Ernest-Baptiste Léveillé footed Bowl or Vase pre 1885 | ||
| newbie2vintage's likes3 of 4 |  |  |
AnnaB loves this.
hunterqlee loves this.
kwqd loves this.
Vynil33rpm loves this.
Gillian loves this.
Michelleb007 loves this.
EZa loves this.Eli68 loves this.
welzebub loves this.
Vintagefran loves this.newbie2vintage likes this.
Belltown loves this.
blunderbuss2 loves this.
swfinluv1 loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
famatta127 loves this.aura loves this.
VioletOrange loves this.
GeodeJem likes this.
sklo42 loves this.
MALKEY loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 8 years ago
philmac51
(210 items)
Here is a Leveille Rousseau pedestal vase or compote. No enameling to the surface on this, but a great illustration of their unique acid etched patterning seen on many of their pieces.
11cm (4.3") high, 17cm (6.7") at widest.
Quick note - this piece isn't signed - read on...
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
the acid etching magnificent love the patternation & the folded rim gorgeous another smashing piece of French art glass Phil congratulations !!!!!!!!
Thank you Malkey!
What a gorgeous Leveille Phil! I never seen this shape on one of his pieces... you got yourself a good one! I'm looking for one more piece of his, and it's an acid etched piece like yours... Love it!
Vases with this type of décor are often seen on the market and are possibly made by various french companies. Some of them are assigned to Legras, some to Clichy, some to Harrach but they are probabely made by either 'Sevres-Clichy reunion' or by 'Mellerio freres'. Your vase does not have metal oxide inclusions that are typically for Leveille - they generally do not give rise to circular flecks - but your vase is decorated by molten red and white round inclusions of glass particles. Leveille did sign nearly all of his pieces, I don't know any signed vase of your décor, but, of course, would like to see one.
Thanks for this Kai. I have read in several articles that Leveille only signed after 1885 when he took over the Rousseau Studio. I guess there is a lot of confusing information out there, but I did think the signature issue was fairly common knowledge - if you can point me to some good resource material on Leveille/Rouseau I would be very grateful?
Sorry Phil when I saw you comment, I wanted to run it by my better half the first. I truly appreciate it, but I'll pass.
Best
Rick
Not a problem at all and very wise too! Kai's got me a little confused on this piece now. Gonna have to review what I thought I knew. Just wish there was some 'real' documentation on L&R rather than just the snippets I am finding on the web. The signature issue has me really confused.
I understand the confusion being that Legras and Harrach did make Oxblood/ Variegated pieces, but these were few and far in between. The biggest differentiating factor between them and yours however, is the style of etching which is classic Leveille. Now mind you that not all of his pieces were etched, mine being the perfect example Here's the same vase as one I posted here on CW but with etching. https://ibb.co/bQr8VF While Legras did use acid etching, it had a completely different appearance compared to the beautifully, detailed etching of Leveille. It's true that most Leveille's work was signed, but this was on his early, Craquelle pieces. His later pieces weren't typically signed. Leveille worked as a pupil and later assistant to Eugene Rousseau until taking over the shop. I assume he signed the early pieces so as to avoid confusion between his work and Rousseau's. This is only a guess, but it does make perfect sense. While it's true that Leveille used oxides in his glass, this was during his early days working with Rousseau, and again, only on his Craquelle pieces and not ones like yours, Agate or Marble decors. Here's an example which I unsuccessfully bid on at Ragos last year. It is an early Craquelle piece, using oxides, and as and as expected, was signed. http://i.imgur.com/DMtKeHN.jpg
I'm not too sure about the Appert Freres connection. While it's true they executed Rousseau's work, this was in his early days and only for a couple/few years until Rousseau began making his own glass. This predates Leveille's later, variegated pieces. There are far to many of his Oxblood pieces out there that it seems improbable that "every" auction house and appraiser, in the U.S. and Europe, are wrong in their attributions. There were similar doubts with his Marble and Agate pieces until they were too were finally and correctly attributed. Here's an example of yours, from Germany, that was attributed to Leveille. http://i.imgur.com/4r2TgU0.jpg
The argument of Rick55 that "every auction house and appraisers in the US and Europe ... ' couldn't be wrong, when they all assign this type of décor to Leveille, couldn't be taken too seriously as an argument or alternative for a correct assignment. I will just remember on all pieces currently wrongly assigned to Loetz, the silverbanded vases previously assigned to Kralik, now known to be Heckert, the whole bunch of british victorian glass assigned to Webb, Stevens&Williams, now known to be bohemian, often Harrach, the production of Welz made public by Craig Orkney earlier assigned to Rueckl etc. etc. etc. Now, in the Kunstgewerbe Museum Berlin there is shown a vase of same décor and etching. The curator comments in 'Glas der Moderne 1880-1930', that a similar vase in the Museum Novy Bor carries the original label saying '... (Mellerio Freres) Verries d'Aubervilliers, the Gewerbemuseum Nuremberg has another piece with the same label. Therefrom one may savely conclude, that at least similar pieces to yours are made about 1890 by Mellerio Freres. The curator of the Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin opposes an assignment to Rousseau or Leveille by a more detailed discussion.
