Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Gary on August 21, 2014, 08:47:28 PM
-
What do other members think of the auctioneer's description of some of the lots as Monart. IMHO lot 253, 257, 259, 260, 261 and 262 are fakes.
I have emailed the auction house voicing my concern on the authenticity of the aforementioned lots.
Gary
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/special-auction-services/catalogue-id-2913709?categoryid=203860&page=2
-
lots of fakes stand out like a sare thumb, only a few correct pieces in the whole collection, probably someones collection who was unlucky enough and under educated at the time and was fooled in buying these as the real thing back in the eighties/nineties
-
Seconded, maybe 249 & 254 too.
-
Some more fakes (IMHO) coming out of the woodwork.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fine-Vintage-Monart-Art-Glass-Green-Black-Bowl-Scottish-Art-Glass-Collectable-/400762016933?pt=UK_Art_Glass&hash=item5d4f4714a5
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fine-Vintage-Monart-Art-Glass-Green-Black-Bowl-Scottish-Art-Glass-Collectable-/400762013737?pt=UK_Art_Glass&hash=item5d4f470829
Gary
-
When you say 'fakes' do mean the designs were actually copied and sold to deceive like the weights
Chris
-
Both are those are too.
Miniatures with labels were made in London for a Perth dealer. These were very nicely made. Fake labels were also added to them. The same dealer then had a lot of Monart look-alikes made by a Scottish maker who knew they were being misrepresented, actually delivered to the shop himself.
http://ysartglass.com/Ysart/Fake%20Ysart%20Glassware.htm
Then there is simple mistaken identity
http://ysartglass.com/Ysart/NotYsart.htm
Also glass by Chic Young (Sold in PP shop), Deacons, Holmes has been misrepresented as Monart.
Some Vasart and Strathearn has been ground and polished c1990 to pass off as Monart. Some glass made in the Ysart style, not so long ago, but with unusual embellishments was sold through a Scottish auction house as a fictitious Vasart Studio range.
Familiarity with the glass of the Ysart family is all that is needed to recognise the fakes and misrepresented glass.
On top of that over the years there have a lot of Monart 'moulds' circulating, several sets of 'Paul Ysart tools' and a fair bit of fake documents, colour book, notepads etc. All of this has been traced back to one dealer, along with the fake PY weights. Rumours of the maker that circulate are mostly unfounded, there were actually several.
-
I quite agree with you Gary - I looked at these and thought rather a large proportion of them were not right!
Lot 249 looked a bit Perthshire paperweights to me though not sure - would be interesting to see a base shot of this.
I thought 254 looked ok - Frank (or anyone else)- please could you share your reasons why this looks wrong to you?
The ebay ones mention came from Taylors auctions and were not sold as Monart - I had a look at the photos of them - they are just so wrong for Monart but did wonder if they were the ones made for the tourist trade by PP rather then "fakes" as such.
Roberta
-
254 just looks not right to me.
-
Ok, thanks for that Frank!
Roberta
-
none of theses were ever made by Perthshire paperweights and don't resemble any PP pieces/work that I have ever seen and ive seen and owned well over a hundred different PP vases/bowls and lamps , infact I would say that most of PP glass ware is as good and in a lot of cases better than some Ysart glass, defo better than a lot of Vasart and Strathearn ,
-
Thank you Frank a lot clearer now.
-
amazing all the experts have disappeared ::)
-
I'm still here ? lol
-
;D lol so u r chris lol
-
me 2 but who are the experts?
-
Please tell us who the experts are and on what subject they are experts on.
