Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: brucebanner on February 16, 2016, 09:04:07 PM
-
A big lump of glass, looks very Auguste Jean on the feet and rim.
Any thought's welcome.
9 inches in height and 7 1/2 inches in width with a polished pontil.
Regards Chris.
-
It reminds me of a vase I own, in colour, aquatic theme and ugly-beautiful execution - I assumed Harrach when I bought it, but never really found time to follow up on it.
-
Yep I'd say both were probably Harrach!
-
I would not entirely dismiss August Jean on Pinkspoons vase. I was taken by the very similar design of the foot of my signed AJ vase & Pinkspoons.
-
I would lean to those both being not Auguste Jean. Auguste Jean wouldn't be my first thought - partly because of the colour, secondly because his (to my eye) appear to be a more 'controlled' in their randomness, thirdly because they are not marked, and also I've not seen one with that ribbing and rigaree around the neck.
This one is like Nic's - sold as Auguste Jean but no reference to pastille imprinted mark or signature that I could see
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auguste-Jean-Monumental-Art-Glass-Vase-Circa-1890-/181726137158?nma=true&si=RVGyBjdgiEAteyXhgZA2JqUwFVA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
I would search elsewhere first. Probably Harrach as a first search as Mike says.
m
-
I've personally handled a properly signed AJ at a show last year in pinkspoons color. BWDIK
-
ok, well scrub what I said then :)
m
-
At the risk of 'hijacking' the thread, I recently had a bimble about the internet and found at least three signed A.J. vases that bear some resemblance to mine, for different reasons. But I have absolutely no idea to what degree of verisimilitude Harrach imitated this style of vase. It's far outside of my usual comfort zone.
These two have remarkably similar 'fishy' feet:
musée d'Orsay #1 (http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/resultat-collection.html?no_cache=1&zoom=1&tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bzoom%5D=0&tx_damzoom_pi1%5BxmlId%5D=143525&tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bback%5D=en%2Fcollections%2Findex-of-works%2Fresultat-collection.html%3Fno_cache%3D1%26zsz%3D9)
musée d'Orsay #2 (http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/notice.html?no_cache=1&zoom=1&tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bzoom%5D=0&tx_damzoom_pi1%5BxmlId%5D=143523&tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bback%5D=%2Fen%2Fcollections%2Findex-of-works%2Fnotice.html%3Fno_cache%3D1%26nnumid%3D143523%26cHash%3Df953101f1b)
And this for the smoky topaz colour and overall form:
Live Auctioneers' auction (https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/25553073_an-auguste-jean-enameled-glass-vase-height-7-inches)
-
Love the vases in the link.
-
This is not my subject area, but could Auguste Jean have been a master decorator and frequently may have used excellent Harrach blanks? This would explain the glass issues, those with elaborate painted decor with Auguste Jean signatures seem to be the best decorated examples. This habit of enamellers and engravers using excellent outsourced blanks continues today,
Robert (bOBA)
-
As far as I researched no. He created his own pieces as far as I know from what I have read. And some do not have enamelling on them.
And from what I have seen in museums in France.
'Both in it's classical form and in its novel plasticity, which Jean effected with pincers while the metal was hot, the piece anticipates it's creator's future works'. Source - The Art of French Glass, Janine Bloch-Dermant page 27
I have observed one difference between his signed pieces and the Harrach pieces, (apart from the instinctive 'it just doesn't look right' ). I'm not ready to divulge that but it is something I am observing when I see pieces that come up for sale that are not signed v those that are.
All I can say is that I would not buy an Auguste Jean vase unless it either was signed or had the glass pastille mark on it.
But that is me.
However, to counterbalance that I have read in one source that 'Usually they are signed' - and also seen a piece in another French book that is apparently identified in that book as an Auguste Jean piece but is unsigned. However in the case of the latter book, there are numerous inaccuracies in identifications throughout the book which rather means that it puts doubt on other pieces in the book especially if there is no signature or definitive provenance.
None of which is conclusive evidence that Auguste Jean created unsigned pieces.
And none of which is conclusive evidence yet, that means he didn't.
I'm just not willing to take the chance when large sums of money are involved, and what you really want is an Auguste Jean vase not a Harrach/other maker vase.
Funnily enough, even taking into account that all his vases were individual, whenever one comes up that isn't signed, it never seems possible to exactly match an element of the unsigned piece to an element of any of those around that are signed. Or at least I haven't been able to so far, and no one else seems to have been able to do so from what I have read so far. That's not to say this is conclusive evidence that .... (see comments above).
I do think it might be possible in future to accurately identify those that are Auguste Jean (if there are any unsigned) and those that are not. There are elements that differ to the eye. And it might be possible to test the glass of each and see if there are differences in the make up of the glass itself between those made by him (or at least in France) and those made in Bohemia.
Obviously happy to eat my hat if my surmising all turns out to be incorrect - which is eminently possible.
m
-
And if you read 'From Neuwelt to the Whole World' Jan Mergl, page 248. you will see that Harrach were open about 'emulating' Auguste Jean's designs.
They held one of Auguste Jean's vases (which is still in the museum) and in the book it says it was used as 'the direct template'.
Indeed the caption to one of their catalogue pattern drawings has a description ' Vases prod.nos .... copying designs by Auguste Jean (AH 162)'
Nick, I'd be interested to see a base shot of the whole base of your vase please if you have time.
Thanks :)
m
-
Thanks M, that is very interesting and instructive.
