The Fleury cup : a gift’s dedication from 1918 and the shifting priorities for the Établissements Gallé direction.
Gallé market watch : January 2021.
An essay on a seemingly anodyne Gallé industrial glass cup.
In the conclusion of my essay on Gallé signatures after 1904, I invited collectors, dealers and anyone interested in the subject to send me pictures of the examples they could have of inscribed and dated glass pieces, to further this study despite the lack of proper archives. I am pleased to report that last month two readers independently sent me notice of a coming auction with a cup inscribed with the date February 1918 and a dedicatory text – I warmly thank them here, as well as the auctioneer and the cup’s owner who kindly allowed pictures of the item to be published in this newsletter. This vase is an excellent example of the kind of information a single item provides when it can be cross-referenced with other historical sources, in this case the Gallé family letters during the First World War and news clips in the local press about the bankruptcy of a transport company.
The 1918 Cineraria cup as a testimony of the factory’s woes during the war.
In itself, the cup is at first glance a fine but rather unremarkable specimen of an industrial series. It’s a three layers cameo acid etched vase (brown on yellow and bluish white), with a “Cineraria” floral pattern and a well attested shape : this type of shallow 20 cm wide cup, with a receding rim, on a high foot (the vase’s overall size is 21 cm) is already in use in Émile Gallé’s time – see the impressive wheel cut fish and algae vase above –, but it is continually produced throughout the 1910s and 1920s. There are specimens with all the expected signatures on the industrial series from these periods, from the Mk II to the Mk VI. It was most notably used for the eucalyptus series, probably designed by Nicolas – judging from his similar pattern under his name after 1919, and for an algae and seagull one, which can be attributed to Hestaux, both introduced ca. 1906-1908. The same shape features the hops design from Rouppert ca 1919-1920 and a later berry one (see the pictures above).
At least two other specimens from the 1918 cup’s series are known, with the same size and cineraria decor, albeit mistakenly described as daisies – a quite common error for this pattern. One vase was sold by Osenat in 2010 [1], with a different colour scheme but the exact same decor pattern. The second one is the exact copy of the cup in question : it was sold in 2019 by a Nancy dealer, Antiquités Art Nouveau.
The signature is unsurprisingly from the Mk III type (with an underscore cutting back the G’s tail), more precisely from the Mk IIIc subtype, with an ending -é rather than an -έ and without a final loop linking this ending and the underscore. This is thus a nicely dated specimen reinforcing the new chronology for this Mk III type (ca. May 1908 - ca. September 1920) toward its end, and leaving no doubt that it was the signature in use for the entirety of the First World War.
Of course, it could be argued that, if the cup was undeniably etched with the dedicatory text and offered in February 1918 (per the inscription), it could nevertheless have been made several years earlier, being a leftover specimen from some 1910s’ or even earlier stock. But this is implausible for several reasons.
First, the factory’s inventory was at its lowest level in early 1918. This is explicitly stated by Paul Perdrizet, the director of the Établissements Gallé, in a letter (quoted below) from January 1918, regarding the gift of this cup. The chronology of the Gallé production runs during the first world war has been already firmly established. Absent any mean of making large series after July 1914, due to the failing main furnace, the Établissements Gallé resorted to various expedients to keep working on, mainly by finishing up the existing stock and by refurbishing older second or third choice items that had not been destroyed. In August 1916, already, the inventory was almost empty according to Émile Lang, the factory’s director [2]. By January 1917, they were able to briefly revive the furnace and make a short-lived production run that ended in failure in June because of a combination of poor combustible and raw materials, and again a design failure in the furnace. I once calculated that this Spring 1917 glass production amounted to perhaps 3,000 pieces [3], well short of a normal full season run. Even with a much reduced staff and a recurring acid shortage, this kind of inventory was unlikely to keep the decorators' workshop occupied for more than a few months. That’s why one year later, the Gallé direction was busy trying to find an alternate site of production, renting out access to a rival’s furnace – this ended up being the Schneider's in Épinay-sur-Seine in July 1918. The situation was so dire in fact that the two main family decision makers, Paul Perdrizet and Robert Chevalier (the husband of Gallé’s youngest daughter, himself a textile factory owner in the Vosges), had a meeting in March 1918 about shutting down the glass factory for good. They decided against it in the the end but had to lay off some workers. There is therefore a strong probability that any available industrial glass item of some value in January 1918 was not from before the war, but from the previous year short production run.