Gary
-
ah maybe I should have made myself clearer, il try again
[Mod: For simplicity, earlier and much shorter post removed as now replaced with the following text]
all the monart experts used to be plenty , also is that a hint of sarcasm?, I hope you really didn't think I was meaning you hahahahaha , do I have to explain myself to any of you guys no I think not , if you don't like what I write then don't reply , also best way to know whats a fake /copy or just another piece is to see and handle it , theres a fine line between fakes and in the style of , oh wait now experts eh id say Frank and Nigel for sure , but we have had Franks thoughts, im sure Nigel will be along at some point to add his thoughts and im sure there are others and it would be nice for their thoughts on these pieces , like I said if you don't like what I write then don't reply , fakes/copies or just in the style of actually fascinates me in Ysart glass, something I was very interested in since being in a house in the Perthshire area around 14 years ago and was lucky or unlucky enough to have seen a vast quantity of them, but these ones were fakes and to be or should I say were being sold as Monart , they even came with there own little fake labels that were on poor quality paper , some of the pieces I seen were spot on for shape and size just the colourways that let them down oh and the poor labels which the print would disappear when rubbed as mentioned on the ysart glass site, pieces included a few so called apprentice mushroom lamps with the worst attempt at a brass cast fitting, the fitting was cut out of a piece of flat brass plate the soldering etc was terrible and the glass shades were kept in place with blue tac , the applied feet on them were dark dark purple almost black and were not surface decorated like the reals ones, I was actually shown several boxes of glass which were packed for going to fairs etc with, there was a few real nice genuine pieces but a lot more naughty ones , I was offered to purchase any of the pieces but decided that I wouldn't bother not even the nice real pieces as I didn't want to line this bad persons pockets nor become his next victim, I also heard of the elderly couple who spent a large amount of their retirement funds buying pieces of monart most which turned out to be these fakes , how very very sad , . as for the ones in this auction then yes these are probably from that era, the ones on ebay well im not too sure as they certainly aren't in the same league as they do not really resemble any proper monart bowls I know of so I would say these were later pieces in the style of more than fakes , as surely the maker could see they did not in any way resemble the real thing , so il say it again where has all the experts gone as I would love to hear others thoughts on this subject , oh and remember look before you leap
-
I know this may sound 'naive' Gary and I am talking more about the fake paperweights purely because I know very little about the vases and lamps. Am I right in presuming probably only a 2 or 3 people would have had the skill and resources to make the fake PY weights? Seen lot's of comments like these over the years.
" One batch of miniature Monart vases with faked labels were probably made in London by a now respected glass artist, during the 1980's."
"I presume the mastermind was never caught, but is known to some."
"Still selling, still getting garbage made and selling as Monart, Vasart... probably involved in 100% of all Scottish fakes."
"I don't suppose there is a way of surgically extracting it to leave you with simply a very well executed weight, not pretending to be something else......
So; does anybody know who the highly skilled lampworker was? ::)
"There's no doubt that everyone who is an expert on paperweights, especially paperweights from Scotland, has mentioned the name of the fake Ysart maker in private. There are only a handful of paperweight makers who could have made these weights. The name is certainly well-known to you and to all of us. "
"I was teasing a bit - I'm well aware who he is!"
Seems everyone North of the border and a few South too know lol
-
I have seen several of these weights with the fake PY cane , and they are brilliant weights just the PY cane to me is the give away as I have no clue about weights , even though these weights were making good money even when known to be fake, I presume folk adding them to their collection so they could have an example of them , I wouldn't like to try and think who could have made them though ::)
-
Presumably, naming someone publicly in this context could easily result in legal action.
-
I would have thought so ,
-
Only if it's not true ;)
-
Presumably, naming someone publicly in this context could easily result in legal action.
Yes, we must always take great care in such matters.
And, in any case of alleged fraud / faking etc., even if somebody has apparent documentary proof of any allegation, it is best for the purposes of this Board that such details should not be posted. This is especially true for alleged actions that have not been proven one way or another by such as a court of law.
-
best not , safest and easiest way I would say 8)
-
hi,
Can I just ask the experts to educate me a bit more - regarding lot 262 - the vase, is it a "fake" or is it actually Vasart / Strathearn. I have one the same shape and size (white / orange / silver mica) - I thought it was later Vasart or Strathearn but have never been entirely convinced.
Is the bowl okay or also wrong?
also, would anyone like to comment on this?
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/amersham-auction-rooms/catalogue-id-2908013/lot-23548950
looks wrong, but I have a piece I was convinced was Monart which has almost identical colouring
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?album=1011&pos=13
which I am now worried about!! (applied foot, surface colour, ground pontil scar)
Many thanks,
Roberta
-
I just realised that the auction piece I linked to looks a similar shape to the Vasart beer glass (but larger) - could it be Vasart? Have asked the auction house for a base image.
Roberta
-
not too sure on the small vase , colour looks suspect though shape is defo similar if not the same as vasart used, though the bowl looks spot on with the applied foot being surface decorated , so if I was to guess as I am not an expert either ::) id say bowls monart but vase could be Vasart , as for the other piece it doesn't look right either for Monart or Vasart so id say its no to it being any kind of Ysart glass, the problem with some of the early fakes well the ones ive seen was that the shapes were good but colours not quite right ,
-
The auction one has a very thick outer casing and that is not typical of Ysart, but is of Strathearn where the casing was thickened to allow the seal to be used. But the second link is a tapered green vase? I have always felt that the copying of a makers works is a compliment. Most of those who learned the Ysart techniques and made glass in the style also added their own twists. Herbert Dreier certainly made some amazing pieces, Peter Holmes style being mostly in the Ysart techniques with his own decoration ideas, his tend to be quite heavy too. Chic Youngś are interesting as he learned from Paul rather than the others in the family. His palette is very different but is closer in quality to Monart. Most of the others rarely made glassware. Hand shaped glass will always carry the fingerprint of the individual who made it but to understand that you need to study the techniques to get a grip on recognising these.