I never said, "couldn't" but actually said, "improbable", which basically means unlikely, but anything's possible. I guess it's no different than stating categorically that he used oxides in EVERY one of his vases (not true) and that all of them are signed (again not true). This is a ludicrous assumption, and obviously this "guess" cannot be taken seriously! There are lots of similar pieces around, but to base an attribution soley on one similar piece?
In Revi's book, "19th Century Glass", he states, "Eugene Rousseau, among his other commendable wares were Craquelle glass, Marble glass, Agate glass and imitation gems". Revi continues, "In 1885 Leveille acquired Rousseau's glassworks and continued to make glass, as Rousseau had done, along the lines inspired by Japanese art". "About 1889, Leveille produced glassware employing "acid etching" and "wheel engraving", (like Phil's piece) in the style of art nouveau". Can we assume that Revi's statement that, "Leveille continued to make glass as Rousseau had done" mean that he continued making the same glass as Rousseau. Based on the numerous examples of Agate, Marble and acid etched/wheel carved pieces attributed to Leveille, you can only come to one conclusion, and in that is yes. Again, as Revi points out, Leivelle used "acid etching and wheel engraving" - the very same that can be found on many of the pieces attributed him. I understand that you can't say that every auction house and appraiser is correct, nor can you base an attribution on one similar piece or a curator. Should we believe everybody else (in their attributions) or trust one piece, a curator and the fact the Loetz, Heckert et al. had been incorrectly attributed in the past? I leave it to others to decide, but it's pretty obvious..
Wow... thanks guys, I wasn't expecting such an interesting response. I would like to say that Malkey's outstanding piece of LR here: http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/215430-rousseau-and-leveille-vase-france is not signed, so in my mind there is still some discrepancy in regard to signatures and LR.
Interestingly there where Jewellery designers in Paris at this time called Mallerio (meller) Brothers who exhibited jewellery at the 1862, 1878 and 1900 Paris Exhibitions. As jewellery designers they would not have been strangers to the use of pate de verre in jewellery at the time and, I'm only speculating here, but may have had established relationships with glassmakers.
The Mallerio Jewellers were very successful master jewellers - could they have had other business interests in the 1900s?
Labels are notoriously unreliable as conclusive evidence of manufacture, so could these Mellerio Freres labels be retailer's label?
Now, I know nothing of the Mallerio Brothers Glassware at Aubervilliers, but I do find it odd that there are two sets of Mallerio Brothers operating in the Paris area (Aubervilliers is outside and NE of metropolitan Paris) at or around this time. Mallerio, an Italian family name, quite possibly not a common one to be found. (d'Aubervilliers could refer to Rue d'Aubervilliers, which is in Paris).
What do we actually know about the Mallerio Brothers because apart from jewellers, I can't find a reference to actual glassmaking anywhere, but then I do not have a great deal of published material on French glass of this period? I would certainly like to know more about the Mallerio Brothers Glassware of Aubervilliers.
Anyway, I greatly appreciate you're comments guys and respect your perspective on these pieces.
Rick, I was composing and posted the last message before you sent your last post - just so it's in perspective and for what it's worth.
No problem Phil, I hope it helps : )
All good stuff, thanks mate ; )
You're welcome Phil, anytime : )
This is most likely the example that Karomalte was referring to with the Mellerio connection, I'm not sure. It's from an auction in 2002 which mentions that it "probably" is Mellerio. Below is a translation of the description. Bare in mind that this was back in 2002 and so much new documentation has been discovered since then.
http://www.icollector.com/MELLERIO-FR-RES-Schale-farbloses-Glas-Wei-e-und-bordeauxrote-Farbeinschmelzungen-auf-der-Au-e_i507864
MELLERIO FRÈRES Dish, colorless glass. White and burgundy color melts, etched vegetal decor partly on the outer wall, with gold decoration. Slightly bulgy form, pushed inwards at the mouth margin. H .: 7.2 cm. Unmarked. Probably the Verreries d'Aubervilliers. Around 1890 Lit .: Netzer, Susanne: Glass of Modernism 1880-1930, exhibition catalog. Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin 1994, Fig. P. 48f. (Variant for comparison) € 220, -
Thanks Rick. Still I would want to know much more about the mysterious 'Mellerio Brothers' just for peace of mind. If you ever come across anything - do let me know.
Also - I just noticed, the reference is to a publication that is now 23 years old.
Will do.
Yeah Phll so much new information has been discovered since the book was written in 1994, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.
As it is often difficult to describe clearly the décoration of a vase, I just posted two E. Leveille signed vases with metal oxide inclusions for comparison with your vase. One can clearly see the difference in the structure of the inclusions of the signed E. Leveille vases as compared to this marbled example.
