Retro Flash Back: The Allure of Crackle Glass

Tags

#JournalOfAntiques #Collectibles #CrackleGlass #ArtGlass #Retro #Glass, #Retro, American Society of Appraisers, Antiques, Appraisers Association of America, art market, Auction, certified appraiser, Estate Appraisal

All it takes is one stream of light shining through your window to create a rainbow effect after it illuminated that bottle or vase sitting on your sill. Perhaps, this is the magic that keeps collectors returning to that local tag sale or flea market in search of another sparkling keepsake.

 

Vintage Blenko Crackle Glass Miniature Pitchers

 

Crackle glass, one of the most common collectibles, will produce such an effect from that stray sunbeam, leaving you dazzled without warning when displays of colored, refracted light fill your room. Created as far back as the 16^th century, this dime-store dazzler had a resurgence in the 1950’s and reached it’s zenith in the 1960’s to complement the modern décor of the Madmen era. Bold or clear, shaded or iridescent, crackle glass was available in all varieties and price ranges to complement interior spaces and wallets. From inexpensive eye catchers to pricey floor standing vases, crackle glass was easily available because it is a treatment rather than a type of glass.

 

Vintage Ruby Crackle Glass

 

The ‘crackling’ finish is created when a hot glass object is submerged in cold water, a technique that can be applied to just about any type of sturdy glass. The abrupt temperature change creates a network of fine cracks in the glass leaving the light to deflect patterns of the irregular cracks on other surfaces.

Initially, crackle glass was hand blown, but quick popularity led to less-expensive moulded glass knockoffs. And, since any glass manufacture could utilized the crackling technique, almost every company created crackle glass, including Tiffin, Duncan and Imperial, but the most notable crackle glass firms were located in West Virginia. Especially noted for miniatures, Pilgrim, Rainbow, Kanwha and Bishoff, created those diminutive jugs, vases, and pitchers that typically adorn the interior of many households. But the master manufacturer of crackle glass was Blenko.

 

Blenko Crackle Glass Vases

 

Originally known for producing stained glass, Blenko expanded its glassware to include richly colored, oversized art glass vessels. After the market for stained glass bottomed out in the Depression of 1929, William H. Blenko, the son of the founder was forced to seek out other revenue sources and expanded glassware production to include affordable decorative housewares, including bottles and vases. Their past experience with manufacturing stained glass contributed to the vast color palette that forged Blenko’s reputation. In the mid 1940s, Blenko produced crackle glass miniatures, and by the 1960s large scale versions in both crackle and no-crackle finishes were available. The two prominent artisans for Blenko, Winslow Anderson (1947-1952) was noted for modern shapes and vivid colors, while Wayne Husted, the design director (1952-1963) was responsible for hundreds of designs produced during that period. Joel Philip Myers, Blenko’s design director (1963-1970), a skilled glass blower, was known for elongated forms, spirals, two-color and air twist stoppers.

Today, crackle glass collectors have an array of options to choose from including color, type and size of vessel. Others focus on a particular company or artist. Many of us, however simply collect crackle glass for its bargain prices, and ability to brighten even a cloudy day.

Resources: Journal of Antiques & Collectibles, Etsy

 

Mixed Messages in 2012 Auction Art Sales

Tags

art, art market, art sale, auctions, Christie's, Miro, Monet, painting, Rothko, Sothebys, Warhol

Is the art market’s pace giving us mixed messages? How is it that the major auction houses have painted completely different art sale pictures?

In 2012, Christie’s sold a total of $6.3 billion worth of fine and decorative art which included $5.3 billion in auction sales and $1 billion in privately brokered art sales. While auction sales at Christie’s increased 10%, their privately brokered sales rose $26%. In contrast, during the same period, Sotheby’s auction sales fell 12%, despite their successful single night contemporary art sale of $375 million, and an additional $695 million in private art sales.

Although Christie’s managed to win a larger share of the trophy art that came up for sale in 2012, could the divergent sales results from the rival auction houses indicate collector ticker shock? In an arena that relies on acquiring the heavy hitters like Rothko’s “Orange, Red, Yellow” that realized $86.9 million and Monet’s “Water Lilies” that brought a record $43.8 million, still there are other factors that are contributing to Christie’s success. One explanation by Christie’s chief executive, Steven Murphy, is the influx of new buyers from the U.S. and Europe who came seeking artwork at online auctions for under $500,000. The other prominent factor is the financial guarantee that auction houses offer to woo heavyweight sellers. This undisclosed amount offered to the seller guarantees that their artwork will sell for a specified price, even if there is no competitive bid. Deemed to risky during the recession, today guarantees are once again commonplace.

