Steuben Claims

Some interesting thoughts from Michael Krumme of Los Angeles:

Alan,

As I browse the Steuben listings on eBay, and see glass at antique shows and in antique shops or auctions, I often see items which the seller claims are Steuben, but for which this attribution is either (a) possible, but uncertain; (b) very dubious; or (c) false because the item is demonstrably NOT Steuben (i.e., it is documented that it is something else.)

Some of these same “similar to Steuben” items turn up again and again, in different venues or platforms, offered by various sellers who see similarities between their item(s) and Steuben wares. Of course, sometimes the seller states that it “is” Steuben, while other sellers are more cautious and say that it “could be” or “looks like” Steuben. Clearly, this can fall anywhere along the scale that ranges from “Knowingly offered as Steuben with an intent to deceive,” to “This looks like Steuben, however I’m not an expert, so you decide before you bid/buy.”

I looked on our website, but did not see a section titled, “Steuben lookalikes,” “Fakes and Forgeries,” or “Confusing Items.” Wouldn’t it be great if our members could submit photographs of items that we know are not Steuben, along with the proper attribution, as well as a citation to a reference book or other proof of the correct attribution?

For example, I see many pieces of translucent pink and white glass that I’m sure are Italian in origin being described as “Steuben Rosaline and Alabaster.” There is also a line of stemware with a colored bowl (green, blue, or amber) with a swirl optic that I often see offered as Steuben. (This line of stemware is identified as something else on the website for Replacements, Ltd.) I can think of other Steuben lookalikes, too, such as wares that were made by Stevens & Williams during Carder’s tenure there.

Are we “up” for this task? I think it would be a very worthwhile effort. To paraphrase a statement I’ve heard over the years, “In order to know what is Steuben, you also have to know what’s not Steuben.”

Correction of a word from D C-B

Comments from David Chadwick-Brown

This piece goes to prove that they still did colored Steuben as late as 1936, the date in which “Four More Years” was a less raucous presidential mantra and message than we are currently experiencing in this election cycle! Works, very likely by old Carder Steuben workers still working at Corning Glass works, is a fantastic piece of acid-etched glass….”

Did Carder Do Burmese?

David Chadwick-Brown’s Collection

David Chadwick-Brown adds this clarification:

It is unquestioned that Carder made Burmese; the doubt (confirmed by Marshall Ketchum’s search of the records) was whether they made a plate in Burmese. There is no evidence of such, alas…!

Identification Help

Something interesting about the toilet jar shown in the David Chadwick Brown’s collection is that it is the ONLY shape that a solid piece of Rose Du Barry comes in other than a plate. Some of Carder’s most rare pieces come displayed in the shape of a plate such as Cadmium Ruby and even Rouge Flambe!

I am beginning to have suspicions that the only shape that Brownish-Yellow Gold Ruby comes in would also be limited to a toilet jar.

Rande Bly

Ed. comment: At p. 53 of A Guide To Colored Steuben Glass 1903 – 1933 Book Two, the author Eric E. Ericson suggests not only a dresser bottle in Rose du Barry, but also as sherbets.