An article by Ian Burke
    as published in the Maine Antique Digest
    March 1990
Problems  in  Cut  Glass
            This is a story about cut glass, old and new, a story about
trust and betrayal, about courage and cowardice.  If the tests and
suspicions of a number of collectors are correct, over the last few years as
many as a thousand pieces of recently cut glass with a market value as high
as $5 million have been represented and sold as genuine antique American
brilliant cut glass.
            In the early 1880s, a few American glass companies, such as T.G.
Hawkes and C. Dorflinger & Sons, began to develop a new style of cut lead
glass, one that diverged from its Anglo-Irish antecedents toward deeper,
allover cutting with more elaborate designs.
            This often intricately cut style, termed “rich cut” by American
manufacturers (now called brilliant cut), flourished for the next 30 years
until the First World War, when rationing, and rapidly rising labor costs
crippled the industry and began the demise of cut glass production in
America.
            Cut glass was always labor intensive, used high quality lead
glass blanks, and was consequently expensive.  In spite of its high price,
it became very popular and ultimately was produced by more than 350
companies in at least 2000 recognized patterns.
            Largely ignored by major museums until recently, brilliant cut
glass has always had a small but devoted group of collectors.  In 1978, such
a group organized the American Cut Glass Association, which had grown to
1400 members by 1989, with well-organized annual conventions that regularly
draw 400 members.  These conventions feature speakers, workshops, and a
spectacular dealers show that consistently exhibits the largest amount of
fine American cut glass for sale in one location.
            At the 1983 American Cut Glass Association’s convention in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Leonard Pearson, an attorney and dealer in Miami
who specializes in colored cut glass, told the audience of collectors that,
in his opinion, a great deal of the colored, cut to colorless glass that he
had seen recently was fake, probably being currently produced in Europe.
            Needless to say, his remarks were very controversial and caused
considerable dismay among collectors.  Although many had noticed the sudden
and substantial increase in the number of colored pieces for sale,
particularly in very rare patterns such as Grecian, Wedding Ring, Aztec,
Queens, and others, and even though experienced collectors and long-time
dealers had rarely seen such pieces before, the reaction to Pearson’s
charges was generally one of hostility and disbelief.  Some even accused
Pearson of professional jealousy.
            An editorial in the Hobstar (the ACGA’s monthly publication)
signed by ACGA President Carol Parks immediately following the convention
indirectly criticized Pearson, claiming that “rumors, gossip, and innuendos
persist through viciousness and not in fact.”  Parks did, however, appoint
her husband, Jim Parks, a successful oil man from Oklahoma City who had
assembled an enormous collection over the years that knowledgeable
collectors call one of the best in the country, to head an authenticity
committee.
            For a time collectors seemed to become noticeably more cautious
about purchasing colored glass, prices softened, and less of it was seen at
shows.
            Pearson, however, had also said that whoever had the skills and
the blanks to produce fakes in colored glass could certainly do so in
colorless glass as well.  Unfortunately, he was all too prophetic.
            Several years passed, and some collectors and dealers began
commenting once again on the number of pieces in rare patterns that were for
sale, this time in colorless glass.  At the ACGA’s 1987 convention in
Washington, D.C., the quantity of truly rare patterns was staggering.
Several dealers displayed not only 14” and 15” round trays, but matching
sets of 7” plates and bowls in patterns such as Concentric Circle, Panel,
and Trellis.  Other shapes, such as decanters, carafes, jars, and vases,
were also seen in equally rare patterns.
            When the few dealers selling these truly fabulous pieces were
questioned about their sources, the explanation seemed similar but logical:
the pieces were from old collections and were being sold now because the
owners needed the money or were no longer interested in collecting.  Still,
the quantities of rare glass were unprecedented and the questions arose
again.