Phil, yours is not an example of a Leveille marble piece. Take a look at the shorter one that I posted. That's an example of one where you can readily see the marble appearance.
Yes Rick... I wouldn't describe mine as 'marbled' rather more a traditional spatter style of glass inclusions that Kai has previously pointed out.
Thanks Kai for posting those wonderful pieces.
I agree that my description was incorrect in describing the inclusions as 'Oxide Inclusions' and that's possibly how we have ended up in this long thread of posts. I have taken the opportunity to understand the oxide 'powder' inclusion process and agree that it would not be correct to refer to the inclusions on my piece as oxide. I have taken that out of my description. My naivety there. So thank you for the information, I have learned something.
All the same Rick has made very valid points about the glass production of LR.
In the same way that LR, PK Loetz et al not only produced beautiful, expensive and technically very challenging pieces like these stunning pieces in your post, we also know that these same manufacturers produced pieces at all levels of technicality, from very simple inexpensive pieces to glorious works of art. It's clear to me that the wonderful leaded cracquele crystal, oxide included and wheel cut examples are some of the most outstanding pieces by LR, but I would personally assume, like any other manufacturer of this time that they also produced bread and butter pieces too. I understand also that they were somewhat 'boutique' in comparison to larger manufacturers of the time.
There's still much I don't know about LR, and like Rick, I'm inclined to believe that the LR portfolio included more than just the sublime oxide cracquele pieces you have kindly posted.
Yes Phil, you can see the difference... more like actual marble. Now, we already know that he made marble pieces. If these, that are clearly made to resemble marble, aren't Leveille's, then who made them? Is it just a coincidence that these are attributed to him and there are no other examples of his stone pieces around nor a different attribution for any these pieces? We also know that he used acid etching and wheel carving - like yours. Again, if these aren't his, then where are they and who made all of the ones similar to yours, and mine? Leveille also decorated in a Japonesque style which can be found on many of his non-gemstone pieces such as ours... one more time, if these aren't his, then where are they?
Kairomalte is attempting to use his early pieces, which clearly have inclusions, as a comparison to yours - which was made using a completely different technique and style... apples and oranges.
Going back-to Revi and his statement that Leveille not only made crackle glass but also marble, agate and others. Where could he possibly have gotten that information if not from having either seen examples or some other reference to support him?
Is it just a coincidence that all of these unsigned pieces match Revi's description of Leveille's work to a T - stone, wheel carved, acid etched and decorated in a Japonesque style? Are we to assume that Kairomolte's statement that Leveille signed all his pieces (which we know is incorrect), mean his craquelle pieces are the only ones that are known to exist and the rest of his work has been lost? Hmmm.
You know the saying, if it walks like a duck.....
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you Rick.
Rick
Have a look at this.... it's in a sorry state but from what I can tell from the poor images, the exact same shape as mine but in the 'stone' decor similar to your piece.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/vase-en-p%C3%A2te-de-verre-Monjoie-Saint-Denis-cass%C3%A9/161855102473?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
How's that for a good link to 3 types of decor, the spatter, the etching and the stone.
Interesting don't you think?
I would like just to add a small correction, in my comments I never stated that ' Leveille signed all his vases' and secondly philmack51's vase is purely pattern etched and there is no wheel carving at all.
Thanks Kai, I do realise that there is no wheel carving on my vase - just the etching.
Phil, when you get a minute email me. my email is in my profile
Sorry is right! It's definitely a combination of ours... 1/2 yours and 1/2 mine. Funny thing is, he Is unsure of what he has. You know how on eBay in the description somebody will say Loetz with a question mark ? He listed it as Monjoie Saint Denis.
Further to this discussion, I was doing a little research and came across this link, which piqued my interest:
http://www.icollector.com/Ernest-Baptiste-Leveille-AN-ETCHED-AND-ENAMELED-GLASS-VASE-Ernest-Baptiste-Leveille_i1377855
It mentions that this piece is signed - well a quick look at the images and there was little to see, any signature was bleached out on the photos. So I copied it to my desktop and did a little Photoshop work on it to change the colour levels and contrast and there it is.... a Leveillé signature. This is the first time I have come across one and it's on a piece that is, well, very like mine in decor. It's very interesting because most of these pieces are not signed, but ocassionally you come across one like this that is - It's the first time I have actually sign one, and suggests, that these pieces actually do predate the Leveillé Rousseau days, when Leveille was working on his own.
Signature - image 4 above
Great detective work Phil! I was hoping that someday a signed piece would come to light. Good stuff and thanks for the update.
You're welcome Rick... more research to come I suspect...
Hi,
I have a similar one and it’s unsigned too. I’ve been looking at the etching and it does look like he did hide his name in that. It’s all patterns and it has a spot close to the rim that looks like letters and is off compared to the rest of the etching. I was wondering if you can find a similar mark on yours. It does blend into the pattern, but it does look like Leveille, so we might have a secretly signed piece.