"All I can say is that I would not buy an Auguste Jean vase unless it either was signed or had the glass pastille mark on it."
Neither would I!
In short, also, for me, the Harrach evidence you cite proves that most unsigned vases that closely resemble August Jean, are usually Harrach.
As far as I understand, access to the Harrach pattern books is extremely limited, so until such time that the many thousands of pages are published, this whole subject will necessarily remain slightly unclear.
Thanks again for the additional information,
Robert (bOBA)
-
yes, access to the Harrach pattern books that still exist would be wonderful.
I have been lucky enough to have one of my pieces (bought because it needed rescuing and gut feel it was a Harrach piece), positively id'd by a matching pattern book drawing sent from Harrach to me.
It was wonderful and weird to see such an old piece drawn and looking exactly like mine.
I can highly recommend 'From Neuwelt to the Whole World' by the way. As with many of my most used books,my copy is now falling to pieces as I've dropped it so many times and used it so much. But it has a fairly good spread of designs/years in there and is a lovely book. Big book, and very informative.
m
-
I bought my vase solely because it's wonderfully ugly/pretty, with the only vaguest recollection of similar Harrach pieces. I paid nothing like Auguste Jean money for it. In fact, I probably didn't pay Harrach money for it either.
Here are the base shots - large polished pontil mark to the main body, polished bases with bevelled edges to the fishy-feet:
-
In a discussion with a French art glass collector three years ago, I was under the distinct impression that he was a decorator/artist & he had his glass made in the Choisy-le-Roi area. The irridescent finish on some of his work is taken from his father. a ceramicist, who actually had a French patent of sorts on this treatment in ceramics which Jean transferred to glass. This particular collector had a pedigree a mile long when it came to french art glass so I certainly took in every word whatever its worth.
I remember his opinion of unsigned pieces which exhibited examples of his artwork....after all Jean's glass pieces drew attention for the first time at the Universal Exhibition in Paris in 1878 where he was awarded a bronze medal. He felt as an artist perhaps Jean might not be satisfied if his artwork on a piece wasn't up to his standards so he did not sign all his work, but admitted that was just his feeling that he said was shared by others in his field. He did add that about 1/2 of the existing on line info for Jean was inaccurate & speculation. Thats all I can offer & I spent some time looking into Jean after I found my piece.
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bZsuJ90UAtIC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=auguste+jean+vase+signe&source=bl&ots=XqZLSqddKr&sig=4O3_3EoAib9M3UJvEbaUvaj3Swc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP5ZjTt7fLAhWEdpoKHRXECKY4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=auguste%20jean%20vase%20signe&f=false
see page 12.
He was a decorator of ceramics and glass (enameller and gilder).
Nothing I have read (and the above source is not the only one I have read on this subject) so far indicates that he did not make his own glass. Everything I have read indicates he did.
But then perhaps it is hearsay presented in language in such a way as to be read by the reader that he made his own creations.
That is also possible, as for example I know there is a 'fact' presented far and wide about the name of a French enameller that is incorrect.
If that information about him possibly not signing because the work was not up to scratch is true, then what about those designs that are not enamelled? where does that leave them? That he didn't feel the applied glass was quite up to scratch, so didn't sign those either? I'm not sure that sits well. And Harrach have said openly that they held and still hold one of his vases and made copies of it (in fact two shapes are shown in the book).
And how does that explain those pieces that have an applied glass pastille on with his name imprinted on them? Were the designs his but blown/made by someone else? and so they imprinted his name on the pastille? That is possible of course.
So then the enamelled ones were made by someone else and then decorated by him and signed in enamel? Also possible.
But then the ones that he didn't think were well enamelled he left unsigned? I don't buy that to be honest - there are too many of them around. But that is just my opinion and always open to correction.
Nic, thanks for the photos. Lovely.
m
-
My opinion only...the signature is a joke. I mean seriously have you ever studied it? I've seen three & while they all matched up...talk about a signature that any semi-skilled/competent artistic individual could duplicate well enough it would pass 99% of all observations...that AJean is it. I am just happy mine has the Japanese garden scene he was known to do.
-
Is the signature in enamels and then fired onto the glass Ken?
If so then it might be difficult for additions to be made to existing glass pieces and passed off as his , as they would not have been fired.
I'm not aware of a fakery of his signature carried out in the contemporary period to his glass being made.
Is there evidence to suggest there has been more recent fakery of his signature on pieces that might have not been by him?
I think more than one id factor comes into play when identifying a piece by an artist. Just taking one identifying factor and saying it is by a particular artist isn't probably a robust way of giving a definite id. The only exception to this rule I can think of at the moment is with something like for example a particularly well done piece of Alexandrite Glass, showing all the colours well, by Thomas Webb who were the only maker to make that particular glass.
m
-
I think more than one id factor comes into play when identifying a piece by an artist.
Absolutely, the whole has to be considered as well as the original context of an item. I remember a disagreement discussed on this board that an item could not be from Murano because it had an unpolished base - as far as I am concerned that argument was woefully short sighted and it was directly contradicted by all the other evidence presented.
There is a tendency for us to want things to be simple and easily pigeon holed, as seductive as that is life does not often work out like that...
John
-
M my commentary was simply meant to be an observation that in an age where we are constantly on the lookout for fake acid stamps & dremmeled signatures the AJean signature is so simplistic that its a bit of a wonder it hasn't evidently be targeted. I assume all three signatures I've handled were fired, however I am not goung to "test" mine to find out one way or another.