            The talk was that many of these rare pieces were not old.  Harry
Kraut, a long established New York dealer in rare cut glass, said, “I just
don’t understand how a few dealers can suddenly turn up all these museum
pieces.”  But Kraut and others who had suspicions were unwilling to say that
they thought the pieces were fakes.
            Prior to the 1987 convention, nearly all collectors thought
themselves immune from fakes, which have always plagued other types of
American glass.  No one seemed to have the skills today to cut glass in
these extremely intricate brilliant patterns.  Even if some European-trained
cutters might be capable, it didn’t seem economically feasible to spend a
week or so cutting and polishing a piece and still make a profit, even if it
could sell for $5000 to $10,000, as many of the rarities in cut glass do.
            This assurance was shattered when Herman Defregger, a cutter
working for Pepi Hermann’s crystal shop in Gilford, New Hampshire, made a
presentation at the Washington convention showing several bowls that he had
cut in very elaborate designs using distinctly American motifs.  Collectors
were stunned to hear that each of these bowls only took a few hours to
produce using diamond wheels for cutting, instead of the stone and iron
wheels used during the brilliant period.
            Hermann regularly produces a number of stock items, such as 12”
trays in intricate, traditional designs (but not copies of old patterns)
that list for $788 each in his catalogue.
            This writer showed Defregger a rose bowl in Grecian, red cut to
clear, that was earmarked for the auction, and asked if he could duplicate
it.  He said, “Easily.  The blanks are available in Germany, and the cutting
would only take half a day.”  This rose bowl, if old, would easily sell for
$5000.  Clearly, there could be immense profits made by selling newly cut
glass as old.
            Despite this dramatic revelation, many collectors still felt the
continued stories of newly cut glass, now more persistent than ever, just
could not be true.  Part of this reluctance to believe these rumors was the
continued reassurance from the chairman of the ACGA’s authenticity
committee, Jim Parks, that the rumors were simply the products of jealousy
by less successful dealers and “troublemakers.”
            In 1986, Bob Hall, a collector from Wichita, Kansas, began
selling glass professionally.  He had previously assembled in just a few
years a large collection that was, by any standard, magnificent.  He had
purchased many of his major pieces from Herb Wiener, a dealer then living in
Houston, now in Austin, and co-author of Rarities in American Cut Glass.
Wiener, a tall flamboyant figure in cowboy boots who was rarely seen without
a cigar, had become the best known dealer in rare American cut glass and
exhibited at a number of major shows, including
Miami Beach, O’Hare (Chicago), Houston and Pasadena.  Nearly every serious
collector had purchased glass during the past ten years from Wiener, some
assembled entire collections from him.
            Hall, while doing antiques shows, buying glass, and viewing
collections in many states, discovered that patterns he had thought were
quite rare were in fact in many collections, often in very unusual sizes and
shapes.  Patterns such as Aztec, Byzantine, Rex, Alhambra, Concentric
Circle, Grecian, Columbia, and others seemed to be much more common than
anyone had realized.
            According to Hall, one day in October 1986, his wife, Garnett,
made the observation that certain pieces in their collection needed to be
cleaned much more often than others.  She asked Bob, “Didn’t you get all of
these from Herb Wiener?”
            Hall confided his suspicions to his close friend, Max Redden,
also from Kansas, a very well-known and highly knowledgeable collector.
Redden had been developing his own ideas about the large number of rare
pieces he had seen at shows and in collections and together they decided
there were just too many unanswered questions.  Both of them came to the
conclusion that much of this glass was newly cut because of various
characteristics that did not match known old pieces.
            In late October 1986, Hall confronted Herb Wiener, who denied
that any of the glass he sold was new or fake.  Wiener did agree, however,
to refund Hall’s money in exchange for pieces Hall felt were questionable.
In November 1986, Wiener signed a promissory note in favor of Hall for
$91,550, payable at $5000 per month.
            Wiener paid Hall a total of $70, 379.50 and then for reasons
still unclear, refused to make further payments.
