Topic: The New Mdina Glass Book

[Vitreo94]

I suspect most of you have either ordered, recieved and (like me) scoured each page of this book throughly by now and I would like some opinion on it.

There is some very welcome information contained within it and some new to me.

One of my main concerns, or perhaps not dependant on what you good people tell me, about some inaccuracies within the book. Namely the attribution of certain dates to pieces. Within the book I've encountered, not many, but enough attributions to warrent slight concern. Mostly around pieces being attributed later than they ought to be and some earlier! Harris era being made out to be later, usually with the attribution 'mid to late 70's' or words to that effect and a piece being given a date of 1969 which is ludicrously early for it. Just a side note I'm not talking about Harris era designs that have been carried on after his departure but actual pieces pictured within the book.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that it has a few errors that will sadly misinform readers and not represent the years as accurately as they deserve.

Any comments would be well recieved as I also would like to know what people think of it overall also.

Cheers.

[Patrick]

Hi,

I have the book and find the hitherto unpublished information fascinating to read......
The printing and quality of the book is superb.
It would be helpful to know what images you refer to regarding the dating issues, such as page number etc.

Cheers,

Patrick.

[Vitreo94]

I find the printing excellent and the plethora of new information a very good read.

The dates bother me however even if the images are superbly done.

Page 74 the textured bark vase also described as Ming?! Is in the Dobson years and dated to the mid 70’s as post Harris when I own one with his Mdina script on the base and seen plenty of others. Clearly dated incorrectly.

Page 44 referring to brown mound blown base, I’ve seen plenty with later Mdina labels identical
to this but is given a 1969 date. Equally on the same page the side stripe lollipop doesn’t seem to fit a 1971 date attributed to it.

Page 78 the stoppered bottle shown I have 2 in blue and one in amethyst all with polished pontils and small buttoney tops. Certainly not late 70’s as it’s labelled.

Page 96 the fish vase to the left is in no way circa 1973 it’s much later than that. The one to the right is much more accurately dated. I can’t seem to find the page where a similarly shaped fish vase in amethyst to the one on the right is described as a 90’s piece, totally wrong.

Page 106 the vase described as marble fish vase indroduced supposedly late 80’s when I’ve had examples dated 1979 and early 80’s.

To name the most obvious offenders that I can flick through and recall. It’s a good read for background info, the pieces don’t appear to be properly researched in some cases.

 The labels page misses out the most early labels of all; the Small Blue rounded edge labels found on very early pieces and doesn’t accurately describe its successor of the same size and shape but far cheaper black and white equivalent. Both Harris era and early.

I do like the book don’t get me wrong, it’s been 12 years since the last and only other. As a Harris era collector and Mdina dealer of 12 years it disappoints me that the Said era seems flawless and the eras before that rushed and not researched enough as they deserve to be.

Just my opinion but the dates are way off in some cases and it’s saddening when a book costs about £70 including shipping to be wrong and not polished enough as Mark’s.

[chopin-liszt]

Marble wasn't around in '79. Marble is the later execution of Tiger, which was a Dobson design. I suspect it came about as a reworking of the strapped colours used first in ice-cut lollipops, then in the unflattened version of the cubes, but to my knowledge Tiger (and so obviously marble) is post Harris.
I've not seen the book yet. Copies arrived but are having to be sent back as they were very badly damaged.

[Vitreo94]

It’s the exact same vase shown that I’ve had dated 1979, but it’s claimed it wasn’t around until the late 80’s. Perhaps better to address when you’ve got a better copy of the book to see it!

Tiger is described in the book as what I would have once called Rosenthal. This is Harris era and perhaps a year after according to some catalogue photos within the book. What I would have once called Tiger is described as Marble and is post Harris. Though apparently was in experimental stages/ production during the Harris era supposedly, still doesn’t sound right to me.

I’ve heard many complaints about damaged books, ours were packed okay, but we bought 3 so had extra padding. It seems if only one or two were bought they were given a single layer of cardboard. Again not good for £70 per book.

[chopin-liszt]

I suspect I may not agree with much of what is written. I just want to know what it is that is being put about. 
A book is not a proper, academic peer-reviewed exercise. The author is free to write whatever they choose.
It is up to the reader to decide whether or not to trust the author.

Rosenthal is a bubbly yellow background with teal ribbon strapping marvered in. No browns.
Tiger has the rich deep browns and deep buttercup yellow bits, the pieces are thick glass and the colours penetrate deeply into it.
Marble has a darker and much duller brown with flat creamy white bubbly bits. The decor is mostly confined to the surface. It's hard to describe in words, obvious to see in reality.

[Patrick]

Are we sure that the colours/descriptions used by collectors are the same as those used in the Mdina factory............

Not sure if this image from the Austin USA distributors is relevant.

[chopin-liszt]

It's the names appear to be the trouble, Patrick.
Your image clearly shows Tiger.
Some of the colours in large bits of Tiger can be a little thinner than in other bits, because of expansion when blowing, and the yellow can go a little creamy, but it's still completely different to Marble.

[Vitreo94]

I agree with both your descriptions of the mentioned Rosenthal, Tiger and Marble. To me this is how they should be described or at least amongst collectors and dealers in any case.

However, the book calls Rosenthal Tiger and addresses it by stating there is mass confusion by collectors about the actual name for the range. Whilst the pieces were indeed intended for and produced for Rosenthal the actual name of the design is Tiger.

The pattern we refer to as Tiger is referred to in the book as Marble and addresses the differences in colourway as early and later pieces of Marble. I believe I remember someone asking about an early rimmed bowl in this colourway and an ex-Mdina glssblower responded and  also referred to them as they do in the book and not as we do.

It would appear that Mdina glass refer to them differently which is very confusing.

That’s another issue I had on top of the one about the dating of items.

I understand what you’re saying about it being a book and it’s not peer reviewed etc. But for the book to be produced by the company it’s actually about and indeed it being for the 50 year anniversary talking of legacy. It’s unacceptable to me that they can get things so wrong. It’s a good source of info on a number of things I’ll admit, but you’d think they’d make sure it was accurate.

It just seems the vast majority of attention (to be expected I suppose) is on the Said years and only by the contributions of Eric and Peggy Dobson does the book have some attention to the earlier years or the very least the section of the book titled The Dobson years.

[chopin-liszt]

Patrick's catalogue image shows Tiger, clearly labelled as Tiger.

I've got the Dexam catalogue and I've had a look. No mention of Tiger, Marble or Rosenthal. Only Ming is named.
There are no images of any Tiger pieces (Tiger as per Patrick's catalogue)
None of Marble.

There is an image of a facetted cube with tiger colours of ribbons inside, but not made into the Tiger pattern (laid over the surface and flattened in) but in seperate internal tangles of strings. (There are other facetted cubes with the Tiger pattern in.)
And there's a small bowl with the three spirals which is sort-of Rosenthal.

I can't find a date on it. (Dexam catalogue)  I seem to remember it was '79? but I might be wrong.