Second, the technical characteristics of the cup’s glass fully support this hypothesis, as far as can be judged from the available pictures. It would be interesting to have additional data, like these cup’s weight compared to the other series, both from before and after the war. But one detail clearly appears in all three identified specimens : this was a specially “bubbly” glass. Air bubbles in Gallé glass are not that rare, especially in the earlier period. They are not always accidental and can represent a desired effect on some artworks, notably for fresh or seawater themed designs. However, on classic floral or landscapes later designs they represent a defect that counts toward the glass classification in the different quality categories. Usually, these are single scattered and unevenly sized bubbles, haphazardly strewn across the glass. In this case, the three cups exhibit many small bubbles almost homogeneously dotting the glass base layer. It therefore does not look like a technical error stemming from the making of a specific object but a more systemic problem in the glass quality itself. One might also note that the specimen sold in Nancy had an internal “air streak” consistent here again with a defective glass operation. Additionally, the lower end of the cup’s stem shows some surface damage that might also be original and related to the glass poor quality. In Perdrizet’s own words, these Spring 1917 series were marred by quality defects : the glass was “full of air bubbles“ and “breakage prone” [4]. The 1918 Fleury cup and its two sisters do sure fit the bill of such a description — at least for the first part. In the end, there is no doubt whatsoever that this Cineraria series belongs to the Spring of 1917. It joins other already identified series, with decors of algae, hellebores and ferns, from this same period [5]. Many remain to be found.
The dedicatory inscription and its protagonists.
Who then exactly was the recipient of this cup, who were the donors, and what was the occasion? The inscription carefully etched in a nice rounded script, in intaglio on the cup’s foot, reads like this :
A Monsieur L. Fleury
en souvenir de sa dévouée gérance
V. George, Constantin, Famille Gallé
Nancy, février 1918
(To Monsieur L. Fleury, in remembrance of his devoted stewardship, V. George, Constantin, Gallé family, Nancy, February 1918.)
The recipient honoured by the gift.
The cup was given to Louis Eugène Fleury, an entrepreneur in Nancy, who was the founder and director of the Société L. Fleury et Cie, a waterway transport company. This company was doing some transport by barge on the Canal de la Meurthe and other waterways in the region. This was at the time a crucial business since the Meurthe-Moselle waterways were vital to the heavy industries on their banks, for the transport of coal and other raw materials. The company was a partnership limited by shares (société en commandite par actions) and the Gallé family was among its minority shareholders, holding 5% of the total value, that is 40 of the 800 shares, for a total of 20,000 Francs in 1914 (about 4.5% of their portfolio) [6].
Earlier in the war, in August 1916, as the Établissements Gallé were trying to restock in coal, to prepare the firing up of the main furnace, Émile Lang tried to hire Fleury’s company for the transport, but got nowhere, it seems [7]. One would think that the Gallé investment in the Fleury company could have been motivated by their regular use of its boats, but that does not seem to have been the case, or perhaps more accurately no longer the case [8]. In the 1910s, this was not the preferred way for Gallé to get coal and other raw materials to the factory, since the railways were much closer than the docks.
In any event, the war must have hurt severely Fleury’s company, for the front line was cutting across the waterways, and much of the industry was shut down in the area. There is a hint of destruction to the Fleury boats in some war damages reclamations filed after the war, if indeed it is the same company [9]. The Société Fleury et Cie must have fallen quickly in financial trouble, as Perdrizet notes that it did not pay its usual dividend to its shareholders for 1914-1915 [10]. By the end of 1917, it was nearing bankruptcy and the supervisory board decided to liquidate the company.
The donors’ identity.
The first person named as a donor is “V. George”, that is Victor George, a retired trader, living in an opulent house in the Ravinelle street in Nancy : his neighbour was none other than the famous bookseller and collector René Wiener, one of the main sponsors of the École de Nancy. The reason George added his initial to his name, contrary to the other donors, is most probably to avoid the confusion with Henri George, a more illustrious homonym in Nancy, among others, for this is a very common name. Henri George was at the same time a candy manufacturer (with a specialty in sugared almonds) whose factory was in the same neighbourhood as the Gallé one and an ex-president of the commercial court in Nancy – he was thus the better known George and perhaps more likely to be associated with the Gallé than a former shoemaker (if Perdrizet has to be believed, see below). Whatever was his former professional occupation, Victor George was by the 1910s a prominent pensioner in Nancy, seated in various local committees and associations’ boards. As the first donor listed by the inscription, since the order is not alphabetical, he was surely the gift’s initiator.
