of sale a label is enough. They don't see to the secondary market, and why should they in truth.
-
I have no issue with the manufacture of quality reproductions whatsoever. I also do not consider them to be "fakes". In many instances it is the only way the average collector could ever have an example of some pieces in their collection.
Although I know most manufacturers feel a label is enough, IMHO as the producer of a quality reproduction, I believe they owe additional due diligence to look to the secondary market, and the impact their product may have on it.... If they are reproducing items with no significant value, then I see no need for them to be concerned. If on the other hand, they are reproducing accurate facsimiles of highly regarded and valued collectibles, I think it is a responsibility that goes hand in hand with the items they have chose to reproduce. I think that for them to ignore the secondary market is, in a way, irresponsible. Especially in the world market today...
Maybe I am an unrealistic idealist, but I think it is an additional burden and responsibility they should assume when choosing to manufacture that type of product.
Craig
-
The marking is the question, acid mark or engraved mark should destroy the desired visual impact of replica. So I suppose that pieces are labeled only.
It is easy to wash it out.
I do not believe that exist in this world a man who would trust that so perfect new piece came from middle age and he is so lucky to het it so cheap.
This type of glass is really very popular here and I never seen that it was offered like a original - always it is declared it is replica.
Jindrich
www.webareal.cz/ceskoslovenskesklo