The biggest Christie’s sale for the year included Andy Warhol’s $43.8 million “Statue of Liberty” and Yves Klein’s $36.8 million “The Pink of Blue.” While Sotheby’s pieces included Rothko’s $75.1 million “No.1 (Royal Red and Blue)” and Joan Miro’s $36.9 million “Blue Star.”

As the winter 2013 auctions get underway in London, they will once again contribute to the overall art sales, and perhaps paint us a more complete picture of the trends influencing the art market.

Image: Joan Miro’s “Blue Star”  Resource: The Wall Street Journal Corporate News, January 17, 2013

 

Un-Saleable Artwork: Does It Have Value?

Tags

art collector, art market, artwork, Canyon, IRS Guidelines, masterwork, Mus, Rauschenberg

The lawyers representing the heirs of art dealer Ileana Sonnabend intend to debate whether the IRS can establish a value of artwork that cannot be sold, in order to collect $29 million in taxes.

The artwork under discussion is “Canyon” a 20^th Century mixed media work created by Robert Rauschenberg in 1959 that was inherited by Mrs. Sonnabend’s children when she died in 2007. Since the sculpture contains a stuffed bald eagle, a bird that is under the Federal Protection Act for Endangered Species, the heirs would be committing a felony if they tried to sell it. As a result, their appraisers have valued the work at zero.

However, the IRS has an altogether different opinion – they valued “Canyon” at $69 million and they are demanding that the heirs pay $29.2 million in estate taxes. If it is illegal to sell the work, how can the IRS value it at $69 million? Although “Canyon” is a landmark masterwork of postwar Modernism, three appraisers including Christie’s had valued it at zero. In fact, many tax lawyers, estate planners and art collectors are astounded with the agency’s decision considering the I.R.S. guidelines stipulate that in figuring an item’s fair market value, taxpayers should “include any restrictions, or covenants limiting the use or disposition of the property.” In this case, the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty act make it a crime to possess, sell, purchase, barter, transport, import or export any bald eagle – alive or dead. Although Mrs. Sonnabend was able to maintain ownership of “Canyon”, in 1998 Rauschenberg was required to submit a notarized statement attesting that the eagle had been killed and stuffed long before the 1940 law was established. Further, the I.R.S. claimed that ownership could only be retained if the work remained on a long-term loan basis at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

The attorney’s for the clients contend that the I.R.S.’s handling of the work has been confusing. Last fall the agency valued “Canyon” at $15 million and after the family refused to pay the taxes the agency sent a formal letter stating they increased the value to $65 million. Evidently, the new valuation came from the agency’s Art Advisory Panel that is made up of experts and dealers who advise the I.R.S.’s Art Appraisal Services Unit. One member, Stephanie Barron, a senior curator of 20^th Century art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where “Canyon” was exhibited for two years said “the group evaluated the work solely on its artistic value without reference to any accompanying restrictions or laws.”

Why didn’t the I.R.S. Art Advisory Panel include the governments endangered species restrictions when determining their valuation? Can artwork be valued solely on artistic attributes? Is the I.R.S. using a hypothetical black market sale scenario to base their valuation and presume that the taxpayers would engage in an illegal activity in order to sell their assets?

At the moment the heirs are clearly in a bind. If they don’t pay the taxes the I.R.S. claims is due, they would be guilty of violating federal tax laws and if they try to sell “Canyon” in order to pay their tax bill, they could go to jail for violating eagle protection laws. And since the heirs assert that “Canyon” has no dollar value, they could not claim a charitable deduction by donating the work to a museum.

It appears that the government has unfairly painted the taxpayers into a corner leaving them with no choice but to challenge the I.R.S.’s decision. Perhaps a new court precedent will be established when they both meet next month to debate in Washington.  From an appraisers standpoint, a value range of zero to $69 million is difficult to fathom!

Resource: The New York Times, Art Piece’s Sale Value? Zero. But the Tax Bill? $29 Million, Patricia Cohen