The second name, Constantin, is also very famous in the Nancy business community. Nicolas Sigisbert and Louis René Constantin, two brothers, were the founders and directors of the gaz factory created in 1851 in Nancy, providing the city with most of its energy, for lighting and heating. They were allies to the Daum brothers, whose own glass factory was close by in Nancy eastern district : Auguste Daum’s wife was Jeanne Constantin, a half-sister of Nicolas and René. No first name appears : we do not know which member of this vast family was an investor in Société Fleury, but given the remarks by Paul Perdrizet (see below), this was surely one of the main heirs. It’s clear anyway why the Constantin were important investors in the Société Fleury : their own company was heavily dependent on coal, and they evidently got it delivered by waterway to the port close by their factory. The development of the Sainte-Catherine port is in fact attributed to their massive import of coal.
The third name needs no further introduction but deserves some comment on its form: the Gallé family. After Henriette Gallé’s death in April 1914, her four daughters, named as universal heirs, chose not to split their inheritance but to form a family association to run the factory. All the major decisions were thereafter signed on by the family members, in formal regular reunions of a family council. This association disappeared in July 1925 when the Établissements Gallé were formally incorporated as a société anonyme par actions.
The letter from Paul Perdrizet.
The three names given as the donors’ are confirmed by an independent source, a letter from the Gallé family archives, that allows to reconstruct the story of this gift. Two members of the supervisory board of the Société Fleury et Cie, George and Constantin, decided to make a gift to Louis Fleury, as a kind of farewell present or perhaps a consolation prize for loosing his company. In January 1918, they approached Claude Gallé, the unmarried Gallé daughter who was nominally the director of the Gallé company at the time, to ask her for a financial participation to this gift or to offer a Gallé vase, since she was a small shareholder of the Société Fleury, as were her sisters. Claude Gallé referred the matter to her brother-in-law Paul Perdrizet, Lucile Gallé’s husband, who was the real director of Gallé, but from afar – from October 1915, he had been transferred as an interpreter officer in the army, in a Paris special unit, so he had to run the business from there [11]. Her letter is lost, but Paul Perdrizet’s answer on the following day, the 15th January 1918, is preserved [12]. It’s full of details, not only on the gift matter but also quite revealing on the state of the affairs in the Établissements Gallé that deserve further comments. Here it is in full (read the translation in the endnotes [13]):
Paris, 15 Janv. 1918
Ma chère Claude
je m'empresse de répondre à ta lettre du 14 courant. En même temps, j'écris à M. George (et je te prie instamment de ne pas me démentir, s'il revient à la charge) de s'adresser à moi pour cette affaire Fleury. Cette fois-ci encore, M. George, en s'adressant à toi seule, — à une femme peu au courant et qui n'a pas qualité pour décider quoi que ce soit à elle seule sur les choses de l'indivision Gallé — a fait quelque chose d'indiscret et d'incorrect. Je ne le lui dis pas comme çà, mais je lui rappelle (de nouveau) qu'il doit s'adresser à moi. Je n'y mets aucun amour propre, crois le bien. Mais il ne faut pas que tu continues à être en butte aux manœuvres obliques de ces vieux renards nancéiens. Tu possédais 10 des 800 actions Fleury. Si on fait un cadeau à Fleury, tu dois y souscrire pour 1/80ème. Les gros souscripteurs doivent être, plus encore que les actionnaires, les trois messieurs qui formaient le conseil de l'affaire Fleury, qui recevaient pour cela des émoluments, et qui étaient
1°) George, ex-bottier
2°) Constantin, cousin des Daum
3°) Auguste Fruhinsholz, dit l'Avare.
M. George connaît très bien les gros actionnaires, puisque les actions étaient nominatives. En tout cas, s'il revient t'ennuyer avec cette affaire, dis lui que tu m'en as chargé.
Je n'autorise du reste pas la fabrique à céder gratuitement quoi que ce soit sans m'en référer. L'état de nos stocks ne nous permet plus les largesses d'avant-guerre.
The gist of this somewhat brusque answer from Perdrizet is that this matter was his business and that he was not pleased with the idea of a gift to Fleury. We can read between the lines here : the liquidation of the company was going to cost a lot of money to the Gallé so the idea to offer the failed businessman a gift on top of this loss seemed insufferable to Perdrizet.
