Talk:Tiffany glass

Lead sentence
I don't see how L.C. Tiffany could have started producing glass in 1848 since he was born in 1848. Maybe his father (the founder of Tiffany's) produced the glass or maybe it is just a mistake. Please clarify/fix. 71.194.38.54 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * Thank you for pointing out this error. It was 1878.Amandajm (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A merger
This page constitutes a merger between a number of articles about various types of glass used by and/or created by Louis Comfort Tiffany. All these articles had been listed as Architecture or Glass (or something) related stubs. It seemed pointless to have technical info pertaining to one individual scattered over several articles, all very short.

I have not yet deleted anything, pending further discussion and critique of what I have done. I do not know what sources to cite, not having written the original articles, and suspecting that they were written by someone with first-hand experience and technical expertise rather than scholarship on the particular topic.

See Streamer glass, Fracture glass, Fracture-streamer glass, Favrile glass.

--Amandajm 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Arizona Tiffany Glass Window
The Gadsden Hotel in Douglas, Arizona has a Tiffany glass window - could be added to list on this page. Google for photos and details. Cloudshadow (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Grand Central Terminal
Hi - I'm ok with you stating whatever on this page, I admit the sources aren't too strong on this topic. But fyi, the Grand Central official website is written by a marketing department, not historians, and they've included things that have been debunked by historians. Will look more into this topic... ɱ (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, on the GCT home page has been "debunked by historians", and what is your source for that? That the page was written by the marketing department (if it was) is irrelevant, if the facts presented have been verified. In any case, the home page is the public face of the institution, and therefore is (presumably) approved by GCT's management, since that's the way things generally work in a bureaucracy, unless the Marketing Department has gone rogue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I returned home, I can respond in full. As background, you might know Epicgenius and I rewrote or created a half dozen articles on the station - we're well attuned to the sources and understand that Dan Brucker, fired former tour guide of the MTA, was publicly known for his tall tales he admits to telling to inspire young children. One of our biggest mistakes was overlooking and thus initially keeping the idea that the information booth's clock was worth $20-30 million, made of real opal. This is a myth similarly promulgated on the Grand Central Terminal website: "This famed opal clock above the Information Booth is valued at as much as $20 million." The myth is dispelled in this new article (and this one), and partially in one of the history books... I worked in a marketing department for a short time, giving a little insight into the lack of fact-checking that goes into a press piece - in fact, the more boastful the better. Tourist-oriented websites like this inherently are made with a wholly different mindset than a detailed historical or architectural review.
 * I will be gathering sources on the article talk page. C. 1914 sources are some of the best - there they have item-specific details about the sculptural group installed alongside the clock - if this was the largest Tiffany piece, or even a piece made by the famous company at all, why is there no mention of that in 1914? Or really in any article about the clock until the 1990s, when Brucker was tour guide and the first tall tales started appearin. Skepticism is important - we aren't just supposed to report on every factoid a popular news site repeats without a shred of evidence, sourcing, or fact-checking, while all the detailed and reliable history books omit it. ɱ  (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me elaborate on what I wrote in an edit summary. I think you either need a reliable source that says explicitly that the clock being by Tiffany is one of Brucker's "tall tales" you refer to, or else you need a source which describes the clock in detail near or close to the time it was installed, without mentioning the Tiffany connection, a fact that would certainly have been mentioned.  I do not think that it's enough merely to not be able to find a source before the 1990s that mentions the clock being by Tiffany. Anyway, that's my take on it. I'm open to the possibility of the Tiffany aspect being incorrect, but I think it needs to be established properly, since we have sources saying it is by Tiffany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will let you know what I find... ɱ  (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still care to contest this? Questionable facts, even if they have a source, do not need to be included. I've been searching endlessly for a craftsman, date created, place created, any supplementary information about this 'Tiffany creation'. Nothing seems to exist, seems to have just been decor. ɱ  (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as we have reliable sources to attest to it, I do not think it should be removed. Your supposition that it is a "tall tale" is certainly possible, but requires sourcing to be confirmed.  