Fakes are deliberately made to be sold as someones work and represent a fairly small group, Much being misrepresenting by sellers and this is where Ysart was well served by a single seller who saw the whole thing as a game. The misrepresentation and alteration of Strathearn pieces started at the same time that an collecting interest emerged at a time when the price premium was very small.
As to the makers, if they came forwards it would not really hurt them and it would at least give a focus to collecting of their pieces. Most people who think they know have got it wrong.
-
Thanks, so we think the orange bowl in lot 262 is monart, the vase is suspect.
The orange vase (Amersham auctions) could possibly be Strathearn (or by someone else?), definitely not Monart / Vasart.
Not sure what went wrong with the link to my piece which I now suspect is not right as it has similarities to the above piece (shape WF) so will show it here:
Many thanks,
Roberta
-
is the foot surface or encased in clear
-
A bit of anecdotal "info".
In Edinburgh's Chamber Street Museum there are at least 2 Monart fakes which, (when on display) are labelled Monart.
They're probably not on display any more. I have told them. I don't think they've done anything about it.
-
The colour is just on the surface of the applied foot - picture if any help.
The foot has always looked right to me for Monart, but it is just seeing the "wrong" auction vaseone with more or less identical colours that got me thinking!
Roberta
-
dunno what to make of your vase, something says its not right , but hey what do I know, though I have seen a few in this exact colourway and they've all left me thinking theres something just not right
-
Hi,
I know what you mean - It does sit nicely with my Monart stuff in similar colours though - so I'm still not entirely sure on it ;)
Anyway, thought I'd just add picture of my "dodgy or not" Vasart / Strathearn or someone else entirely little vase, and my definitely Perthshire most likely Chic Young vase!
thanks for all your input,
Roberta
-
your small vase is spot on vasart, and I was under bidder on the chic young
-
Thanks - I thought it was Vasart when I bought it but the colours always looked too bright with my other Vasart orange stuff :D
I love the P.P. Chic Young piece - it's so Monart style but also very different at the same time! I did pay slightly more than intended but knew I would be driving over that way so could collect it. (that particular auction house badly packed my Monart vase and it got smashed into pieces :'(- not insured - all they would do was knock off the buyers commission on the PP piece)
Roberta
-
lol I should have went more on it but needed it delivered , glad I didn't now if they don't pack properly
-
I think that I've only ever seen polished concave pontils on Monart when it's a bowl that necessitates it's use - ie. If an applied disk would show through.
These orange pieces are commonly thought to be Czech from the same pre-war Monart era. Certainly not Monart.
Nigel
-
Thanks for the input Nigel, It's all part of the learning curve ;D
luckily I didn't pay too much for it and it wasn't sold as a Monart piece!
Roberta
-
Always bear in mind the colours used in Monart were used throughout the world. Vasart colours were more homegrown.
-
Thanks all - I have another piece I am now dubious about ;D
Will post in the ID section - could it be Czech ?? Any comments appreciated :D
Roberta
-
I think that I've only ever seen polished concave pontils on Monart when it's a bowl that necessitates it's use - ie. If an applied disk would show through.
These orange pieces are commonly thought to be Czech from the same pre-war Monart era. Certainly not Monart.
Nigel
I have a Monart MF and OE shape vases with polished concave pontils. Though it is mainly as you said Nigel in bowls where that type of pontil finish was used.
Gary
-
That's interesting Gary, thanks. What sort of decoration do they have, toward opaque or clear??
Nigel
-
the only ones I own with concave pontils are some bowls and pre war and post war lamps with applied foot,
-
I have a couple on applied feet on bowls, one on a bowl where the "foot" is blown as part of the bowl, did own an OE shape vase with one too but in the main they don't tend to be very neatly done!
Anyone care to comment on my other vase:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,57683.0.html
Roberta
-
That's interesting Gary, thanks. What sort of decoration do they have, toward opaque or clear??
Nigel
The MF is colour code 396 so the base is green the OE vase very lightly applied dull yellow and clear glass.
Gary
-
Thanks Gary, but does that mean in each case the pontil would be easily visible though the base or not?
Cheers, Nigel
-
The OE the pontil mark is visable looking from the top of the vase where as the MF is not visable looking from the top, the MF has a label on the base.
Gary
-
Hmm, so my pet theory of it being used on bowls (and with your vases, now vases as well) in order to make the pontil less intrusive into the pattern is getting shot, darn it ??? Of course this assumes the removal of the label by the owner once the item is washed/taken home from the shop, etc. ;)
Nigel
-
Took me five weeks to decide to remove label from the front of my toilet bowl. Decided in the end it would probably not become collectible.
-
Excellent Frank ;D
-
I decided to keep the label on my loo cistern.