The Gallé had a deserved reputation before the war for their generosity toward their workers and various social projects and charities. They frequently donated glass pieces to charity sales and lotteries. The prestige associated with a Gallé vase was also still very high at that time, despite the turn toward industrial series : it was a common but prized gift for different social occasions, marriages, retirements and such. Frequently, for the upper end gifts, the vase was customised with an inscription celebrating the event. It was therefore quite logical for George to ask the Gallé for a special contribution, and all the more because they were shareholders too.
Paul Perdrizet was seeing the matter in a very different light. It looked to him as if George was trying to take advantage of the Gallé situation, with Claude Gallé, the only member of the family in Nancy available to discuss the matter with. At this point in the war, the Gallé business was haemorrhaging money, without much of a stock left to sell and plenty of financial obligations, even with a reduced staff and a shutdown furnace. More fundamentally perhaps, Perdrizet did not share the old Gallé mindset and he was much more preoccupied by what were the operation’s profligacies in his view. He was not adverse against any kind of donations, but he had his charities, preferably linked to political and patriotic causes [14]. In November 1916 already, regarding a fundraising event by a POW support organisation, he had indicated to Claude Gallé that it would be preferable to give only money from now, rather than glass items [15]. The Gallé factory stock was at its lowest point, and it was out of question to give for free valuable pieces of glass to the too many charities organisations asking for them.
In line with this previous policy, Paul Perdrizet advised Claude Gallé to settle for a money gift in the Fleury case, strongly suggesting that it should be proportionate to her shares in the company. It’s of course quite significant that he did not suggest that her three sisters, also shareholders, joined her in this. He told Claude Gallé in his letter that he was taking the matter in charge, writing himself to George. This letter is not preserved and we ignore how the negotiation unfolded between the two men. The matter had still not been settled on the 28th January, when Paul Perdrizet wrote to Claude Gallé that he had not heard back yet from Victor George [16].
The cup tells the rest of the story : the gift was decided in the following weeks, in February, with this nice but not exceptional piece, far from it. The customised inscription references the three people who paid for it : the two board members, George and Constantin and the Gallé family. Whether Claude Gallé paid by herself a full share or convinced her sisters to chime in is not known. The “Gallé family” mention would suggest the latter, but the former is also possible, given Perdrizet’s hostility to the matter. Evidently, this initiative did not have the agreement of other shareholders, and they did not contribute to this acquisition. They may have made another gift of course, but judging from Perdrizet’s letter and the following events, that seems rather unlikely : the Fleury company did not disappear for long, it was quickly reformed only a few months after its formal dissolution.
An assertion of power inside the Gallé family.
Beyond the Fleury matter, the letter is interesting as a testimony of the relationships inside the Gallé family and Paul Perdrizet increased role since 1914. The letter has the directness of a private exchange : its author does away with niceties and adresses front on the matter at hand. It is also an almost brutal assertion of power on his part, in the context of the family joint ownership agreement.
In May 1914, the Gallé’s third daughter, Claude, had been officially chosen as the company’s steward, most probably because she was a bachelor and not showing any inclination toward marriage. She could therefore keep and maintain the historical Gallé family residence, where she was still living, as were the Perdrizet but in their apartment on the last floor of the house. Claude Gallé had no formal training, no professional occupation and seemingly no interest at all in running the family business. She was in fact a straw manager, nominally keeping the official signature because the real boss, Paul Perdrizet, could not, as a university professor, double as a business manager. But everyone knew the truth : he was trusted with the real power to run the company and recognised as such by a secret family agreement, signed on the same day as the official one by the four daughters and their husbands [17]. The agreement specifically barred Claude Gallé from making any decision without first consulting Paul Perdrizet. Hers was the signature on all official documents pertaining to the factory, but he was to hold her hand in all matters.
During the war, Claude Gallé kept herself busy with her volunteering in a local military hospital (“ambulance”) and always refused to leave Nancy to join the Perdrizet in Paris, despite the constant threat of the German bombs. This worried Paul Perdrizet to no end, but it also allowed him to keep with her an eye on the ground. He could thus send Claude Gallé his instructions and receive from her some additional information that the factory’s director, Émile Lang, was not always keen to send to his demanding boss.
At the same time, Perdrizet was obviously bothered that some local businessmen feigned to ignore that he was in charge and continued to approach Claude Gallé as if she had any responsibilities in the factory and the family business. The Fleury matter was a case in point.
