Our final and often satirical thoughts on collaboration claims being made-up for the 1st time in decades or even nearly a century after the supposed fact! On the debunking of the ridiculous claims of Lalique and Hatot (ATO) collaboration on the Normandie Clock and the later mass-marketed Hatot (ATO) knockoff version of that clock, we thought it would be timely to use the example of that false claim of Lalique’s collaboration to talk about evaluating some of the fact free, evidence free collaboration claims that are always intended to boost the value of the supposed collaboration item.
When self-proclaimed experts and specialists and whatever other hifalutin* titles they call themselves by use a term like “collaboration” it often means that they want to attribute something to someone on the basis of very thin evidence or no evidence at all. For the Normandie Clock and the later loose-copy of that clock, we are working with the NO EVIDENCE AT ALL scenario for the repeated claims by formerly respectable auction house sellers and their formerly respectable employees and contractors of René Lalique involvement with the clock. Those false claims relied on another false claim, that there was evidence in the ATO archives documenting the claim, but of course no one ever produced the supposed evidence, and Swatch, the holder of the ATO archives has confirmed directly to us that the claimed evidence does not exist in the archives. We found that out with just one email to Swatch (actual research!). Obviously the action houses and their various employees and contractors making the baseless claim of Lalique involvement with the clock, didn’t seem interested in doing any actual research. They were too busy cherry picking false favorable (to their phony blah-blah) claims by past auction house sellers of the clock and masquerading as if those false claims constituted “research” or “evidence”. It’s a trick that many formerly respectable auction houses and their formerly respectable employees and contractors have resorted to. They cherry pick favorable claims made in the past by other auction houses and claim that the former auction house claim is evidence, when in fact they have no idea if the original claimant had any evidence. As soon as a formerly respectable expert or auction house employee or contractor cites the claim of some other auction house as evidence (and does so without any evidence to back up the original claim) you should stop listening.
Also just stating the obvious, made-up collaborations always involve adding a name that would increase the value of whatever it is they want to sell you. They wouldn’t say Fenton Glass or Libby Glass or Consolidated Glass collaborated on anything with ATO because those names are of no help value wise. Say René Lalique and that helps.
So, how to flush out baseless claims of “collaboration”? First ask the person making the claim if they have any evidence that the claim is true and if they say yes, ask to see the source document about that claim. Saying “some other auction house said it” is not evidence.
A last step is to ask the person making the evidence free claims to detail the contributions of the collaborators! All artists have different styles and strengths that might cause them to want to collaborate, and identifying the contributions of two totally different artists should be easy for supposed experts. And it should be especially easy for someone that claims to know enough to know that there was collaboration in the first place!
As a guide for the future, let’s break down the Normandie clock and figure out who contributed what and see if we can make some sense out of the whole collaboration abomination! Here are the 5 clock components that we have to assign to somebody:
1. The round face/dial of the clock – the basic shape and style
2. The movement
3. The hands
4. The boat depiction on the face
5. The clunky waves base
1. The face/dial is easy: ATO had several clock models whose face is strikingly similar to the one on the Normandie clock and the later knockoff clock. ATO made minor alterations to an existing face as the basis for the one you see on Normandie clock.
2. The movement is also easy: ATO was in the clock business and the movement is theirs.
3. The clock hands again easy: ATO used these same hands on other models.
4. The boat depiction: We don’t know who created the line drawing of the boat on the clock face. But we have identified the source document that the line drawing was made from. The line drawing on the clock is basically an exact copy of the lines of a boat illustrated on the document. The document is not the work of René Lalique. It’s hard to imagine “collaborating” with René Lalique for the purpose of getting him to create a line drawing from someone else’s existing artwork. And it’s also hard to imagine he would agree to do it. And basically you wouldn’t need him for that line drawing, any art school kid could have done it and more importantly, ATO had plenty of employees that could do it as well. Obviously ATO did design lots of clocks, clock faces and clock cases. The Normandie Clock model was “not their first rodeo”**.