You can certainly add a footnote about the possibility of it not being Tiffany, if you have a reliable source to support the contention that Brucker made up other stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need to prove it's a tall tale or by Brucker - we're just discussing whether this fact is supported by heavily reliable sources. Which it isn't. For any Wikipedia article, a statement that's simply repeated in the popular press but omitted in academic and scholarly texts is usually ignored. ɱ  (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I do believe the two sources linked above confirm that Brucker is not a reliable source, and could at the least in the footnote state that "[Although this statement is reliably sourced, it / This statement] is traced to MTA tour guide Daniel Brucker, who has been found to promulgate myths about the terminal.[ref1][ref2]" ɱ  (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just updated the list of sources, take a look. ɱ  (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I could try to get some other opinions if you'd like? Mention at a WikiProject or ping any of the other GCT article contributors? ɱ  (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notified WikiProjects New York City, Glass, and Time to try to obtain a consensus. The relevant list of sources is at: Talk:Grand Central Terminal art. ɱ  (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume these are the same sources you've been listing, none of which confirm or deny (in today's political parlance) that the clock is Tiffany? In other words, a complete lack of evidence, other than those cited in the article which say that it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I think it will actually solve anything, and it can't be cited as a source, but I have made an inquiry as to whether the clock is Tiffany or not, and have asked for any evidence of such. We'll see if I get a response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * When no single article or book has yet to describe a content dispute (which is rare to see), all we can ever do is list the sources that support the idea and sources that contradict that idea. In that link, I list the sources that support the idea that the clock was made by Tiffany (19 sources, all post-1994, most are works of popular media). I also list the sources that detail the attributes of the clock without mentioning Tiffany (19 sources, ranging 1913-present), and sources that detail Grand Central without mentioning Tiffany as one would expect (also 19 sources, ranging 1914-c. 2017). I also searched through 5 books about Tiffany (1914-1989), none of which mention the 42nd St. clock. I would say this myth is as good as dead. ɱ  (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who did you inquire with? I am connected with a news/media editor who has privately been told by the company that the work is not theirs. I asked if the editor could do independent research to come up with a conclusive article to wrap up this dispute. ɱ  (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a general inquiry on the "About" page for GCT linked from mta.nfo. Here. As I said, I'm not expecting anything terribly informaative.  BTW, when you say "the company" says that the work is not their, to whom are you referring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe it was Tiffany & Co., and that they stated it was not a work of Tiffany Studios either. Will hope they release an official statement. ɱ (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Tiffany & Co, the jewelry company, has or had any connection whatsoever with Tiffany Studios. I'm also not certain that Tiffany Studios still exists any more, although I could well be wrong about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tiffany Studios seems to have folded in 1930. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but I would understand that many experts at Tiffany & Co. may be knowledgeable enough and/or have researched the subject before, having been asked about it. There are many people writing about GCT, it's clear at least one beside me has questioned this perhaps ~25-year-old notion. ɱ  (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Roman Bronze Works/General Bronze Corporation
Fellow Wikipedians, I am in the process of writing a book on the General Bronze Corporation. In doing so, and researching the addition of General Bronze Corporation to Wikipedia, I have uncovered two excellent sources of information from the two museums which are a repository for Tiffany's work: the Amon Carter Museum of American Art and Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art. Additionally, excellent book references identifying the specific name changes of Tiffany/Nash, Tiffany alone, or Tiffany with Nash subsidiaries is found in the book, "Behind the Scenes of Tiffany Glassmaking: The Nash Notebooks". It seems that Tiffany (or whoever partnered with him in that specific year) changed the legal name of his "entity" frequently (SEE History and establishment under General Bronze Corporation). Both the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Texas, and the The Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art in Florida have excellent archivists, and also extremely helpful. Also, see the chronology of tiffany Studios at Tiffany Chronology. This book on Roman Bronze Works shares information among Tiffany/Roman Bronze works/General Bronze, since all three were intermarried: A Century of American Sculpture: The Roman Bronze Works Foundry by Lucy Rosenfeld. The Queens Historical Society was also helpful and directed me to the aforementioned. The were quite knowledgeable on Tiffany's Glass world. As always, it is best keeping sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, EliBigeez (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)