What made it worse for him, it was the second time during the war that Victor George asked a favour from the Gallé by going straight to Claude Gallé — as Paul Perdrizet reminded her in his letter. In the Fall of 1916, he had arranged the renting of the Gallé retail shop in Nancy, benefiting from a premium location on the Faïencerie and Saint-Dizier streets corner, for a charity sale for the Œuvre du prisonnier, a POW support organisation. As one of the members of the organisation’s committee, Victor George had negotiated the matter with Paul Perdrizet, after having tried his hand a first time with Claude Gallé. Part of the quick temper Perdrizet exhibited two years later in his letter of January 1918 surely came from the repetition of this earlier episode. But this does not excuse his male chauvinist and patriarchal views of the family business. In 1916 already, he had made clear to Claude Gallé how he viewed the women possible intervention in all matters related to the Établissements Gallé :
Dans les affaires, il faut mettre les points sur les i. C'est pour cela que les malins, comme le vieux père George, préféreraient t'en parler à toi plutôt que de les régler avec moi ; car une dame n'a ni l'habitude ni le goût de parler le langage des affaires.[18]
In the end, Paul Perdrizet remained an outsider in the Gallé family. He had married into the family and gained Henriette Gallé and her daughters’ trust, but to the people outside, the Gallé workers as well as the Nancy business community, this university professor was still kind of an intruder, whose methods they resented. This would lead to some difficulties after the war. But for now, Paul Perdrizet was making sure nobody doubted his new authority inside or outside the Établissements Gallé.
Conclusion.
Regarding the Fleury cup, it’s interesting how wrong assumptions about this kind of dedicatory inscription can be : it’s easy to read it as a demonstrative gesture of gratitude toward Louis Fleury as a much appreciated business partner, but, as we learn from Perdrizet’s letter, he was clearly not. Or at the very least, not from him. And there is a hint of that in the nuance of the dedicatory text as well as in the unremarkable quality of the glass : “in remembrance of his devoted stewardship”. But “remembrance” does not mean thankfulness, and “devoted” does not imply good nor competent : when you read it carefully, it is in fact quite an underhanded compliment. And this kind of nuances surely was not lost on the gift’s recipient. It also reflects on the other hand the new cold manner of the Gallé direction with Paul Perdrizet.
Fleury’s company was finally dissolved on the 1st May 1918, following a shareholders meeting on the 12th April 1918 – perhaps when the cup finally was presented to Louis Fleury. Six months later, in December 1918, as soon as the war ended, the company restarted under a different name, the Société nancéienne de transport par eau, with different statutes, as a publicly traded société anonyme par action. It kept the same address for its seat in Nancy and the same overall financial capital [19]. The importance of such a company to the Nancy area industries was simply too great to let it disappear. The same month, Louis Fleury was elected a representative to the Nancy Chamber of Commerce, with none other than Victor George [20], as president of the Briey district traders federation and Antonin Daum, Constantin’s cousin, as Perdrizet would have put it.
In retrospect of course, Perdrizet’s assessment of the situation looks validated : the pat on Fleury’s back that was the gift of the cup was even less warranted, perhaps, that even Perdrizet thought. As he put it in his letter, Victor George’s approach to get Claude Gallé to gift Fleury a Gallé vase did indeed look like an “oblique manœuvre of [some] old Nancy foxes” by then.
© Samuel Provost, 24 March 2021.