            May 4, 1988, Hall filed a lawsuit in the State District Court in
Austin, Texas, against Herb Wiener and his business, Collector’s House of
Antiques.  The suit was “to recover for damages for breach of contract,
breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and deceptive trade
practices.”
            Hall claimed in his filing that from 1983 to 1986 he had
purchased from Wiener “certain pieces of cut glass which Defendants
represented and expressly warranted to be Authentic American Brilliant
Period cut glass circa 1880-1915…  Those representations were false and the
cut glass was in fact a less valuable form of glass.”  Hall claimed actual
damages of $327,759.50 and asked for treble that amount, almost $1 million,
as allowed by Texas law, “if the first trier of fact finds that the conduct
of the Defendants was committed knowingly.”
            In case the trier of facts had any doubt, Hall asked for $2
million exemplary damages because he claimed, “Defendants’ conduct…was done
wilfully and intentionally…”
            Wiener’s answer filed in court denied that any of the glass “was
not authentic,” denied that Hall “is a consumer as that term is defined in
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,” and claimed that Wiener was
“pressured and coerced…into signing the [promissory] note…”
            Wiener also counterclaimed that he and Hall were competitors in
the business of selling cut glass to the public and that Hall had
“willfully, recklessly, and heedlessly defamed counter-plaintiffs [Wiener
and the Collectors House of Antiques, Inc.] by stating to third parties that
counter-plaintiffs are selling cut glass which is not authentic or genuine…”
            The majority of the glass Hall contended was new consisted of
ten 15” round trays, all in rare patterns, with ten sets (six pieces per
set) of matching 7” plates.  The trays alone had sold for $6500 to $21,000
each, and the 7” plates averaged $1500 each.  Hall did not dispute a
substantial quantity of other glass he had purchased from Wiener, because it
appeared to be genuine.
            During late 1987 and early 1988, Hall, Redden, and others
developed a series of tests or observed characteristics that they felt could
determine whether cut glass was old or new.
First, the blanks used for certain pieces, such as 7” plates (a form very
much desired by collectors), were distinctly thicker and had different cross
sections than known originals.
Second, when signed, the acid-etched signatures on suspect pieces were
smudged rather than clear and distinct.  The signatures on originals are
almost always sharp, even if faint.
Third, most but not all of the questionable pieces had faint parallel
striations in the major miters, which was later shown to have come from the
use of diamond wheels to cut the glass.  Documented old pieces never
exhibited these marks except where recent repairs had been made with a
diamond wheel.
Fourth, all of the suspect pieces were in mint condition without any damage
or wear marks on the bottoms.  This was highly unlikely if the glass was
really 80 or 90 years old.  By contrast, virtually all of the documented old
cut glass showed at least some wear on the base and sometimes minor damage
to other surfaces.
Signs of wear are a well-known standard in judging glass of any period.
Either the absence of wear or the presence of faked (ground) wear is usually
a tip-off.  The absence of wear marks had been a major clue that helped
Dwight Lanmon, director of the Corning Museum, uncover a series of fakes in
blown three-mold glass (see Journal of Glass Studies  Vol. XV (1973)
143-173).
Finally, and probably most important, they discovered that nearly all
genuine American brilliant period cut glass will fluoresce a pale lime
yellow under long wave ultraviolet light (blacklight), while the newly-cut
glass fluoresced a distinct purple-pink.  The pale yellow fluorescence of
old glass was remarkably consistent, somewhat surprising considering that at
least 20 American companies produced blanks during the 35 years or so that
brilliant cut glass was produced.  This fluorescence seemed unrelated to the
lead content because non-lead 19th-century American pressed glass fluoresces
a similar yellow.
But they also discovered that intaglio pieces and patterns produced very
late in the period (circa 1920), such as Hunt’s Royal, fluoresced the
purple-pink associated with new glass.  This meant that the blacklight test
was not diagnostic for late glass, but was consistent with the theory that
glass composition had changed.
