One thing that seems apparent from all the e-mails shared and those to be shared is that however we view ourselves, we need a big tent. We need to seek to encompass collectors with a variety of desires and purposes. No single answers, but the comments show we collectors have a great deal of passion and also a love of the work of Frederick Carder.

Francis Allen adds:
When I was president, during the early nineties, some members of the National American Glass Club have questioned our designation as a “club.” It was said to be a little cliquish or represent smallness or exclusivity. Suggested were “association” or “society” which connotes an organization on a broader sale. The idea never went before the board nor resurfaced. Being a traditionalist, I preferred to stay with Club since we had been that since 1933. I guess you can have a club on a national/international scale.

Barbara Iglewski says:
Society is fine with me. Perhaps it does suggest something higher . I would be interested in seeing if art magazines, museum and gallery folks would join us then?

Jane Spillman of CMoG, comes to the table from a slightly different perspective:
Well, I agree with some of Audrey’s ideas – I’ve noticed that Louis C. Tiffany collectors may belong to the National American Glass Club, but not many of them do, and there’s definitely no Tiffany collectors club. I think that’s partly because Tiffany glass is so expensive and its buyers don’t think if it as a “collectible” but as “art”. The same may be true of those who collect contemporary glass although, some of them belong to the Glass Art Society. That’s not primarily a group of collectors though; it’s for the creators of the art. There isn’t a club for collectors of Quezal or similar glassware either although there are certainly collectors of it. As a curator, I belong to several clubs, the NAGC and the ACGA because I can learn from the presentations at their annual meetings and I sometimes get to see private collections that I might not know about otherwise. Other curators also attend these meetings sometimes. Generally, I wouldn’t bother with a club that only collected the products of one company (of which there are half a dozen at least), but because Carder’s Steuben is so important to Corning, and I’ve found the recent meetings very helpful, I do come. The same is true of the Mt. Washington & Pairpoint Glass Collectors Society; it helps me see collections and learn from presentations. And I do think there’s a difference between manufactured “collectibles” and 18th and 19th century antiques, which were made to be used, not to be collected. Most of the collectors of early American glass are also interested in researching and learning about it, which perhaps distinguishes them from collectors of baseball cards and similar things an of CMoG comes from another perspective:
I’m trying to envision John Lolley’s comments stated with his charming Louisiana drawl:
I recognize that “a rose by any name is still a rose”, but I would agree that incorporating society rather than club certainly implies professionalism and credibility. So, I vote for society.

Gerry Eggert brings his psychological viewpoint:
In spite of what Dean Six said, the name does matter, whether in NYC, LA. Evansville, IN or
Nowheresville, USA. We are more than a mere collector’s club. We are the repository of knowledge about Mr. Carder and his Art Glass.

From Sam Kissée of Chico, No. California we hear:
I much prefer the Society name over Club. It has an elegant ring to it befitting the glass that we collect. Well, I think I’ve conveyed today’s comments. Been a fascinating day. Lots of opinions and one common theme. Frederick Carder’s works create great excitement. Also, this excitement has spilled over into a number of requests for applications to join the Club. I’m pleased to report that year over our membership has grown about 30%. Today’s additions will make those of us who appreciate Mr. Carder all the stronger and effective. Hope you all have enjoyed this exchange of ideas.