5. The clunky waves base: So we are left with the clunky waves base. That my friends would have to be the design of René Lalique for him to have had anything to do with the Normandie clock. If you believe it’s even possible that Lalique designed the waves base or even worse if you believe it’s true, we have a bridge to sell you, a bridge we recently discovered was a collaboration bridge between René Lalique, the Catholic Church, and the City of San Francisco! Yes, yes, evidence of the bridge collaboration was moved for safekeeping in 1906 after the the great earthquake, to the Mission San Francisco de Asís along with other important documents and they were later sent to the Vatican archives where all documents from the Mission were regularly transported. And the existence of those documents at the Vatican is confirmed by the great-great-great-great-great-great-etc.-grandson of one of the people whose 2nd cousin worked at the Mission repairing fence posts in the early 1900’s. And it is known that Lalique visited the United States in the early 1900’s and was himself a Catholic. So everything adds up! When you take possession of your new collaboration bridge, while there, you likely will see people getting ready to jump off your bridge after realizing the money they flushed away relying on false claims of formerly respectable auction houses and their formerly respectable employees and contractors saying René Lalique collaborated on the Normandie clock, or even worse on the less valuable later mass marketed knockoff. Assuming you yourself have not jumped off your new bridge, please contact us again as we also have a Tiffany-Lalique Collaboration Belt Buckle and a Cartier-Lalique Collaboration Brooch to sell you! Editor’s Note: There is ZERO evidence that the items at the 2 preceding links have anything to do with René Lalique. So in reality, they are “in the same boat”*** shall we say as the Normandie Clock!
Common Sense: Artists, glassmakers, clockmakers, etc. are in the business of making money. So when 2 famous figures collaborate, they publicize it at the time because they want to sell things; that’s what they do. Imagine if René Lalique and Léon Hatot (ATO) collaborated on the Normandie clock, and didn’t tell anyone at the time! Apparently these two guys kept the whole thing a secret, and it was just discovered in the modern era likely by an auction house specialist/expert that had one of the clocks coming up for auction! Kudos to whoever made-up the collaboration scam in the first place and count your lucky stars that Bunko**** squads are a thing of the past!
****Bunko Squads (also Bunco): From the Urban Dictionary: “The bunco squad is those policemen who investigate confidence swindles.” In use from the 40’s through the 60’s. Not usual among law enforcement today.”
Our Layman’s view comment: A confidence swindle is when someone gains your confidence/trust for the specific purpose of taking advantage of you in some way (typically financial) once they have your confidence/trust. So first they get your trust, then they get your money.
*Hifalutin: From Merriam-Webster.com: Pretentious, Pompous. Hifalutin can also be something “expressed in or marked by the use of language that is “elaborated or heightened by artificial or empty means”
**Not their first rodeo: This is an idiom***** in common use in the United States indicating the speaker or person/company referred to has prior experience in the subject being discussed (the subject can be good or bad for the speaker). The first widespread appearance of this phrase is thought to be from the movie Mommie Dearest in 1981 when Joan Crawford who was portraying Faye Dunaway says: “This ain’t my first time at the rodeo!” Think of a person being arrested and the police start reading them their rights and they interrupt and say ” I know my rights, this ain’t my first time at the rodeo!”
*****Idiom: According to the Cambridge Distionary, an Idiom is “a group of words in a fixed order that has a particular meaning that is different from the meanings of each word on its own”. Another more common idiom would be “I bit off more than I can chew” meaning that what you tried to do was too difficult for you.
***In the same boat: An Idiom that means in the same difficult condition or facing the same problem(s) as someone or something else: Think of a group of kids wanting to go hang-out at the mall: “None of us has a car, so we’re all in the same boat. Let’s start walking!”
As always, if anyone out there in Lalique land has any problem with anything we’ve said in this post, please let us know. We will promptly and cheerfully make any necessary corrections. How to comment? There are 2 options. You can leave your comment in the blog under this article. Commenting requires registration. Or the 2nd option is to email to info@rlalique.com with the subject Collaboration. Subject to review and approval, we likely would just paste your email into the comment section here. Though as always, we reserve the right to use or not use incoming emails and their contents in any way including publishing part or all of an email on the website.