It is now believed that the difference in fluorescence between old and new
glass is due to the deliberate presence of small amounts of manganese oxides
used in the old formulas to decolorize glass.  After the brilliant period,
glass chemistry advanced, and manufacturers no longer needed these
compounds.
Dr. Robert Brill, museum scientist at the Corning Glass Museum, explained
why the new glass had to be cleaned much more often than old glass.  Lead
glass made in Europe today has a higher sodium content than old American
lead glass, which attracts moisture to the cut surfaces.  This moisture
tends to dissolve surface dust and create a scum.
Further supporting the validity of these tests was that the questionable
glass always failed more than one test.  For example, an 8” bowl in the
Aztec pattern had a smudged Libbey signature, diamond wheel marks, and
purple-pink fluorescence.  A 7” plate in Rex was cut on a very thick blank
with an indistinct Tuthill signature and had a purple-pink fluorescence.
Both pieces were in mint condition without any sign of wear on the bottoms.
Hall and Redden looked at literally hundreds of pieces of glass in many
collections and several well-known museums to confirm that these tests could
indeed distinguish old from new glass.  With the assistance of Kenneth
Wilson, former curator at the Corning Museum of Glass and a recognized
authority on American glass, they blacklighted ten pieces of Libbey glass of
absolutely known date and provenance at the Toledo Museum, including the
great punch bowl made in 1904 and exhibited at the St. Louis World’s Fair.
Most of these pieces had come directly from the Libbey Glass Company.  This
examination confirmed that all fluoresced as expected:  lime yellow with
none of the purple-pink characteristic of the new glass.
In addition, Hall had hired a number of other consultants, including several
glass chemists, to further confirm the validity of these and other tests.
Pepi Hermann, the highly-experienced European-trained cutter who produces
high-quality contemporary cut glass in his New Hampshire shop, was one of
Hall’s consultants.  Hermann is convinced that the blanks for the new glass
came from Europe, probably Germany.  He used German and Austrian blanks,
which, when blacklighted, fluoresced purple-pink, similar to the suspected
pieces.
In 1988, Hall had the Corning Glass Laboratories conduct spectrographic and
quantitative chemical analyses of pieces of both known old glass and
suspected fakes.  The results confirmed suspicions:
1.  The lead content of the suspected reproductions was quite uniform,
24-25% by weight.  The lead content of the old pieces was more variable but
always considerably higher, 34-36% by weight.
2.  The sodium content of the suspect glass was at least ten times higher,
2-3%, than in the old pieces, which were 0.1-0.25% by weight.  This
difference would account for the surface film so often seen on suspect
pieces.
3.  The manganese content of the suspect pieces was in trace amounts, less
than 0.01%, but the old pieces had 0.02-0.10% by weight.  This means that
the old blanks had between two and ten times as much manganese, which would
account for the difference in fluorescence.
4.  In general, the composition of the suspected reproduction pieces was
extremely uniform, indicating a single source for the blanks.  This
uniformity contradicts the claim that these pieces were from different
companies.  The old pieces showed much more variation, which would be
expected from different companies.
Hall and Redden continued to look at collections around the country and
continued to discover large quantities of glass that they felt was suspect.
Hall said he saw at least eight collections with $50,000 worth of bad glass
in each.  Not all the collectors agreed, however.  At least one owner is
convinced his glass is genuine and does not believe in blacklight testing.
NOW COMES THE SCARY PART
Even collectors with much more modest collections began to find “bad”
pieces.  This writer had two, a large rose bowl in Chrysanthemum, purchased
for $1400 in 1986 from Ray and Grace LeFevre, and an ice bucket in Aztec,
purchased for $3500 in 1988 from Billy Rau.  Both items were returned to the
dealers and money refunded.  Many months later neither dealer would comment
as to whether those pieces were later resold to collectors.