It reads;
M passed 007
it is FAR too funny to remove!
-
;D
Mine was crap
-
;)
Literally or figuratively?
If it had been literal, I suppose you'd have kept it, though.
-
Hmm, so my pet theory of it being used on bowls (and with your vases, now vases as well) in order to make the pontil less intrusive into the pattern is getting shot, darn it ??? Of course this assumes the removal of the label by the owner once the item is washed/taken home from the shop, etc. ;)
Nigel
Below are part of a correspondence between Betty Reid and Paul Hollistor. This materail is from the Monart archives in Perth museum.
Gary
-
For those who may not know (and assuming I have got it right), Paul Hollister (Jr.) is well known in paperweight circles for his 1969 book "The Encylcopedia of Glass Paperweights".
But more importantly, he was a leading light (at least, in the USA) in the field of studio glass, having written many articles from the 70s thru 90s. See: http://www.bgc.bard.edu/news/events/-91.html
-
so nigel was correct then regarding concave pontils , also there are examples of monart with the four marked pontil, I have one somewhere and I know keith has some also , or is this a different thing their on about
-
I never doubted for second that he was right 8)
-
I never doubted for second that he was right 8)
lol
-
My goodness, thanks very much for sharing those letters with us Gary :) How very gratifying, my feelings have been chuffed ;) :)
Cheers, Nigel
-
For those who may not know (and assuming I have got it right), Paul Hollister (Jr.) is well known in paperweight circles for his 1969 book "The Encylcopedia of Glass Paperweights".
But more importantly, he was a leading light (at least, in the USA) in the field of studio glass, having written many articles from the 70s thru 90s. See: http://www.bgc.bard.edu/news/events/-91.html
Your assumption are right it is one and the same person, though I did misspell his name.
For those people who don't know who Betty Reid was. Betty worked all her working life at Moncrieff glassworks and single handed saved so much Monart archive materail from getting put in the skip when Monart finished production in 1961, which is now in Perth museum.
so nigel was correct then regarding concave pontils , also there are examples of monart with the four marked pontil, I have one somewhere and I know keith has some also , or is this a different thing their on about
I believe though not certain, that the four marked pontil was used on the applied foot of Monart pieces.
My goodness, thanks very much for sharing those letters with us Gary :) How very gratifying, my feelings have been chuffed ;) :)
Cheers, Nigel
Glad to be of some assistance.
Gary
-
The 4 mark was from the use of a gadget. More often found on Strathearn I doubt any of the Ysart's used it at Moncrieff. Hollister could well have had Strathearn pieces without knowing it, probably a list of his collection in Rakow or sale auction could potentially verify that.
See type 5 http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/IDguide1.htm
and http://www.ysartglass.com/Vascat/VasStrVS001.htm
On the letters, who was the person in reply 1 which is not shown on the pic?
For Betty Reid see http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20:betty-reid-dispatch-clerk-john-moncrieff-ltd&catid=15:scottish-glass-people&Itemid=16
-
im sure Keith will be able to put his hands on his monart with the four pronged pontil mark as his is mostly all on display and not packed away, I have seen a few pieces of monart with the four mark pontil over the years
-
The 4 mark was from the use of a gadget. More often found on Strathearn I doubt any of the Ysart's used it at Moncrieff. Hollister could well have had Strathearn pieces without knowing it, probably a list of his collection in Rakow or sale auction could potentially verify that.
Page 20 and 21 of YSART GLASS book mentions the use of a 4 pronged punty iron (by Paul Ysart) on applied footed pieces and on bowls.
Gary
-
exactly Gary , theres been conversations years back regarding this and im sure your were involved aswell Frank
-
I have this 4 prong mark on an O shape size VII bowl with an applied foot.
Roberta
-
The two Gary's beat me to it, and in fact used the perfect example - always used on shape 'O' bowls :)
Nigel
-
Grey matter issue :D Sorry was thinking of the gadget which grips at the edges as opposed to a fixed prong punty iron.
Meanwhile my less controversial question not answered "On the letters, who was the person in reply 1 which is not shown on the pic?"
-
The person in question is Frank Stewart, one of the jobs he did at Moncrieff's was the majority of the grinding on Monart pieces.
Gary
-
the four pronged pontil is not just on footed pieces I have seen it and owned a few pieces with the four pronged pontil, heres one of keiths examples
-
Well the auctioneer did not change any of the titles and a significant amount of the "Monart" remained unsold as they failed to reach their reserves, 2 of the Monart bowls did not sell - again failed to reach reserves, though the ginger jar went for £200 ??? ??? and some of the Vasart sold.
-
Not to surprised that the majority of the pieces did not sell, most Monart collectors would not have been fooled by the auctioneers description of the pieces as Monart.
Gary