posted on May 3, 2004 12:19:22 PM
I am trying to find a way to convince a friend and fellow Ebayer to not split up a ball shade and kerosene lamp she has. She has listed them separately, and they have not sold yet. They were purchased together, but she doesn't think the top and the bottom were meant to be together. Has anyone seen an art glass BALL shade before in the style of Quezal or Loetz? I think they very well could have always been together and it would be a shame to separate them. If you have time to peek, here are the auctions:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1408&item=3289365210 and
posted on May 3, 2004 12:28:09 PM
Nevermind ... I thought I could post the pictures here for you, but it didn't work.
[ edited by bizzycrocheting on May 3, 2004 12:28 PM ]
posted on May 3, 2004 12:41:45 PM
Thank you, Neglus. Some areas of the lamp base have brown shades, and I think that is the part that was intended to match the shade. They certainly wouldn't have had flowers on a shade, but they may have had another train on a shade.
posted on May 3, 2004 01:05:38 PM
They may have been purchased together, but did not start life together. Over the years many of these lamps had replacement shades due to breakage or changing tastes.
The seller could mention that they purchased the shade with the separately listed lamp, but I doubt that anyone wants to keep this mismatch intact.
posted on May 3, 2004 01:20:13 PM
We understand about replacement shades. But is it unconceivable that this is the ORIGINAL shade? I don't have an eye for decorating so I am open to opinions on this. I have never seen anything like this shade in a ball form. Has anyone else?
posted on May 3, 2004 02:05:28 PM
Well, I suppose anything could be possible (hey, maybe O.J. didn't do it), but not all that likely. Aside from the obvious stylistic differences, even for the period (this would be like you buying a Colonial style sofa and having it upholstered in hot-pink leather), it is the difference in quality. The base is a mass-produced piece, probably blown in a mold, then "hand-decorated" assembly line fashion. The shade was a hand-blown item, requiring a fair amount of skill. The base, in its day, would have been fairly inexpensive, while the shade would have been a more expensive item.
The shade is terrific. The base is not, but I am a little surprised it didn't sell as a crossover item for a railroad collector.
posted on May 3, 2004 03:13:51 PM
I agree with Damariscotta. The shade looks like a modern 50s or 60s to me, although it's probably older, and the base is a homey, sort of cottage item. If the shade doesn't sell, though, I would try to sell them together, explaining how they purchased.
___________________________________
posted on May 3, 2004 03:54:49 PM
The shade is not original to the lamp. The lamp originally had a milk glass globe with hand painted decoration on it. As someone else stated, the globes on these lamps were easily broken (take my word for it) and were replaced with whatever was available. At one time you could buy a blank milk glass globe and have it painted to match the base.
The globe on this lamp is really a work of art, is it translucent?
"The only thing more expensive than an education is ignorance" B. Franklin
posted on May 4, 2004 07:17:49 AM
I agree with most here that the two did not start life together and don't really go together at all. The lamp is ok but it's the globe that's the real winner.