This writer spoke with a number of collectors who claim to have purchased
bad glass.  Paul Cheyney, a long-time collector from Iowa with a 1300-piece
collection of many rarities, claims to have purchased $79,000 of bad glass
over the past six years.  These include a set of seven 6” square plates in
Byzantine, a 14” round tray in Arabian, a 15 ˝” round tray in Waldorf, a 12”
round tray with six matching 7” plates in Aztec, and an enormous jar in
Aberdeen.
Art Clardy, another Louisiana collector, claims to have $85,000 in fakes,
primarily 14” and 15” trays in rare patterns, such as Kensington and
Trellis.  Four other collectors interviewed at the New Orleans convention
each claim to have $10,000 to $30,000 in bad glass.  Three of them,
including Clardy, have tried repeatedly to contact the dealer involved but
have never received replies.  All these collections were reviewed by Redden,
who is convinced the suspect pieces are fakes.
Jim Parks, the authenticity chairman, convened his committee at the 1988
Toledo, Ohio, convention for the first time since he was appointed in 1983.
Max Redden, a member of this committee and clearly the driving force to
uncover the dimensions of the problem, first proposed that the dealers’ show
be vetted and dealers be forced to remove any glass that the committee felt
was fake or questionable.  Initially, Parks was opposed to this, fearing
that the Association could be sued, but finally agreed.
The dealers’ show was vetted using blacklights, and approximately 70 pieces
of allegedly bad glass were discovered, most in the booths of three dealers.
One dealer claimed that all of his glass had come from old collections,
except for a group of thirteen 7” plates purchased immediately prior to the
convention.  These plates, all in the rarest patterns, such as Nautilus,
Rex, Byzantine, and Alhambra, were priced at $1500 to $2500 each.
Neither ACGA President Bill Watterson or Jim Parks would initially disclose
even the number of pieces removed from the dealers’ show much less the
dealers’ names.  At the convention both attempted to minimize the impact by
claiming that it was “only a tiny percentage of the glass in the show.”
This was true on the face of it, but it ignored the fact that nearly all of
the pieces removed were rare and expensive and constituted a significant
percentage of the glass priced above $1000 that was displayed for sale.
Membership pressure forced a special session on authenticity, in which
Redden described the tests and the tremendous amount of fake glass he had
seen during the past year in various collections.  By the end of the
convention many collectors in attendance began to realize that most cut
glass in a rare pattern purchased within the last seven or eight years
without an ironclad provenance should be considered suspect until tested.
An equally large number of collectors and dealers still did not think these
tests could determine whether the glass was new or old and felt this was
just a tempest in a teapot.
Some of those unconvinced by these tests have attempted to explain the
results by noting that a few American companies were known to have
occasionally used European blanks.  This still would not explain the
consistent difference in fluorescence between documented old glass and the
suspect pieces, to say nothing of the invariable association of diamond
wheel marks and smudged signatures on pieces that fluoresce purple-pink.
Others claimed that diamond wheels were used by a few companies during the
brilliant period, but Estelle Sinclaire, co-author of The Complete Cut &
Engraved Glass of Corning, said she has never found any reference to the
existence or use of diamond wheels in cutting glass prior to 1940.  John
Jepson, retired president of the Norton Company, which had a virtual
monopoly on abrasive wheels in this country prior to World War II, said he
remembered diamond wheels first being used in industry during or slightly
after World War II.
Pepi Herrmann said he first saw diamond wheels being used to cut glass
during the 1950s, when he was an apprentice in Austria.  He said that
diamond engraving wheels may have been used earlier, but these are quite
different from cutting wheels.
During the remainder of 1988 and early 1989, Hall, his consultants, and
attorneys continued to gather evidence for the lawsuit.  Wiener was forced
to produce financial information and purchase records.  But the court placed
these disclosures under a protective order, which prevented Hall and his
attorneys from disclosing any information to others.  In response to
questions from this writer about sources of some of his “landmark” pieces,
Wiener said that he really didn’t keep records of the individual pieces and
had to rely on his memory.