Footnotes
The same one or a different specimen also appeared in a Hong-Kong sale the same year. ↩︎
Letter from Lucile Perdrizet to Paul Perdrizet, 12 August 1916, Gallé family archives. ↩︎
Provost 2018b, p. 116-118. ↩︎
Letter from Paul Perdrizet to Claude Gallé, ca. April 1918, Gallé family archives. ↩︎
Provost 2018b, p. 115-116. ↩︎
Me Droit, Partage des successions de Mr et Mad. Gallé, 29 Juin 1914, art. 6, Nancy, 22 August 1914, Archives départementales de Meurthe-et-Moselle. At the death of Henriette Gallé, the shares had been divided equally between her four daughters. ↩︎
“Lang a aussi écrit à Fleury (les bateaux) pour se renseigner sur la possibilité de faire venir par canaux.” : Lucile Perdrizet to Paul Perdrizet, 18 August 1916, Gallé family archives. ↩︎
It’s possible that the investment was going back to Émile Gallé’s time and was related to a period where many Gallé products were not made in Nancy. ↩︎
Michèle Conchon, Guerre 1914-1918. Dommages de guerre. Dossiers individuels de dommages (1914-1946), Archives nationales de France, Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, 2016, p. 25 et 28, for three boats named Meurthe, Scarpe and Thiers. I have not had the opportunity to review this archives. ↩︎
“Actions Fleury (…) M. Droit est bien gentil de t'avoir indiqué qu'il y avait deux coupons de dividendes à toucher. Je crois, hélas ! qu'il se trompe, et que Fleury n'a rien distribué en 1914 – 1915. Nous verrons cela, quand j'aurai les papiers sous les yeux.” (Paul Perdrizet to Claude Gallé, 7 March 1916, Gallé family archives). ↩︎
This is of course why the First World War period of the Établissements Gallé is so well known, compared to other periods. Family members were corresponding to each other instead of living together. Unfortunately, this correspondance is quite unequally preserved, for Perdrizet destroyed almost all the letters he received from his sister-in-law. ↩︎
Letter from Paul Perdrizet to Claude Gallé, 15th January 1918, Gallé family archives. ↩︎
Translation : “My dear Claude, I am hastening to reply to your letter of the 14th. At the same time I am writing to Mr George (and I urge you not to deny me if he comes back to me) to address me about this Fleury affair. This time again, Mr George, by addressing himself to you alone - to a woman who knows little about it and who is not qualified to decide anything on her own about the matters of the Gallé joint ownership - has done something indiscreet and incorrect. I don't tell him so, but I remind him (again) that he must address himself to me. This is not a matter of self-respect, believe me. But you mustn't continue to be subjected to the oblique manoeuvres of these old foxes from Nancy. You owned 10 of the 800 Fleury shares. If we make a gift to Fleury, you must subscribe for 1/80th. The big subscribers must be, even more than the shareholders, the three gentlemen who formed the board of the Fleury business, who received emoluments for that, and who were 1°) George, ex-botter, 2°) Constantin, cousin of the Daums, 3°) Auguste Fruhinsholz, known as the Miser.
Mr George knows the major shareholders very well, since the shares were registered. In any case, if he comes back to bother you with this affair, tell him that you have put me in charge.
I don't allow the factory to give anything away for free without consulting me. The state of our stocks no longer allows us the largesse of the pre-war period.” ↩
His name appears regularly in war subscriptions published in the Journal officiel, for instance. ↩︎
Letter from Paul Perdrizet to Claude Gallé, 22 August 1916, Gallé family archives : “Pour l'œuvre des Prisonniers de Guerre, je m'étais dit que, vu le maigre assortiment qui nous reste, il vaudrait mieux leur donner de l'argent qu'un vase. Du reste, une foule d'œuvres nous demandent des vases, & nous n'en avons pas à leur donner.” ↩︎
Letter from Paul Perdrizet to Claude Gallé, 28th January 1918, Gallé family archives : “George ne m’a pas répondu, s’il revient à la charge, tiens-toi à ce que tu lui as dit.” ↩︎
Provost 2018a, p. 270. ↩︎
Letter from Paul Perdrizet to Claude Gallé, 5 November 1916, Gallé family archives : “In matters of business you have to dot the i's and cross the t's. That's why clever people, like old Father George, would rather talk to you than to me; for a lady is not used to, or inclined to, speak the language of business.” ↩︎
The new company’s statutes were published in the press : “Société anonyme dite Société nancéienne de Transport par eau“, L’Est Républicain, 5 December 1918. ↩︎
“Élections à la chambre de commerce”, L’Est Républicain, 27 December 1918. There is a slight doubt here on the identity : the first name is not given and there is a S at the end, but this is a frequent mistake. ↩︎
Bibliography
Provost S. 2018a, “Etablissements Gallé and the Industrial Mold-blown or Relief series of the 1920s”, Journal of Glass Studies, 60, p. 269‑293 [open access link].
Provost S. 2018b, “Une cristallerie d’art sous la menace du feu : les Établissements Gallé de 1914 à 1919”, in Thomas C. et Palaude S. (dir.), Composer avec l’ennemi en 14-18. La poursuite de l’activité industrielle en zones de guerre. Actes du colloque européen, Charleroi, 26-27 octobre 2017, Bruxelles, Académie royale de Belgique, p. 105‑118 [open access link].
How to cite this article : Samuel Provost, “The Fleury cup : a gift’s dedication from 1918 and the shifting priorities for the Établissements Gallé direction”, Newsletter on Art Nouveau Craftwork & Industry, no 8, 24 March 2021 [link].