Certainly one of the most important keys to defending the authenticity of
this glass is the ability to document previous ownership.  Without any sort
of provenance, serious questions will remain about rare pieces, especially
those that “fail” the tests.
ACGA CREDIBILITY?
By now the appropriate response for the ACGA was to have published an
article in the Hobstar, alerting members to the apparently widespread
problem of fakes and describing the tests in detail.  But Bill Watterson and
Jim Parks still refused because they feared the possibility of being sued,
both personally and for the Association.  The Association’s counsel, Gray
Sexton of Baton Rouge, had told them repeatedly that they had nothing to
fear as long as they only expressed opinions and didn’t name names.
Sexton, who by this time was also helping represent Hall in his lawsuit, was
told by Watterson that Sexton should resign because of a “conflict of
interest.”  When news of this leaked out, few felt that Sexton had a real
conflict of interest; in fact some argued that Sexton would be invaluable to
the Association because of his knowledge of the case.  Sexton, however,
resigned as the ACGA’s counsel in early 1989.
In July 1988, the ACGA’s board of directors voted to spend $5000 for
research on the problem of fake glass, but one year later no action had been
taken and none of the money spent.  So the ACGA, at the national level,
remained silent.  As the months passed local chapters took the initiative
and began doing programs describing the fakes and testing methods.  This
approach proved effective and alerted even more members to bad glass in
their own collections.
But those collectors who did not belong to chapters, either because of
geography or disinterest, remained largely ignorant of the problem.
The only reference to fakes in the Hobstar was contained in the accounts of
chapter meetings that were first published in November 1988, which in turn
spurred other chapters into duplicating these programs.  Finally in March
1989, Parks wrote an article on blacklighting glass, but he did not use the
work “fake;” instead he labeled it “questionable glass” without any
explanation or background as to why it was “questionable.”
In a May 1989 interview, Parks said he had long suspected that a great
number of these rare pieces were fake, but could not prove it.
In April 1989, just as Wiener was about to be deposed, he and Hall resolved
their lawsuit under a confidential settlement, with both parties prohibited
from disclosing the specific terms.  In addition Hall’s research and
pretrial information were to be kept confidential.
Wiener, in a May 1989 interview with this writer, denied that any of the
glass was new and said that it had all come from a number of large old
collections.  When asked why so many of these rarities had emerged, he
replied that rapidly rising prices for rare glass were drawing good pieces
into the market.  He also said “these tests prove nothing,” and criticized
them for their lack of scientific precision.  He did allow that there might
be a few pieces of “bad” glass in circulation, but certainly not the amount
claimed by Hall and Redden.
At the ACGA’s 1989 convention in mid-July in New Orleans, the dealers’ show
was vetted.  This time only two new pieces were discovered, proof that the
testing was having its intended effect.  Redden presented an hour-long slide
lecture illustrating the differences between the new and old glass, which
was very well received.  Few collectors left unconvinced that this glass is
newly cut.  In addition, Redden constructed an ingenious light box that
allowed people to clearly see the difference in fluorescence between the new
and old glass placed side by side.
In November 1989, Jim Parks resigned as chairman of the authenticity
committee and was replaced by Max Redden.  In the January 1990 issue of
Hobstar, Redden published an article describing the characteristics of the
suspected newly cut glass, estimating that $3 to $5 million worth of bad
glass had been sold over the last eight to ten years.
Redden’s article was the first official warning by the ACGA to its members.
The article listed the following 36 patterns that he determined had been
reproduced, all immediately recognized by cut glass collectors as rare:
Aberdeen, Alhambra, Arabesque, Arabian, Assyrian, Aztec, Byzantine, Calve
(triple miter), Chrysanthemum, Cluster, Columbia, Comet, Concentric Circle,
Coronation, Croesus, Delphos, Drape, DuBarry, Genoa, Grand Prize, Grecian,
Imperial, Isabella, Kensington, Marcella, Nautilus, Panel, Queens, Rex,
Shell, Theodora, Trellis (Lattice & Rosette), Waldorf (Quatrefoil &
Rosette), Wedding Ring and Wheat.
Assuming that this questionable glass is new, still unknown is who actually
cut and signed the blanks.  Most believe it was done in the traditional
fashion with skilled cutters holding the glass, while a few feel that
computer-guided cutting equipment was involved.  But since it was
demonstrated at the 1987 ACGA convention that at least one cutter in America
could produce glass of this quality, it is safe to assume that at least a
few other cutters have the same skills.
Redden wrote in his Hobstar article, “I am still doing intensive
investigation and hope to apprehend the person or persons who cut this fake
glass.”
And what of the problem glass itself?  It has not been seen lately at major
shows, but AN  ENORMOUS AMOUNT IS STILL IN COLLECTIONS, RECOGNIZED AND
UNRECOGNIZED, and several dealers admitted to having pieces that were
returned by customers.  Many think that sooner or later it will begin to
emerge, especially when collectors begin selling bad pieces.  Dealers and
auctioneers will face the challenge of labeling the bad glass “new” or
“reproduction.”
There may be even a new generation of fakes as forgers improve their already
formidable techniques in reaction to collectors’ increased ability to detect
problems.  Given their obvious skills and sophistication, they may either
try to produce new blanks that fluoresce correctly or buy out uncut blanks
that are still occasionally seen for sale.  If they are successful, the
blacklight test alone will not identify what could be a second generation of
newly cut glass.
Furthermore, this writer has recently seen at least two examples of
obviously newly cut glass that appeared to have been wood polished, which
would remove any diamond wheel marks.
Even more disturbing, however, are some recently offered pieces in very rare
patterns that are unsigned (many companies did not acid stamp their glass),
absolutely pristine with no wear marks or even minor flakes, which
fluoresced correctly.  Several of these pieces seemed suspiciously shaped or
abnormally thick, and in this writer’s opinion, are fakes.
Consequently, it cannot be emphasized enough that collectors much continue
to be skeptical of any rare, unsigned pieces without documented provenance.
Further, no single test should be relied upon to determine authenticity.
Will there be further court action?  Probably not in civil court.  The cost
of another lawsuit might prove prohibitive.  Hall estimated that he had
spent $70,000 in research, travel, and attorneys’ fees and would have spent
another $80,000 to complete the trial.  Collectors who might have planned to
use Hall’s research in another trial have been blocked by the settlement
terms, which declared the information confidential.
The criminal court is a possibility, however.  In the late fall of 1989, the
FBI began an investigation after receiving a complaint from one of the
collectors who felt he had been badly burned.  By January 1990, FBI field
agents had interviewed a number of collectors (including this writer) and
several dealers, but would not comment on their findings.
Dealers admit that Hall’s lawsuit and fears of fake glass have shaken the
confidence of many of their customers and have had a substantial impact on
their sales and prices for rare pieces unless they have been absolutely
authenticated.
Refunds were understandably a sensitive issue with most of the dealers, and
some refused to discuss the issue.  Elias Bustamante, a dealer and show
promoter from Atwater, California, and Bob Hall said they had each refunded
in excess of $50,000 and would continue to offer refunds to customers
dissatisfied for any reason.
Collectors, whether of glass, furniture, or paintings, must realize that a
healthy dose of skepticism in regard to sellers’ claims can help prevent
much grief.
Clearly, the two real heroes here were Bob Hall and Max Redden.  These men
spent tens of thousands of dollars (particularly Hall) and hundreds of hours
to pursue this cause with little support and, in some cases, active
opposition.  Their courage, conviction, perseverance, and sense of moral
outrage publicized this problem, which might not have ever come to light
without their efforts.  All collectors, museums, and honest dealers, now and
in the future, owe them a tremendous debt.